- May 9, 2019
- 314
Palo Alto, Trend Micro and (already mentioned by other members) Bitdefender blocks the site. Norton gives a warning.
A few interesting sites where to get site info are:
A few interesting sites where to get site info are:
That's weird. Palo Alto refused to change the website category when I reported it 3 days ago. I got this email from them.Palo Alto, Trend Micro and (already mentioned by other members) Bitdefender blocks the site. Norton gives a warning.
A few interesting sites where to get site info are:
Only reason she ordered from that site was because her usual site to deliver cake (ferns and petals) was not delivering to this particular address (it's pretty remote). She googled and it was the first result she found. In her defence that site looks really legit.Buying stuff on a random website without checking reputable reviews or having recommendations from close friends is insane. These sites will thrive because of peeps like your sister.
Yes, that's true.Good learning experience for her, as it was not devastatingly costly.
No Contact or address, their FB has 225 likes, YT has 37, hardly a service delivering cakes outside a single town and people on their FB/YT commenting that it is a fraud.In her defence that site looks really legit.
Maybe, change the search engine?She googled and it was the first result she found.
I meant the website design looked legit, obviously she didn't looked at any of those details. A tech/security enthusiast probably wouldn't fall for that.No Contact or address, their FB has 225 likes, YT has 37, hardly a service delivering cakes outside a single town and people on their FB/YT commenting that it is a fraud.
Maybe, change the search engine?
No Contact or address,
Can you share more information about the device used, Android, iOS or Desktop? Is Google their default search engine provider?Only reason she ordered from that site was because her usual site to deliver cake (ferns and petals) was not delivering to this particular address (it's pretty remote). She googled and it was the first result she found. In her defence that site looks really legit.
It was an Android Smartphone (Xiaomi). She uses Chrome browser on it, with Google as the default search provider (No custom DNS). I have tried switching her to Brave/Firefox/Samsung several times, but she refuses to move to anything else other than a Chrome. I said alright you can use Chrome but at least let me install Adguard on it, but NOPE! She doesn't mind ads as long as the website itself is working correctly.Can you share more information about the device used, Android, iOS or Desktop? Is Google their default search engine provider?
The problem lies with Google and their pro-advertising stance. Chrome does not support any extensions. Other browsers including Edge, Opera, Brave and Firefox all come with ad-blocking (for Android) features.It was an Android Smartphone (Xiaomi). She uses Chrome browser on it, with Google as the default search provider (No custom DNS). I have tried switching her to Brave/Firefox/Samsung several times, but she refuses to move to anything else other than a Chrome. I said alright you can use Chrome but at least let me install Adguard on it, but NOPE! She doesn't mind ads as long as the website itself is working correctly.
Honestly Idk how anyone can browse without an adblocker, it's beyond me. But it is what it is.
She is older than me, and no listens to younger brother!
There is no any phishing content by this link.
Best regards, Senior Web Content Analyst
39A/3 Leningradskoe Shosse, Moscow, 125212, Russia Tel./Fax: + 7 (495) 797 8700 Kaspersky Cyber Security Solutions for Home and Business | Kaspersky Securelist | Kaspersky’s threat research and reports
Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal - get insights about suspicious files, hashes, URLs, IP addresses or domain names
Does this decision by Kaspersky contradict,others findings?Any insight would be appreciatedI reported to K. analysts the URL, They took more than 1 day to reply, also They forwarded to the Data Loss Threats Protection Group, and this is their verdict:
It's simply because Kaspersky doesn't block fake/scam shopping sites. It's not in their policy. There is nothing more to it. They are probably afraid of blocking legit shopping sites by mistake, which could cost Kaspersky money. But not blocking fake store would cost users their money.Does this decision by Kaspersky contradict,others findings?Any insight would be appreciated
Technically he is not wrong. They are not trying to imitate another website or spreading any malicious software or stealing financial information (they used legitimate payment service to get the money through UPI). They just took money without providing any services, aka Scam.I reported to K. analysts the URL, They took more than 1 day to reply, also They forwarded to the Data Loss Threats Protection Group, and this is their verdict: