p2pnet to McAfee: Pay us what you owe!
p2pnet news view Advertising | Security:- ‘Security’ company McAfee owes me a pile of money for using p2pnet in its advertising material without my permission, and without paying for the privilege.
And it’s been doing it for years.
McAfee, a, “company which seems to spend as much time coming up with creative data interpretation as it does safeguarding our computers,” suggests 18% of searches on Brad Pitt, “led to malware infested websites,” observed techradar.com in 2008.
The news came in its second annual list of the “riskiest celebrities” on the Net.
Every once in a while I get an email from someone telling me McAfee has defamed p2pnet as a “distributor of downloads some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs”.
That’s total, self-serving McAfee crap. p2pnet never has, and never will, distributed malware, or anything even remotely like it.
In fact, as McAfee itself admits, “In our tests, we found downloads on this site were free of adware, spyware, and other potentially unwanted programs.”
And yet this morning »»»
WARNING – 127.0.0.1 – Submitted on 2009/03/29 at 11:14am
WARNIGN [sic] TO EVERYONE – P2PNET IS A MALWARE SITEMCAFEE http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/p2pnet.net – When we tested this site we found links to antispyware.com, which we found to be a distributor of downloads some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs.
I deleted this Reader’s Write [http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16394/comment-page-1#comment-970545] which’d appeared under an old story from July 5 last year.
p2pnet as McAfee advertising vehicle
McAfee’s SiteAdvisor has for years been offering Automated Web Safety Testing Results for p2pnet.net.
I’d laugh, but unfortunately, some people who can’t see any further than their noses are sucked in by this arrant McAfee nonsense.
It’s been using p2pnet to promote the McAfee SiteAdvisor ’service’.
But now it’s also hijacked p2pnet to advertise something it’s calling ‘McAfee SECURE shopping’ which is no more than a tacky come-on for sites peddling “Clothing & Accessories; Collectibles & Art;,Food & Wine; Health & Beauty; Home & Garden,” all of which McAfee assures us have passed “daily tests to help protect against identity theft”.
Anyone who visits any of the advertisers, who’ve paid McAfee good money to be linked indirectly to p2pnet, had better hope it’s more effective than the McAfee SiteAdvisor.
All kinds of perils and dangerous links
Visit the the McAfee SiteAdvisor for p2pnet the first time and you could be forgiven for thinking there really is something terribly wrong.
It’s fearsome with big Red Xs, red lettering in boldface, charts which, unless you look at them closely, seem to suggest all kinds of perils and dangerous links.
And when you scroll further down the page, you can’t miss a bunch of ‘warnings,’ each with a red-for-danger icon, posted by ‘reviewers’ such as this from the first one:
“P2P Sites period are no good that includes this one. Recommendations: DO NOT VISIT THIS SITE OR GO NEAR IT IF ANOTHER SITE USES THIS SITE FOR ANY PURPOSES DON’T USE THAT SITE EITHER!”
There are eight of these, all of them of similarly erudite and clearly written by security experts.
Not.
There are, however, 16 positive mentions, only two of which are included in this list of ‘warnings’.
And by way of an update [2:00 pm Pacific, March 29], “Mcafee`s own TOP RANKED site advisor/reviewer ‘dean’ even says siteadvisor is a total waste and gives users a false sense of security that is outright dangerous,” says a Reader’s Write.
It links to the post below which, under Bad shopping experience, states »»»
This is no way that I can, in good conscience, recommend SiteAdvisor. Lately, the proliferation of green ratings for sites that distribute well-documented rogue software or obvious scams leave me no choice. It is downright dangerous to depend on SiteAdvisor’s ratings.
The web site remains useful, so that you can look up what others are saying. But the ratings are, in many cases, bogus. Thus, don’t even bother considering the purchase of SiteAdvisor Plus. It would be a complete waste of money. Even the free version, which I formerly recommended to many friends is not worth the effort. Why install software that is purposefully misleading?
At least if ratings on questionable were in the “unrated” stage, one could reasonably conclude that caution should be exercised. However, SiteAdvisor has gotten into the habit of slapping green ratings on just about any site, willy-nilly, including the following scams:
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/best-paid-survey-sites.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/bestpaidsurveyaround.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/cash-4-survey.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/cash-for-survey.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/cash4survey-scam-review.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/cash4surveyscamreview.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/officialpaidsurvey.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/www-bestsurveys.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/www-paidsurveyreviews.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/www-top-paid-surveys.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/paid-survey-scam-busters.com
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/surveyabsolute.com
Be sure to stop by these review pages and tell them what you think of their ratings of sites that promote obvious scams. Also see my previous review.
Meanwhile, the greater majority of the p2pnet ‘reviews,’ both for and against, were posted three years ago. The most recent one (quoted three sentences up) arrived in April last year.
Rogue application AntiSpyware XP
Both McAfee and the comment poster cited earlier name Antispyware.com – a long-time supporter of p2pnet – as a “distributor of downloads some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs,” but, “It is NOT a scam app,” I posted in p2pnet a couple of months back.
There is, though, a rogue application called AntiSpyware XP, or XP AntiSpyware, which, “redirects the user to a fake/scare scan page of the infamous XP AntiSpyware /XP AntiVirus rogue security applications,” I quoted Bharath’s Security Blog” as saying.
“The WinSoftware, Inc aka LocusSoftware Inc aka Innovative Marketing is behind this scam,” its stated unequivocally.
“They are using many sites to redirect the users to their fake/scare scan pages.”
XP AntiSpyware even rips off the genuine AntiSpyware logo.
The AntiSpyware XP people change their active scam site all the time, says Bharath, adding:
“The site XPDownloadings.com works as a repository for the rogue installers while the XP-Antivirus.com site is used for payment processing.
“The scammers also avails a user to sign up for an upgrade to File Shredder 2008 FileShredder2008.com, which is again a crapware they are exploiting Lavasoft`s application name `File Shredder’.”
And there are lots of other references to AntiSpyware XP, or XP AntiSpyware.
So, McAfee, when are you going to:
- Pay me the money you owe me for using p2pnet to promote your ‘product’?
- Make a formal public apology for wrongly listing p2pnet as a dangerous site?
Over to you …
Jon Newton – p2pnet
McAfee`s Blubster deal – May 29, 2007
McAfee adamant! p2pnet stays Red! – June 1, 2007
McAfee targets p2pnet. Again – August 28, 2008
Looking for a lawyer: p2pnet v McAfee – August 30, 2008
McAfee shock-horror Brad Pitt report - September 17, 2008
AntiSpyware vs AntiSpyware XP – January 12, 2009
March, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I don’t suppose you have the money to start a defamation law suit against McAfee
March 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Mcafee’s own TOP RANKED site advisor/reviewer “dean” even says siteadvisor is a total waste and gives users a false sense of security that is outright dangerous:
“This is no way that I can, in good conscience, recommend SiteAdvisor. Lately, the proliferation of green ratings for sites that distribute well-documented rogue software or obvious scams leave me no choice. It is downright dangerous to depend on SiteAdvisor’s ratings.
The web site remains useful, so that you can look up what others are saying. But the ratings are, in many cases, bogus. Thus, don’t even bother considering the purchase of SiteAdvisor Plus. It would be a complete waste of money. Even the free version, which I formerly recommended to many friends is not worth the effort. Why install software that is purposefully misleading?
At least if ratings on questionable were in the “unrated” stage, one could reasonably conclude that caution should be exercised. However, SiteAdvisor has gotten into the habit of slapping green ratings on just about any site, willy-nilly, including the following scams:”
read more at the bottom of the page here before they delete it:
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/siteadvisor.com/msgpage?page=47#reviews
March 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
… now yahoo is filtering websites as a result of partnering with Mcafee:
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu65w2c9JKDEAPaNXNyoA?p=antispyware.com&fr=yfp-t-501
March 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I think a good media publicised lawsuit with examples ofsite advisor giving green ratings to spyware would be great! Just find some newly graduated law student specializing in IP who is willing to work pro bono to make a name for him/herself and you’ve got something newsworthy!
March 29th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
It’s funny that this site’s rating is based on the existense of ad banners linked to adware’d P2P applications … that no longer advertise on the site.
To play the devil’s advocate here … If I worked for the RIAA or MPAA I would do everything possible to try to get p2pnet added to various blocklists and banned from search engines.
It can’t help when virtually every search for “RIAA” on Google News over the past several years would lead to several scathing articles posted on p2pnet.net.
As there’s little doubt that P2PNET makes plenty of enemies, we shouldn’t forget that the internet provides ample opportunities for covert wars.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Jon,
Actually I forgot about this… heh
The other week when I bought a new system It came pre-installed with Mcafee. Your site was blocked till i figured what it was.
So I went to google and searched for trojan and virii and found a site with some and actually took screen shots of how macafee site advisor only rated it “yellow” instead of “red and blocked” like your site. Then I got a virsu in my temp folder that Mcafee nailed. Keep in mind it nailed a trojan I got from visiting a website that it allowed me to and rated only “yellow” and not blocked.
I then checked their site adviser website and have screen shots of how it was checked daily and actually showed it contained virius’s. They have the virus’s listed! Yet only rate it yellow while your is red and blocked.
Now if I can remember where I put those screen shots… Or I can always redo this little test.
But yeah, they are bullying you for some reason. I agree with what the “Readers Write” said above with his “riaa” comment.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Hey M:
âyour is red and blockedâ
Yeh, well, p2pnet is really dangerous. Just ask McAfee.
When my daughter read this a little while back, âHey Dad,â she said, âMcAfee â looks like the name for a comic book villain,â as she staggered off, laughing hysterically at her own joke.
But McAfee is is no joke â not when people leave comment posts warning other readers off with only McAfeeâs phked-up report as the reason.
Cheers!
March 29th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
“I think a good media publicised lawsuit with examples ofsite advisor giving green ratings to spyware would be great! Just find some newly graduated law student specializing in IP who is willing to work pro bono to make a name for him/herself and youâve got something newsworthy!”
Agreed! But it doesn’t have to be a lawyer. There is enough rage against siteadvisor to have a major blog. There are pissed off webmaster all over the internet like these guys:
http://blog.tech-pro.net/entry/50/SiteAdvisor_scareware_misleads
March 29th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/03/23/juno-awards-matthew-good.html
‘No desire to’ celebrate Junos, says musician Matthew Good
March 29th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
RW above, Done – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/19004.
And how does this relate to McAfee? Just asking. ;p
March 30th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Anyone that still uses McAfee 1) doesn’t deserve to read p2pnet and 2) Should take no part in P2P transfers considering their horrific choice in antivirus. I swear, go read torrent comments on MiniNova, the vast majority of the morons that whine about viruses inside the torrents use McAfee. It’s wonderful at making up false positives and horrific at actually figuring out what is inherently dangerous.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:11 am
@James:
Many leave Jon tips in comments to other stories.
I tend to use the “headline roundups” story to leave tips, as many others do. However, there was no “headline roundups” story on that day and this is the likely reason this tip is here.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:40 am
McAfee is the biggest pile of crap ever produced. Trust me, you don’t want McAfee running on your computer.
Look for free alternatives, hell, even open source, they all are far more superior to McCrap.
Just my 2 cents!
March 30th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Jon, you’re a nice guy and probably don’t want to deal with the headache, but you should sue those assholes. I think if you can show you have tried to deal with McAfee out of court, and have gotten nowhere with them it would help you a lot. If nothing else, hopefully you would be able to force some kind of agreement where they stop redlisting p2pnet.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
@ Monkey D. Luffy
I’d be overjoyed to have to deal with the headache. But I have neither the financial nor the legal resources to take them on.
And they know it.
Cheersa!
March 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Bastards….Money talks Jon….its all wrong but….What can you do?…..Good luck..
March 31st, 2009 at 9:35 am
” Agreed! But it doesnât have to be a lawyer. There is enough rage against siteadvisor to have a major blog. There are pissed off webmaster all over the internet like these guys: ”
” Iâd be overjoyed to have to deal with the headache. But I have neither the financial nor the legal resources to take them on. ”
Nothing says ‘Action’ like ‘Class Action’, if you get my drift.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:04 am
Getting a class action happening is just as expensive as anything else – maybe more so.
May 3rd, 2010 at 2:35 am
I hate a crappy and slow MCAfee antivirus , I don’t use it now and I’m happy, but they continue to rip me off via their fraudulent siteadvisor.com website. Why MCAfee Site Advisor is a fraudulent service?
1) The websites are scanned for security issues about ONCE A YEAR. That’s not a joke, see http://www.siteadvisor.com/webmasters/index.html#
citing:
“– How long does this re-assessment period last?
–The re-assessment period can vary from as few as 10 calendar days to as many as 365 calendar days.”
Is it good for a real security? The URLs and files on modern websites are updated very often, so scanning a website once a year is completely useless and even dangerous and malicious practice. It may damage website’s owners business and ruine the reputation. Of course, MCAfee doesn’t care. Why? Well, I’ll explain that later.
2) MCafee siteadvisor is based on a reputation system, where random users are posting their comments with a site rating. That’s a great chance for competition to publish a black PR feedback and reduce a competing website rating. Moreover, most users posting the comments there are mcafee BOTS – not people, which are given the most powerful rating 9/9, so you cannot even dispute their posts! What a crap, a machine revolution??
3) MCAfee is interested to assign a bad rating to a website. First, more red sites – more scares, and their users can see, how MCafee software is useful to protect them – even if innocent website is blocked.
The most important part of that is MCAFEE EARNS MONEY on SiteAdvisor, although the end-user software is free. How? That’s simple- if you don’t want to see your site blocked by SiteAdvisor, you can PAY to mcafee to have a green rating “Tested daily by MCAfee”.
That green rating DOES NOT mean a 100% safe website for end-user, for example, I personally saw that refog.com website, containing a commercial spy software, had a green “Tested by MCAfee” rating for years!! Also the sites are scanned so rarely, that MCAfee ratings actually MEAN NOTHING.
So who needs this useless website rating system? Only MCafee!
MCafee is interested to put a red rating on your website! Actually, one of my websites has a red rating , and while trying to find out why, I’ve found out that some files listed as a “viruses” don’t even exist on my website, and the date is from Sep 2009 , more than 6 months ago!!
Also some of definitely innocent and proven downloads are listed as trojans and viruses! OK, I’ve contacted their support, they even replied me the next day, but NOTHING has changed, now a month after my request! I also saw that some well-known websites like http://www.snapfiles.com were suffering because of MCAfee blocking.
There was also a story in some blog about a website owner, who stopped to pay to MCafee for a green rating, and after some time his rating was changed to yellow for no real reason! They remind “not forget to pay them”!
A great advice – stay away from this “security” scam, the main purpose of which is to steal your money. There are enough free solutions available – like Microsoft Security Essentials, AVG, AVast, Avira etc. Not all of them are great, but at least they are free. And actually the chance of being infected with something really dangerous is low, if you just learn a basic secrity rules of surfing the web!
Finally, the creators of the service are scammers themselves! See http://pcworld.about.com/od/securit1/McAfee-Anti-fraud-Researcher-C.htm
Find out more criminal facts about MCafee by searching Google for “MCafee fraud”!