Spyware Warrior

[aBenG]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5251742.stm

Any thoughts on Googles effort here? Seems like a good step forward to me for everyday users if it is applied sensibly... and assuming it works as claimed.
_________________
Inperfect.

[Nick]

Google has been partnered with http://www.stopbadware.org/ and this is the 1st public example of this. The warnings that Google will display are based on info from stopbadware. If someone searches and clicks on a result that is questionable, they'll get a warning page like this. Note that I tried using Google to access ThemXP.org and didn't get any warnings.

This is more like Sitehound's approach. You get a warning page before going to the site in question. You just don't need any software on your system.

People can click through and visit the site if they want to. The key will be listing sites that are really adding malware. If too many sites get the warning for minor things, then people will ignore them. For example, Sitehound will give a warning page for Fark.com. The warning is "A site that displays full or partial nudity in a sexual context". While there are a few topics that have links to naughty pictures, the way that the warning page is, makes it appear to be on equal footing with far worse pages that will hijack your computer.
_________________
Nick's Security Ticker

[hornet777]

I was kind-of afraid of that... limiting it to malware, and letting it go at that would be acceptable, but when people start the moralising, it quickly gets ambiguous and confusing, not to mention the possibility of hidden agendas.

[paperghost]

I'm just waiting for the inevitable fallout when they flag a "big" site as being "harmful". Oh, the fireworks...

[theCaptain]

I actually like Site Advisor's or Scandoo's approach. Not only does Site Advisor flag sites, but they also flag sponsored listings. That's a conflict of interest for Google since they have many advertisers in the gray area.