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”!

” 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. ”

Nothing says ‘Action’ like ‘Class Action’, if you get my drift.

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!

Look for free alternatives, hell, even open source, they all are far more superior to McCrap.

Just my 2 cents!

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.

And how does this relate to McAfee? Just asking. ;p

‘No desire to’ celebrate Junos, says musician Matthew Good

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

“your is red and blocked”

Yeh, well, p2pnet is really dangerous. Just ask McAfee.

When my daughter read this a little while back, “Hey Dad,” she said, “McAfee — looks like the name for a comic book villain,” as she staggered off, laughing hysterically at her own joke.

But McAfee is is no joke — not when people leave comment posts warning other readers off with only McAfee’s phked-up report as the reason.

Cheers!

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.

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.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu65w2c9JKDEAPaNXNyoA?p=antispyware.com&fr=yfp-t-501

“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