PDA

View Full Version : SiteHound vs. SiteAdvisor


davidh
January 23rd, 2007, 01:21 PM
I'm in the process of comparing these 2 (free versions) on FF 2.0.

http://sitehound.com

http://siteadvisor.com

Hound warns BEFORE page displays. Free version requires update database manually. Having database on PC probably speeds up browsing. I think Advisor database is online on McAfee site, which might slow browsing?

Advisor also gives info about level of spam in mailing lists hosted by a site, which may be useful for some users. Spam may cause yellow (caution) icon/button to appear.

I'm testing on Win 98 SE dial-up.

Since I'm using NoScript extension for FF, it would probably protect me from scripts on bad sites, but probably even safer never to touch the site (which I hope Hound will accomplish).

DH

davidh
January 23rd, 2007, 01:25 PM
BTW: SiteHound manual database DL is now about 4MB. After DL there is also a not-so-fast "parsing" of the database before it can be used.

DH

davidh
January 23rd, 2007, 01:46 PM
SiteHound has over 170,000 sites in its database.

Hound will warn BEFORE entering adult sites (e.g. Playboy), so it's not just a defense against malware. Of course, this is NOT parental control, by any means.

SiteAdvisor rates a site such as Playboy as GREEN (apparently no malware or spam).

SiteHound is, of course, supposed to warn on phishing sites, but there's probably MANY phishing sites not on its list (database).

DH

davidh
January 23rd, 2007, 01:51 PM
Incidentally, Spybot Seach and Destroy has four thousand some sites in its IMMUNIZATION database for Internet Explorer. The main thing in its IMMUNIZATION process is to enter the sites into MS IE "restricted zone". I assume that these sites are "really nasty".

This is not to try to "rate" these products w.r.t. each other. Just a side note, of possible interest.

DH

davidh
January 23rd, 2007, 03:08 PM
It might be good to have both Hound and Advisor running. Hound to trap mistaken or unlucky clicks and Advisor to show green, yellow, red icon on Google to avoid bad clicks from the start. esp. if you have CPU and bandwidth to do it.

DH

Judy G. Russell
January 23rd, 2007, 03:55 PM
I'm in the process of comparing these 2 (free versions) on FF 2.0.My own sense is that those are a little more intrusive than I want (or need) but might be just the right ticket for someone who isn't quite as careful about clicking off to another site...

davidh
January 23rd, 2007, 04:18 PM
My own sense is that those are a little more intrusive than I want (or need) but might be just the right ticket for someone who isn't quite as careful about clicking off to another site...

When I search for info about legitimate software (and especially some popular shareware softwares) on Google (for example), it's not at all unusual for SiteAdvisor to display one or more RED (SiteAdvisor) icons on the first 10 search results. Sometimes I rest my finger a little too heavily on the mouse button and get an unexpected click. If your virus scanner does not happen to have a signature for a particular baddie, it only takes a fraction of a second for your computer to be infected.

Seems to me that a single point of failure (e.g. virus signature) is too risky. Need other lines of defense such as script blocking (e.g. NoScript) and image blocking, etc.

DH

davidh
January 23rd, 2007, 04:42 PM
SiteHound appears to need a faster CPU than mine for good performance. There seems to be a noticeable delay in opening web pages. I suspect that this is caused by searching the database of 170K sites.

Examining the "process list" (I use Spybot Search & Destroy Tools for this) seems to indicate that none of the EXE programs DL'd with Sitehound are running while FF is running. However there is also a FF extension part of SiteHound. Therefore my assumption is that the database search is implemented in whatever coding system that is used to write FF / Mozilla extensions and said coding system may not be as fast as the code in regular EXE programs?

So, for now, FWIW, I'm trying just SiteAdvisor running but SiteHound disabled.

DH

Judy G. Russell
January 23rd, 2007, 05:45 PM
Sometimes I rest my finger a little too heavily on the mouse button and get an unexpected click.That's a risk, for sure. And that's why programs like this can be useful for folks who need it.

jdh
August 29th, 2007, 05:16 PM
There apparently are so many infected sites (e.g. even gov and edu) now that I became concerned that McAfee siteadvisor for IE or FF might not do preemptive blocking of 'red' sites.

So I tried again to install Sitehound from firetrust.com in the hope that it WOULD. But I could not get it to install correctly either for IE or FF. So gave up on that. Maybe because I have Win 98 and they maybe did not test install well on 98 ?

Sitehound does NOT give green, yellow, red ratings in google or yahoo search either. So I decided to stick with McAfee siteadvisor.

Trend Micro TrendProtect is also free like Siteadvisor, but needs Win XP. Might be worth looking at for those who have XP, etc. But I did note that Trendprotect web site said you need to run your virus, etc. scan if you see the button turn red, so it's not preemptively blocking the sites AFAIK.

By the way, this thread came up 2nd in google when I plugged [ siteadvisor sitehound ] into the search box. I wonder how that happened, maybe there are very few sites discussing the comparisons of them ?

dh

Judy G. Russell
August 29th, 2007, 05:50 PM
By the way, this thread came up 2nd in google when I plugged [ siteadvisor sitehound ] into the search box. I wonder how that happened, maybe there are very few sites discussing the comparisons of them ?Maybe it's just because we're so goooooooood.

jdh
August 29th, 2007, 06:12 PM
Maybe it's just because we're so goooooooood. Maybe there's just a lot of government sites that link to TAPCIS under the heading of subversive to the point where this Tech section picks up some of the overflow links ?

davidh
April 16th, 2011, 10:58 AM
I haven't retried Site Hound or Web of Trust in a long time. But I did reinstall McAfee SiteAdvisor to run alongside AVG LinkScanner, because it seems that they both perform different enough functions that they are not redundant. They both probably slow down web browsing but I can tolerate it.

If I am not mistaken there well could be millions of compromised sites 'out there' at certain times depending on how fast server related holes get patched and patches installed on compromised servers. Plus you never know how vigilant or lax web masters and other IT staff are about the ads they serve up and how many zero-day holes are in Adobe Flash at any given time period.

I had Adblock Plus in FF 4.0 but took it out because I was too lazy to read the instructions on how to make it play nice with Firefox Windows Media Player plugin :(

It gets to a certain point where diminishing returns seem to take over :confused: