MMedit web site

Author Message


Joined: 07/09/2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1331
Posted: 10:44pm 07 Sep 2017      

  paceman said  

It might be useful to have Geoff contact Silicon Chip and get them to put something (an Editorial?) in the next edition to highlight this problem, using Norton and C-Com as an example. SC have some skin in this as well given the number of projects they've published about Maxi/Micromites over the years. SC could also contact Norton and request they remove the black-listing or face continuing bad publicity in SC which has considerable global distribution.


That is a great idea and they are always looking for reasonable sized articles. It needs to be very thoughtful - I wouldn't mention specifics - it makes them targets. Remember these malware scumbags are VERY SMART - they have done their homework, and we don't want to give them the upper hand in such an article (yes they read this stuff too).

Any article should focus on reliable methods of verifying a site with a list of high-profile resources and not white-listing or encouraging ignorance. For all its faults Norton has raised a flag and in Jim's case, both probable causes for the red flag are common attack vectors... "if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck..." is how the algorithm works. Better a false positive than none. One is reminded of the "boy who cried wolf"... It absolutely does not apply here but as faulted humans we tend to the obvious moral. We need to remain vigilant no matter how boring it gets.

Sad to say, each case has to be dealt with on it's own - even false positives have to be explored & rectified - just accept it or kill all scumbags. Even if Jim gives up his domain it should go on a blacklist immediately - some squatter will snag it (they watch for lapsing domains) and then it is available to the highest bidder - especially domains that have had a lot of traffic and been referenced elsewhere (how many favourites is he in?).

The only "safe" way to dump a domain with conscience is to buy a long lease on it and put up a "Bye-bye site closed" message that will be there for 5 years or so - then when it lapses, most interested people would have stopped visiting long ago and then any alerts either won't matter or will be true positives.

As Gizmo said... it used to be fun.

Remember the golden rule: They only have to be lucky once. Edited by CaptainBoing 2017-09-09