Total Members: 14197
Posted by: Samker
« on: 20. April 2009., 21:30:27 »As I remember this is very controversial "technology".
First at all, is influence at Web Analytic Data because this tools and their tag configurations generates false page views and visits... that is also related to more expensive server costs (bandwidth) because of false traffic.
Second, the Link Scanner tool may have a short shelf life and may offer limited protection. Malware creators will easily adjust. This's what Steve McInerney (security expert), said on the Web Analytics Forum:
First at all, is influence at Web Analytic Data because this tools and their tag configurations generates false page views and visits... that is also related to more expensive server costs (bandwidth) because of false traffic.
Second, the Link Scanner tool may have a short shelf life and may offer limited protection. Malware creators will easily adjust. This's what Steve McInerney (security expert), said on the Web Analytics Forum:
Quote
What strikes me about this particular solution by AVG is how
incredibly ... stupid it is on several fronts.
1. Noticeably impacting a users bandwidth is, technically, a security
breach in the first place, aka Denial of Service Attack.
2. Some of us live in countries that have rather severe bandwidth
charges/limits and the like, whom shall I send my excess bandwidth
bill to?
...(this) method is fundamentally
flawed. ie malware ignores any first request and only infects on a
second request - alternate cloaking. Whatever. This type of "solution"
only provides weak protection for a strictly limited period of time.
...not just "no security" but bad
security. Because folk feel they are being protected when they are
not, and hence will take greater risks and hence inflict greater harm
on themselves. :-(
Ignoring the balance of positive to harm that this problem inflicts on
the users who use this product.
