McAfee - The Battle Begins

[DomainReseller]

As many of you may already know, I am the owner and creator of Even Over Here™. A couple of days ago I was informed by an online acquaintance (Halo Jones from NamePros.com, owner of CharityDomains.co.uk) that McAfee’s SiteAdvisor.com has a negative report of the security of EvenOverHere.com. As a qualified security professional, I can assure you that the website is 100% free of malicious content. According to McAfee’s report, EvenOverHere.com contains links to New.net and DomainSponsor.com. The malicious report is based solely on the claim that New.net is distributing malware. After some research, it appears as though New.net is malware free. Most importantly, the links from EvenOverHere.com to New.net and DomainSponsor.com do not exist. McAfee’s claims are quite obviously either unfounded or extremely outdated. The only logical conlusion I was able to reach was that the previous owner(s) had the domain name parked (sometime in 2006) with DomainSponsor, with an advertisement from New.net displayed.

The following email was sent to McAfee to dispute the listing:

Name: Matt Tanenbaum

Email: matt [at] mattpress.com

Subject: EvenOverHere.com

What is the URL you are appealing?: Even Over Here!

Type of Inquiry: Re-Test Request

What facet would you like to appeal?: Links

Is site owner?: Yes

Comments: EvenOverHere.com is a legitimate business with absolutely no affiliation to the unsafe website(s) stated. Additionally, the websites posted in your rating of EvenOverHere.com do not appear to be malicious. Your inaccurate listing of EvenOverHere.com has resulted in negative publicity and loss of business. Please remove the unfounded claim of unsafe content on EvenOverHere.com immediately to avoid our pursuit of legal action.

The following response was received at 2:30am (central time) the following day:

Hello Tanenbaum,

Thank you for contacting us. SiteAdvisor appreciates your continued interest in its web safety rating for this site.

The site has been submitted for a retest. It takes time for new web safety test results to mature and propagate through our database. You can expect to see an updated site rating in the near future. We apologize for any aggravation this has caused you.

Sincerely,

Jiju

Avert Services

McAfee SiteAdvisor

————————

Please reply directly to this email for all future correspondence pertaining to this issue.

I found the response to be rather unprofessional, for reasons including:

1. Referring to me strictly by my last name, no first name or title
2. Lack of a last name (real or alias) in the employee’s signature
3. No mention of the website in question
4. Appearance of a canned response or automated reply
5. No tangible resolution time mentioned

After waiting a day, I decided to call McAfee. It took about 15 minutes for the support representative to determine that I was not a current McAfee customer, another 5 minutes to figure out why I was calling, and another 10 minutes to transfer me to her “supervisor”. During the entire conversation, I maintained an aggressive yet professional demeanor. Once transferred to the supervisor, I was asked to provide a call-back number for one of the SiteAdvisor.com representatives to respond. Fearing days without a response, I repeated the possibility of legal action. The supervisor then put me on hold while transferring me to his supervisor. I then repeated my complaint, requesting a timely resolution. The McAfee representative claimed that they were unable to manually correct the report, and that prioritizing the retest of EvenOverHere.com would be “unfair” to other website owners. After asking for a more accurate estimate for the resolution time, I was told 6-8 weeks.

Needless to say, an additional 2 months of unfounded negative publicity, business interruption, and libel is completely uncalled for. At that point in the conversation I was beyond the point of minor frustration, so I stated that we were left with no alternative other than to pursue legal action. I then asked for additional contact information for communication from an attorney. The McAfee employee refused to provide any additional contact information for his company, including an address or P.O. box. Within a few moments, I did a quick WhoIs search for SiteAdvisor.com. After reading the address to the McAfee employee for verification, the employee’s only response was, "That sounds about right."

For the full report from McAfee, click here.

For screenshots, take a look at the original article (linked below).

MattPress.com » Blog Archive » McAfee - The Battle Begins

---------- Post added at 07:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 AM ----------

Another thank you to Halo Jones for informing me that SiteAdvisor.com lists New.net as a safe website.

 

[tvdotcoms]

Good Luck...I think this was unfair done to you.

 

[Electric-Shadow]

Good luck in sorting it out, sounds a bit of a mess

 

[DomainReseller]

Here's the latest update:

Sent Friday:

This issue appears to remain unresolved. Please modify your listing of
EvenOverHere.com by close of business today to avoid our pursuit of
legal action.

Regards,

Matt Tanenbaum
[email protected]
[Phone number removed for privacy reasons]
Even Over Here!

In response, "Jiju" wrote (on Tuesday, 2:25am central time):

Hello Tanenbaum,


Thank you for your e-mail. Should you retain legal counsel, please direct all related messages to McAfee's attorney, Warren Nickerson ([email protected]).

Sincerely,

Jiju
Avert Services
McAfee SiteAdvisor
------------------------
Please reply directly to this email for all future correspondence pertaining to this issue.

The issue remains unresolved. The McAfee representative failed to address the issue in the response.

 

[rb]

Just from reading what you wrote, it sounds like you may have acted prematurely.

Allowing them only one day to resolve the issue seems a bit unrealistic.

When you called and threatened legal action, you may have made the situation worse. For a large company, when you start talking legal, then things seem to get more bureaucratic and it may even stop all rational discussion in favor of you just talking to their legal department.

Here's more information on the new.net issue that caused the problem:

New.net - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New.Net

I can understand not wanting to have your site associated with adware or a bad report from McAfee, however, I think if you waited awhile, their automated testing and resolution process would have panned out.

 

[DomainReseller]

Just from reading what you wrote, it sounds like you may have acted prematurely.

Allowing them only one day to resolve the issue seems a bit unrealistic.

When you called and threatened legal action, you may have made the situation worse. For a large company, when you start talking legal, then things seem to get more bureaucratic and it may even stop all rational discussion in favor of you just talking to their legal department.

Here's more information on the new.net issue that caused the problem:

New.net - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New.Net

I can understand not wanting to have your site associated with adware or a bad report from McAfee, however, I think if you waited awhile, their automated testing and resolution process would have panned out.

While "waiting awhile" may work for some websites, EvenOverHere.com is an actual business. The negative listing has resulted in business interruption, loss of business, unnecessary time spent in attempt to resolve the issue, negative reputation, and more.

A couple of key points that you may have missed:

• No links to New.net have existed for at least 14 months, if ever (the domain name was registered for use by the business in March of 2009)
• New.net is listed as a safe website on SiteAdvisor.com

Due to the nature of the situation, waiting for McAfee to recheck the website with their automated scan doesn't seem too practical. That method may have taken another 14+ months, with continued harm caused to the business.

Preparation for proper legal action has been initiated. Additional updates will be posted.

 

[-MGS-]

It looks like you have been undfairly treated and that they are lagging behind a long while to retest your site. and if its shown that their is aproblem, with them pointing out links to another site that were never present, could raise some more issues for other sites in the same problem as you.

 

[DomainReseller]

It looks like you have been undfairly treated and that they are lagging behind a long while to retest your site. and if its shown that their is aproblem, with them pointing out links to another site that were never present, could raise some more issues for other sites in the same problem as you.

Similar issues have been publicized:

Yodel Anecdotal » Blog Archive » Do you know where your mouse has been?

Take a look at some of the comments.

 

[richrf]

I had to deal with exactly the same problem a couple of years ago. I believe quick and decisive action is always necessary, since acceptance implies no damage is being done. In my case, the problem was resolved within a few hours - which, I feel, was appropriate. McAfee is running a business, and when they make a public declaration that a site may be harmful, they had better be ready to back it up, or correct it as quickly as possible, or else be liable for damages.

Rich

 

[OctaneInv]

I also encountered this problem a while back.

Just as you did, I remained professional and aggressive. The only difference being I had an attorney actually contact McAfee.

Within 24 hours all sites were removed from their block.

I like the concept they have, I don't like the way they block legitimate websites.

If this were to happen to me again, I will probably try to seek monetary gains, on the grounds of lost wages and tarnished image due to libel.

 

[richrf]

I also encountered this problem a while back.

Just as you did, I remained professional and aggressive. The only difference being I had an attorney actually contact McAfee.

Within 24 hours all sites were removed from their block.

I like the concept they have, I don't like the way they block legitimate websites.

If this were to happen to me again, I will probably try to seek monetary gains, on the grounds of lost wages and tarnished image due to libel.

I agree. The only reason, I would not go after damages immediately, is that it would not be clear to me that the damages recovered would be greater than the cost of winning the claim. However, if it persisted, then I would definitely go after damages, big time. McAfee is playing with fire when they claim that they cannot correct the issue immediately. They can, they have, and they must. If they don't, I think that this claim alone could get them in a lot of trouble.

Rich

 

[OctaneInv]

I agree. The only reason, I would not go after damages immediately, is that it would not be clear to me that the damages recovered would be greater than the cost of winning the claim. However, if it persisted, then I would definitely go after damages, big time. McAfee is playing with fire when they claim that they cannot correct the issue immediately. They can, they have, and they must. If they don't, I think that this claim alone could get them in a lot of trouble.

Rich

Libel is libel. They're falsely accusing businesses and websites of being malicious.

What do you think would happen if I blocked all entrances to my local Wal*Mart and claimed it was harmful to go in, even if it was all a total lie?

I would be arrested faster then they could get the news crew there!

It's no different online, they have no right to be blocking peoples access to websites.

Now, if the USER chooses to block a certain website, or set parental controls, that's one thing.

BUT! I never told McAfee to block my DJIA & NASDAQ blog! They just went ahead and blocked millions of people on their own.

It would have been nice of them to at least contact me first.

If were the OP, I'd stop talking, and start doing. Don't threaten legal action and then sit back and watch what happens, have your lawyer contact them; I don't care how big they are, it's the only tool you've got that can compete.

 

[rb]

I stand humbly corrected Looks like this McAfee issue is bigger than I originally understood.

Best of luck to you getting it all resolved.

 

[DomainReseller]

Good news

The issue appears to be resolved. Although it appeared as though McAfee would remain uncooperative, the site has been marked as safe. The entire ordeal lasted about 1 week, although more than enough damage was caused during the months that the site was listed as malicious.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Surely you see a difference between your blocking WalMart for all potential customers, and McAffee blocking visitors who requested that McAffee's software be placed on the visitors' computers? Your analogy would *almost* work if you were a minister of a church that had a problem with the salaciously short skirts that WalMart sells for children, and you stopped every member of your congregation who attempted to go in, rather than every member of the general public.

Even still - if the OP did seek representation before this (apparently) resolved amicably, I can't imagine he'd be too thrilled with the course of action that led up to his being retained.

:hehe:

Libel is libel. They're falsely accusing businesses and websites of being malicious.

What do you think would happen if I blocked all entrances to my local Wal*Mart and claimed it was harmful to go in, even if it was all a total lie?

I would be arrested faster then they could get the news crew there!

It's no different online, they have no right to be blocking peoples access to websites.

Now, if the USER chooses to block a certain website, or set parental controls, that's one thing.

BUT! I never told McAfee to block my DJIA & NASDAQ blog! They just went ahead and blocked millions of people on their own.

It would have been nice of them to at least contact me first.

If were the OP, I'd stop talking, and start doing. Don't threaten legal action and then sit back and watch what happens, have your lawyer contact them; I don't care how big they are, it's the only tool you've got that can compete.