dual-boxing site issue

[repoman]

Hi DB's,

I need the site admin to address this issue. Why is this site coming up as malicious?

http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=dual-boxing.com

51 exploits and hooks into IE vulnerabilities, etc on many pages. I thought this site was a great source for the dual boxing community but seems it may be a front to do not-so-nice things.

If the site is mislabeled, i would enjoy hearing from an admin and how they plan on getting security sites like above to reclassify it - I like this site quite a bit but if i can't trust the site, i can't come back.

thx

[Tehmuffinman]

You need to learn to look around on the forums a little more...

The site was infected a couple weeks ago, and Svper fixed it all. Google rescanned the site and its coming up fine in Google, but Svper was unable to get Norton to rescan the site... something about not properly recognizing him as the site owner.

[Svpernova09]

http://www.dual-boxing.com/showthread.php?t=31578

[repoman]

well great to see the admins were working on it. I've been lurking in read only status for a while. I did search for 'malicious' within the search engine which returned nothing on my side except for some add-on related info.

i'll see if i can submit something from my side to get symantec to rescan. Symantec shouldn't really care who the site owner is really they need to just scan the site.

[Svpernova09]

well great to see the admins were working on it. I've been lurking in read only status for a while. I did search for 'malicious' within the search engine which returned nothing on my side except for some add-on related info.

i'll see if i can submit something from my side to get symantec to rescan. Symantec shouldn't really care who the site owner is really they need to just scan the site.

They won't let you dispute the scan (ask for a rescan) unless they can verify you are the site owner. I've done both things they ask, upload a file, and add a meta tag. You can even view the source and see I've added the meta tag. They still won't verify that I'm the owner (admin) of the site. They have a form I filled out, I explained the situation, they said I would be contacted and I haven't been. Whatever faith I had in Symantic is now long gone.

[Fat Tire]

They won't let you dispute the scan (ask for a rescan) unless they can verify you are the site owner. I've done both things they ask, upload a file, and add a meta tag. You can even view the source and see I've added the meta tag. They still won't verify that I'm the owner (admin) of the site. They have a form I filled out, I explained the situation, they said I would be contacted and I haven't been. Whatever faith I had in Symantic is now long gone.

Not trying to bash you SN, I know you have done probably all you can, but symantic is the best protection I have gotten from any virus/spyware/malware/trojan software. I am sure there will be others who say it sucks and theirs is better, but I have had alot of them and for me its the best I have seen.

Knowing what I know about this site the unsafe warning doesnt bother me. This is going to sound prickish, but if I was brand new or interested in looking up boxing and this site came up as unsafe I would have just moved on or sadly probably would have checked out that other boxing site.

[Svpernova09]

Not trying to bash you SN, I know you have done probably all you can, but symantic is the best protection I have gotten from any virus/spyware/malware/trojan software. I am sure there will be others who say it sucks and theirs is better, but I have had alot of them and for me its the best I have seen.

Knowing what I know about this site the unsafe warning doesnt bother me. This is going to sound prickish, but if I was brand new or interested in looking up boxing and this site came up as unsafe I would have just moved on or sadly probably would have checked out that other boxing site.

I totally understand your point. and you're right. But I've done all I can do, it's in their hands. I went and submitted another message today about the site.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

It's pretty typical of Symantec. You thought Microsoft was bad? Try getting bugfix patches from them for a problem that affects a product line that ships >1 million units PER MONTH. If that's not incentive to fix your shit, WTF?

As for whether Symantec is good at protecting you from threats, they score pretty much average among the other good AV apps. What they DO do well is integrate the suite into something average joes can make relatively straightforward use of without having to learn much. And they're still better than no AV at all. :p

If you're interested in some pretty comprehensive data on how these apps actually work against various threats: http://www.av-comparatives.org/

[tripleboxed]

Reinstall your browser