Download link blocked by K9

[Bamse]

Those who have given up on web blocking services have another nail for the coffin. K9 blocks download link of Launchbar Commander. Category is not the temporary "Suspicious" but the confirmed "Spyware/Malware source". Page for Launchbar is allowed, direct link to exe file not.

I have filled out the form, asking to exchange Spyware/Malware Sources with Software/Downloads. Page can be reached here http://www1.k9webprotection.com/support/check-site-rating Link to dispute is http://www.donationcoder.com/Software/Mouser/LaunchBarCommander/downloads/LaunchBarCommanderSetup.exe

[barney]

I, too, filled out their form, noting that their automated review process is faulty.  However, I don't expect much.  It's a pity that such sites can so mislead the innocents on the Web - WOT is another example, as is McAfee

[barney]

Sorry,

I created that post, but never hit the post button  .

[Renegade]

Sigh... Computer security is such a horrible field... Security period is a horrible field.

Babies... bathwater... Sigh...

[barney]

The K9 response:

Submitted URL:   http://www.donationcoder.com/Software/Mouser/LaunchBarCommander/downloads/LaunchBarCommanderSetup.exe
Suggested category:   Software Downloads
Your comments:   DonationCoder is a software discussion forum as well as a software provider mostly for specialized software. I is not, and never has been a malware provider. Since some of the software does link into the Windows kernel and other elements of the Windows OS, false positives are common from security companies who, apparently like you, automate their review processes. (If you're not gonna be responsible, you shouldn't be at all.)
Reviewed:   January 31, 2011 3:01:10 AM GMT

Thanks for submitting http://www.donationcoder.com/Software/Mouser/LaunchBarCommander/downloads/LaunchBarCommanderSetup.exe to the Blue Coat WebFilter team for review. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the results of our analysis with you.

Based on your recommendation and after careful evaluation of the Web content submitted, a Web Content Analyst has recategorized this URL as Computers/Internet.

Blue Coat does not select which category or categories are blocked or allowed. This decision is controlled by policy defined by our customers. If you feel that a certain category or site should be either blocked or allowed, click here to find out more about how to change your Internet access policy.

This rating change could take a few days to be reflected in your K9 application. For further explanation or to see this change immediately, click here.

If you have any other questions that should be directed to the Blue Coat WebFilter team, feel free to reply to this message.

Thank you,

Blue Coat WebFilter
filtering@bluecoat.com

OK, folk,

I know I'm an old curmudgeon, but I really see a problem with this, one that I've observed growing worse over the years.  It only takes one (1) complaint to post banns on a site, but it takes concerted effort by several to achieve amelioration.

I recall a [brief] movement years ago to create an Ombudsman element on the Web.  At the time, I scoffed, but events over the last few years lead me to believe it might be a worthwhile effort.  The trick, of course, would be how to implement it  .  Anyone with a pregnant idea?

Edit:  apologies for misuse of banns.

[mouser]

Thank you very much for posting about this and submitting the request to their site to reclassify.  It can get very frustrating for me as a coder when sites wrongly mark a program as harmful.

[Bamse]

Info is gold. If this and other services would send out notification to a sites contact address many problems could be avoided. Annoying to admin having to prove site have no malicious content but a lot better than getting blocked without knowing. How to check each and every download 24/7 with all avail. scanners is another question. Blocking services must inform of their decisions.

I bet problem here was included files from Nirsoft. Some scanners always freak out when seeing his stuff, others are a bit up and down.

We go back and forth internally on these points as well but in the end, the tools themselves are not malicious so we decide to not detect them. There are quite a lot of riskware tools like this (NirSoft utilities, mIRC, ServU, HideWindow to name a few) but our current rationale is that we allow them through and block the malware that uses them.

Was said by a rep. from PrevX about Nirsoft type of "riskware", keyword is "current" because I know they also block some of them.

[barney]

Yeah,

<soapbox>
Like MS and Ubuntu, they purport to protect us from ourselves.  They present themselves as a public service, but, in truth, they are nothing more than a particularly virulent form of vigilantism.  When I was first exposed to WOT, I went searching the site.  Nowhere could I find a means to redress an incorrect judgement.  Perhaps that has changed, but it forever branded WOT in my mind as authoritarian and dictatorial.  At least K9 does provide a readily accessible means to protest their judgments, but that does not make them any the less vigilantes.  All such sites arrogate to themselves an authority they have not earned and do not deserve.  They assume the right to stand in loco parentis for all the Web.
</soapbox>

Even some of the anti-malware sites carry their reviews a bridge too far, and display similar obstacles to protest/adjustment.  My personal feeling - and I know many who feel the same way - is that if I get hurt browsing the Web, on my own head be it ... I neither need nor want some Orwellian group dictating my activities.

[Bamse]

Well they are not forced upon you - unlike Ubuntu buttons. And there are so much online crap it is easy to recognize need, crap can also be found among sources like common advertising schemes. Schools, work place can have other reasons to block stuff - like having incredible bad experiences with no blocking! But they need to think of site admins as well, give them info and chance to correct mistakes. I don't think K9 notify of block but their setup for this is not bad. They seem to act fast and correctly to complaints.

Why they are reluctant to get too chatty with admins probably has to do with the fact much is automated, they rely on scanners not human evaluation. I doubt anyone at K9 have a clue about Launchbar Commander. If all site admins were directly invited to complain they would need to work more, know why and why not they block this or that. Many rogue admins will try to trick them, like removing files/links/whatever - then put it back on after being white listed. Instead of going "impossible, they are excused" I would say any idiot could find out this was a FP so service fails! They must deal with that and figure out ways to dismiss obvious offenders as not to waste resources on them. Probably not that easy but have they even tried?

Also don't forget that once you enter security scene you run in to genuinely paranoid people. Those who actually get paid are probably even worse than the amateurs you see on for example WOTs forum. Will probably go "Yeah right dummy, welcome to 2011" to suggestion of being friendly to site admins. They are not easy to communicate with