Jump to content

Is 79.159.109.44 a FP?


whatmeworry?
 Share

Recommended Posts

One of my favorite pieces of software is HyperSnap, a terrific screen capture program. An upgrade has just come out, and as an optional part of the upgrade one can install some extras that have their own EULA and privacy policy. Yes, I know, I'm generally skeptical of such add-ons, but I wanted at least to see what the EULA and privacy policy had to say. To my surprise, MBAM (database 3987) blocked my access, claiming that 79.159.109.44 was a malicious site. That's not the HyperSnap site, but the site that houses these policies. The URL is http://www.bigseekpro.com/privacy/hypersnap (and a similar one for the EULA). Before I write to HypeSnap's developer to let him know about MBAM's action, I wanted to be sure that this isn't a false positive. I searched the forum to see whether I could find mention of this IP number, but I came up empty. Hence, this message.

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. :o It could be the ip is listed on a malicious domain. Although the individual site seems fine. I'm sure like most things there's a reason behind it. :D

Well, sometimes there is a good reason behind it, but at other times it's a FP that MBAM corrects when it is called to their attention. I'd really like to know which one it is.

Also, what MBAM claims (if I understand this correctly) is that if the site shares its IP address with a malicious site, the user can be harmed even if he or she just goes to the good site, since the computer/DNS turns that supposedly safe URL into the malicious IP. Repeatedly on this forum, people have been told that the ban will stay in place because the good site shares its IP number with one or more malicious sites. (I confess I'm still not sure what the problem is if the individual IP address isn't problematic but simply sits on a range of IPs that are problematic.) Of course, if MBAM's reasoning is correct (and if I understand it correctly), it makes the assurances of something like WOT less reliable.

I don't want to contact the HyperSnap developer until I know whether or not MBAM's IP Protection warning is correct or a FP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Redacted]

78.159.109.44 currently lies within a NetDirect range.

Thanks, Steven. I thought at first you made an error in the IP number, but it turns out that I wrote 79 rather than 78. Sorry about that.

I understand the problem if a site shares an IP number with a malicious site, but what's the harm in simply being within the range of malicious sites?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually, sitting within a range isn't a problem, but NetDirect ranges have a history of malicious activity, with NetDirect themselves doing next to nothing, to prevent it, and being far too slow to take down malicious content reported to them (when they actually bother doing anything at all that is).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.