• astanix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      What are the chances that the ones marking as malicious are owned by media conglomerates that are losing money because of the service 12ft supplies?

    • anyhow2503@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 months ago

      Website scanning for malware or other undesirable content is extremely unreliable and prone to false positives. None of the three vendors are very well known (except for a few other reports of false positives). If anything that’s a pretty low hitrate on virustotal all things considered. Don’t put too much stock in the heuristics of companies whose business model revolves around scaring their customers and exploiting computer illiteracy.

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      3/92 on virus total is a great result. The only scanners reporting a problem are the ones that are always wrong.

      • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        For scanning files, maybe.
        The vast majority of websites I go to have 0 detections.
        Occassionally, there are some with 1 detection.
        3 looks suspicious to me based on my experience, but I’m leaving that for everyone else to decide.

        At least this way everyone can make their own informed decision about visiting some random proxy site that they’d never heard of before.