This nonsense about false positives being acceptable only works if YOU are not the false positive.

I guess they have a whitelist including the top 500 to make sure they don't include someone who REALLY has the money to sue them into the oblivion where this idea belongs.

We hear a lot about the false positives, but I wonder how many false negatives make it through SiteAdvisor in a given month, leaving people open to a false sense of security?

Google links to a lot of sites, some of those sites could contain malware.

Did they block google?

I'm with AC. If I see a red mark, I'll take a bit more care with it but it doesn't stop me from going there. With SANS, let's face it, most people wanting to go there are fairly tech savvy and would know it's legitimate. They would also happily accept the explanation that it contains links to known malware sites. What would be worse is if an idiot went to the SANS site and then started clicking on the malware links!

is that some fools apparently think that a webnanny can keep their computer safe. That's about as useful, security-wise, as having to click through 234567 "Are you sure you wanna do that" boxes in Vista. McAfee is kinda like the US customs: "we won't catch anything dangerous, but we'll annoy you so much that you'll think we're trying".

I can hear the "think of the children" crowd: if McAfee prevents even one single exploit, it's justified, right? Well, not quite.

is there a checker somewhere on McAffee web site? or do I just have to wait until someone using this software tells me?

their own links there is no chance of clicking on any offenders there if you go to third party sites they generally warn the shit out of you as to what the links are. There really is no danger at all of a mistaken click from that quarter they are as paranoid as we are possibly more so.