Both sites now green

[jcollake]

Ok, my site (http://www.processlasso.com) is changed (no mention of RED rating by mcafee).

I *think* maybe this may have happened when I did an emergency switch to a backup web server I had in place. My primary web server was getting flaky, so I set up a secondary/backup one. Well, my primary web server went down for 6 hours, and I didn't know if it was ever coming back. So, I did a DNS change. I then switched back after I found even more problems with the backup server, and the original server had returned by then (yes, talk about causing yourself headaches). Of course, DNS changes don't occur instantly, and have to propagate through caches around the world. I think that shared (backup) hosting may also host sites with unsavory practices, but that is a guess.

I have NOT verified the timing matches, but we'll assume it does.

As for the blocking of my emails from bitsum.com to mcafee.com, I do have the headers showing mcafee.com blocked my emails. I mean, they repsonded to one, then the next was 'rejected out of policy'. I can give full headers... they didn't want to hear from me.

Thank you pharmalert, I know you are just trying to keep the community safe. What bugs me is that sites with terribly unethical business practices get no problems with SiteAdvisor (because user reviews don't matter, from what I've seen and heard).  Maybe this would be a nice time to start using that YELLOW rating (if any SiteAdvisor employee is listening). I do realize you are not affiliated with SiteAdvisor (as an employee or paid contractor in any way).

Message was edited by: jcollake on 1/24/11 8:33:57 PM GMT-05:00

[jcollake]

Last reply:

Pharmalert: You are right, your rating did not cause any problem with my site rating. That is because I was complaining of ProcessLasso.com going RED. Bitsum.com remained GREEN the entire time. ProcessLasso.com went RED for no reason given, just to clarify.

I believe that DNS change was the cause, but be careful of colocated servers. A site owner doesn't know who he is hosted with, and may share an IP with ;o.

All is well that ends well, in this story. I will not make further statements on this incident. I know your intentions are good, but be careful. If your review had made bitsum.com go RED, then I might have been put out of business (even if we assume it was fixed the next day, something not known to occur here at SA). Sites de-link immediately, etc.. Since it didn't go RED due to your review, I was more concerned about ProcessLasso.com -- which maybe went RED for the same reason as your bot rated bitsum.com RED, as has been surmised.

Ok, I talk alot.. I'm just glad to be back to work. Whew.

Thanks for fixing this for me, however and whoever did it. I took multiple channels.

Pharmalert, thansk for the rebuttal, but there was never any infection so: "The owners of this web site now claim that the infection that caused it to be listed in a malware database has been addressed. The review at 11/24/2010 no longer applies, and this site is safe." is not exactly confidence inspiring for a user reading it ;o. They may think the site could be re-infected at any time. I'd suggest working on your rebuttal in the future , but take that for what its worth -- my two cents. I DO appreciate the recant.

Message was edited by: jcollake on 1/24/11 8:46:49 PM GMT-05:00

[Hayton]

Well, quite a lot appears to have been happening while I was away. You now have a green-rated site, which is a nice result. I wish I could say I had some part in making it happen, but all I did was to start on the process of verifying its safety. I came back from a long diversion into servers, domains and the like to find the situation quite changed. Can I put my notes to one side now, do you think?

I see that AlphaCentauri and pharmalert, two of SiteAdvisor's most experienced and long-serving site reviewers, each took the trouble to contact you. That was good of them, and I hope what they said makes things a little clearer. I wasn't aware of the clearout of all the old review posts, but it explains why I didn't see much when I looked on the site's review page.

To end on a cheerful note, I came across your sites' ratings on www.webutation.net; I think these might just make your day. There's an invitation on their site for website owners to display their Badge of Approval, if you feel like having it on your homepage. Have a look at the screenshots below to see what your ratings are.

[jcollake]

Thank you Hayton for your efforts and intent, that is what matters. Yes, you can shove these notes to the side.. let's hope at least!!

I do not know who ended up fixing the problem. While posting here, I pursued other avenues. I first did a normal error/review report, then went to the 'higher-ups', then I went through my McAfee Secure channel (via gmail since they block bitsum.com), called my McAfee Secure contact, pursued law enforcement routes, and prepared to file an FTC complaint. That is the short story, in between is a bunch of suggestions that McAfee SA could care less. Remember, last time I had a simple an obvious (IMHO) false positive, it took 3 months to clear up. That was probably because I removed the file, in retrospect. I should have let it get rescanned, as the false positive was fixed much faster. I didn't know though. I just killed whatever they thought was a threat. After all, it was something I was giving away freely to the community. After that experience, and the horror stories I've heard from other developers and download sites, I was prepared to save my business by any means necessary. After all, the only other option is not supporting my family... there's no unemployment for the self-employeed ;o.

VERY interesting link, BTW. I came across that site the other day. Thanks

Message was edited by: jcollake on 1/24/11 9:58:13 PM GMT-05:00

[jcollake]

I added their logo to my site Many thanks for the great tip.. and I DO feel better. .... except I like my old topic name better ;). Problem fixed, but I don't want it swept under the rug. I'm not scared. I am totally legit, so I will not cower as others have.

Message was edited by: jcollake on 1/25/11 12:59:28 AM GMT-05:00

[jcollake]

For the record, I appreciate the recant of the rating on BITSUM.COM (which NEVER changed from GREEN despite that bad rating), but this is hardly a recant or an admission of mistake. In fact, it leads the user to believe the WAS an infection. There WAS NOT. If there was. PROVE IT. Mention WHERE. WHAT. ETC.. Your bot is not infallible you know.

His (pharmalert) racant to 'apologize': "The owners of this web site now claim that the infection that caused it to be listed in a malware database has been addressed. The review at 11/24/2010 no longer applies, and this site is safe."

AGAIN, his previous unexplained BAD rating of BITSUM.COM was never specific, yet he claims I had an infection. I had no such thing, at any server, ever. At worst, a false positive.

PROCESSLASSO.COM went RED for still unexplained reasons.

BOTH are GREEN now, as they should be.. but being in business for 10 years and operating with the utmost integrity, I'm not cowering and hoping no more 'oopsies' from SiteAdvisor. Excuse me for feeling that way. I would LOVE to support your project, if you get it right, and ADMIT to mistakes that are made -- not suggest that 'infections' were EVER there.

Although I removed comments about SiteAdvisor making PROCESSLASSO.COM RED for no explained reason within minutes, he sure was eager to have that comment removed. I should have taken 10 days, then another 4 months for my database to refresh, lol -- per SA policy.

Pharmalert may claim he is not abusing his power, and made all this 1.9 million reviews himself, but I disagree in my opinion. Yes, you see how easy it is to say something about someone? I could have said much worse, as you have about me. Then recanted it with that BS. Needless to say, I will NOT go away until SiteAdvisor and people like pharmalert in particular quit victimizing businesses. I am not AT ALL convinced he is not affiliated with SiteAdvisor, as he is taking all the risk of lawsuit (or most of it) and they are taking all the profits. Further, he seems awful defensive of them. Just my opinion. Gonna rate me RED for stating my opinion of YOU, Mr. Pharmacrap? Note that doing so will be out of malice, clear intent to defame and damage, and therefore I will file a lawsuit against YOU immediately.

Since you are so involved, your name will be listed in the FTC complaint. What IS your name? Since you are making such accusations all over the place (nearly 2 million of them since 2006), we have a right to know who you are.

Unlike some people, I don't hide behind aliases. Let's hear it. What is your real name, so we can check YOU out. Maybe YOU are not so legit.

Message was edited by: jcollake on 1/25/11 2:34:24 PM GMT-05:00

[jcollake]

I also did NOT approve of my topic being changed -- especially since pharmalert further attacked me in his recanting, lol. How absurd. Talk about abuse of power. Well, I ain't taking it. You can attack me, but I have a REAL NAME, a REAL BUSINESS,  a REAL ADDRESS... You have 2 million accusations against businesses all over the world. It doesn't matter where you got that info, you made the accusation, so must back it up.

EDIT: I see it has changed back, nevermind on that one. Still, see my new topic, demanding pharmalert 'lay himself out to everyone' as *I* and others are forced to do just to prove our innocence against specious accusations.

Message was edited by: jcollake on 1/25/11 2:48:46 PM GMT-05:00

[pharmalert]

THe error arose because of a listing in a Malware database.  As AlphaCentauri posted above:

In the meantime, you might want to look at this link I found:

http://support.clean-mx.de/clean-mx/viruses?id=704081

That shows an alert was raised at 2010-11-25 01:34:52 - presumably CUT - and closed a few hours later by a contributor called "sub10"

The Pharmalert posting was about the same time, allowing for the time zone difference.

Posted at 11/24/2010-05:46:45 PM by pharmalert, Experienced Reviewer

So a false positive in that database would have caused the false positive in the siteadvisor entry.  Let me propose an amicable arrangement.

Rather than my posting a further retraction in my own words, I suggest that you reply here with the text you would like to see and I will add that as a review, so long as I agree to the wording.I will attribute it to you of course.

That would seem to be the most approriate way to handle this.  Then we can all rest easy.

[jcollake]

I requested both comments simply be removed. That would end that. Otherwise, if it were changed, change it to something other than accusing us again of having an infection that never existed. Something like "This site has been scanned and thoroughly evaluated as of 01/25/2011, and found safe. Our previous post was apparently a false positive". You know, something apologetic.. not defensive and accusatory ;o.

So, there's where I stand on it.. I was 'over it', until I really read the recant. Then I was like, WTF??! I don't 'now claim' anything. I claim it is safe, and has been for all its existence.

I wish no ill will towards you if this all has been just a coincidence. Coincidences do happen, and I was content to let myself believe that last night. However, that recant really got to me. I thought it would say you were sorry, or we're 'All good',... but instead...

The original recant:

"The owners of this web site now claim that the infection that caused it to be listed in a malware database has been addressed. The review at 11/24/2010 no longer applies, and this site is safe."

I guess the community can decide if that is offensive or not, but it sure is to me. I don't 'now claim' anything, as that implies I previously claimed something different. Further, we were NEVER infected, and this says specifically that we were.

Message was edited by: jcollake on 1/25/11 7:02:09 PM GMT-05:00

[jcollake]

I was in a rush to pick up my wife, so had to cut it short and skimmed your post. There is nothing that can be added, it must be retracted. When I want to drop this I just keep getting pushed further, I don't understand it. I mean, you do understand why that response is not appropriate, right? You do understand that false positives are FALSE positives and not some sort of temporary infection, right?

Hopefully McAfee will agree that all parties consent (I assume) to having both those reviews of yours removed, they'll agree. However, throw legal and corporate crap in, and who knows what the actual outcome will be. We'll have to hope for the best, and I consider this a test of McAfee's character (to me).

If everyone simple thinks I'm insane, well then I guess I'm off tilt -- but I get the impression people understand where I am coming from here.

Thank you.