Hubbry Logo
WOT ServicesWOT ServicesMain
Open search
WOT Services
Community hub
WOT Services
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
WOT Services
WOT Services
WOT Services
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

WOT Services
DeveloperWOT Services
Initial release2007
Typebrowser add-on
Websitewww.mywot.com

WOT Services is the developer of MyWOT (also known as WOT and Web of Trust), an online reputation and Internet safety service which shows indicators of trust about existing websites. The confidence level is based both on user ratings and on third-party malware, phishing, scam and spam blacklists.[1] The service also provides crowdsourced reviews, about to what extent websites are trustworthy, and respect user privacy, vendor reliability and child safety.[2]

Its website user interface is available in six languages, namely, English, French, German, Japanese, Portuguese and Russian. Its website uses machine translation on the domain name scorecard webpages for logged-in users/commenters.

History

[edit]

WOT Services was founded in 2006 by Sami Tolvanen and Timo Ala-Kleemola, who wrote the MyWOT software as post-graduates at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland. They launched the service officially in 2007, with Esa Suurio as CEO. Suurio was replaced in November 2009, and both founders left the company in 2014.[3]

In 2009, MySQL founder Michael Widenius invested in WOT Services and became a member of the board of directors.[4] WOT Services is no longer a portfolio company of Widenius's venture capital firm, OpenOcean.vc.[5]

WOT Services has partnerships with Mail.ru, Facebook, hpHosts, Legit Script, Panda Security, Phish tank, GlobalSign and TRUSTe.[6][7][8][9][10]

By November 2013, WOT Services had over 100 million downloads.[11]

A 2016 Norddeutscher Rundfunk investigation revealed that WOT Services sold user activity data collected from its apps and browser extensions to third parties in violation of the privacy policies of the app stores on which the software was distributed.

In 2016, it was revealed that WOT Services had made money by collecting browsing history data from its users and selling that usage data; it said that it anonymized the data before selling it.[12]

[edit]

In November 2016, a German state media investigation found that WOT Services had secretly collected personal user details and sold or licensed this information to unidentified third-party businesses and entities for data monetization purposes. This activity breached the privacy rules and guidelines set by several browsers. As a result, the browser add-on was involuntarily removed from Mozilla Firefox's add-on store, and voluntarily removed from other browsers' add-on/extension stores. WOT was eventually reinstated.

On November 1, 2016, German public broadcasting station NDR reported the results of an investigation by in-house journalists, showing that WOT collected, recorded, analyzed and sold user-related data to third parties.[13][14][15] The data obtained was traceable to WOT and could be assigned to specific individuals, despite WOT's claim that user data was anonymized.[16] The NDR investigative journalism report was based on freely available sample data, and revealed that sensitive private information of more than 50 users could be retrieved.[14] The information included websites visited, account names and email addresses, potentially revealing user illnesses, sexual preferences and drug consumption. The journalists also reconstructed a media company's confidential revenue data, and details about an ongoing police investigation.[13]

German media contacted WOT Services with the results of the investigation prior to publication of the report. WOT declined to comment on the findings.[13][14]

A few days after the news story aired, Mozilla removed the browser add-on from the Firefox add-on store.[17][18] WOT subsequently removed its browsing tool for other browsers, including Chrome and Opera.[19][12][20] The WOT "Mobile Security & Protection" mobile app was removed from Google Play, approximately one week after the extension was removed from the Google Chrome extension store.

In a blog post published on December 19, 2016, WOT Services stated that they had upgraded their browser extension, and released it in the Google Chrome extension gallery. The upgraded version included "several major code updates in order to protect our user's privacy and an opt-out option from the user Settings, for users who do not wish to share data with us but still want to have easy access to WOT."[21] In February 2017, Mozilla reinstated the MyWOT browsing tool in the Firefox add-on store.[22]

MyWOT addon

[edit]

WOT Services offers an add-on for web browsers including Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera, Internet Explorer and Baidu.[12] The extension rates websites based on their reputation score and provides end users with a red, yellow, or green indicator, with red meaning that the site has a poor reputation score.[19]

Lawsuits

[edit]

In February 2011, a lawsuit in Florida (United States) was filed against WOT and some of its forum members, demanding that WOT remove certain website ratings and associated comments cautioning about phishing scams.[23] The court dismissed the case with prejudice. In Germany, some preliminary injunctions were issued by courts, to delete feedback.[24]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

WOT Services

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
WOT Services Ltd. is a Helsinki-based software company founded in 2006 that develops and operates Web of Trust (WOT), also known as MyWOT, an online service providing community-sourced reputation ratings for websites to assess trustworthiness, privacy risks, and child safety. The service functions through browser extensions for platforms like Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and mobile applications for Android and iOS, which display color-coded warnings based on aggregated user reviews, machine learning algorithms, and blacklists updated daily to detect phishing, malware, and scams. Users contribute ratings on criteria such as vendor reliability and usability, creating a crowdsourced database that has amassed millions of reviews, though its accuracy has been questioned due to potential manipulation and subjective inputs. WOT Services has achieved widespread adoption as a free safety tool, with extensions praised for real-time alerts integrating into search results from engines like Google and Bing, but it has also encountered significant backlash over data practices. In 2016, investigations revealed that the company collected detailed browsing histories from users and sold anonymized datasets to third parties, but failed to properly obscure identifiable information, exposing users to privacy breaches; this prompted temporary removals of the extension from major browser stores and blocks by platforms like Firefox due to security and privacy violations. Additional criticisms include allegations of inaccurate ratings influenced by paid disputes and a lack of robust verification for community contributions, which can lead to false positives or negatives in site assessments. Despite these issues, WOT continues to operate, offering premium features like advanced filtering for adult content and gambling sites alongside its core free protections.

Overview and Purpose

Core Functionality

WOT Services functions as a crowdsourced reputation system that evaluates websites using a color-coded traffic light interface—red for high risk, yellow for caution, and green for low risk—to assess potential dangers during online navigation. The system aggregates user-submitted ratings across four primary categories: trustworthiness (evaluating general reliability and scam potential), vendor reliability (focusing on e-commerce practices and transaction safety), privacy (gauging data handling and tracking risks), and child safety (measuring suitability for minors, including exposure to inappropriate content). These evaluations draw from millions of community contributions, with over 140 million ratings processed to generate composite scores via algorithmic methods that weight user votes against validated threat data from third-party blacklists. At its core, the mechanism relies on voluntary user participation: individuals rate visited sites on a numerical scale within each category, often accompanied by explanatory reviews detailing experiences with , , or deceptive practices. An proprietary aggregation algorithm then computes reputation scores, incorporating factors like vote volume, user reputation (based on consistency), and supplementary analysis of behavioral patterns to mitigate manipulation or low-data biases. This produces dynamic, site-specific warnings that activate in real-time during browsing, scanning URLs against the database to flag risks before page loads or link clicks. Integration with major search engines enables proactive alerts, overlaying reputation icons and summaries directly in search results, previews, or links, thereby prompting users to avoid unverified or poorly rated domains associated with threats like or distribution. The service emphasizes empirical user feedback over centralized moderation, though scores may evolve as new votes accumulate, ensuring ongoing reflection of collective online experiences without predefined institutional biases.

User Benefits and Limitations

WOT enables users to assess trustworthiness through crowdsourced scores, alerting them to potential attempts, scams, and via an intuitive color-coded interface that flags sites as safe (green), cautionary (yellow), or dangerous (red). This community-driven approach supplements automated tools by incorporating real-world user experiences, such as reports of deceptive practices not yet detected by algorithms. By displaying these ratings inline during browsing, it empowers individuals to avoid known risky domains proactively. The service's widespread adoption, evidenced by over 140 million downloads as of , underscores its perceived value in fostering safer online navigation for everyday users reliant on peer insights rather than expert-only . Nevertheless, the dependence on voluntary user submissions fosters inherent constraints, including subjective biases where ratings reflect personal or ideological dislikes rather than verifiable flaws, resulting in false positives for benign sites. Manipulation risks arise from coordinated voting or low participation on niche domains, undermining rating reliability. Unlike automated scanners, WOT cannot instantly evaluate novel threats, as coverage hinges on accumulated reports, which may trail rapidly evolving campaigns. Free accessibility drives broad utilization but introduces accuracy variability, rendering it less robust than proprietary tools with machine learning-driven verification for high-stakes environments.

Historical Development

Founding and Initial Launch

WOT Services Ltd. was established in 2006 in by Sami Tolvanen and Timo Ala-Kleemola, two postgraduate students at who developed the initial MyWOT software as a tool for assessing trustworthiness. The company's formation addressed growing concerns over online fraud and unreliable websites, leveraging a crowdsourced model to aggregate user feedback on site reliability. The myWOT.com platform launched officially in , introducing a community-driven that applied the "" concept—originally from PGP for verifying key authenticity—to evaluate websites across categories like trustworthiness, child safety, privacy, and vendor reliability. Users contributed ratings based on personal experiences, with the service emphasizing empirical, user-reported data over automated blacklists to identify potential scams and malicious sites. Early growth accelerated through browser extensions compatible with and , enabling real-time warnings during web navigation, alongside initial integrations with security software providers that bundled WOT ratings into their products. By 2009, the platform had attracted investments from figures like co-founder , signaling validation of its model amid rising internet usage and scam proliferation, though specific user base figures from this period remain undocumented in .

Expansion and Key Milestones

Following its initial launch, WOT Services expanded browser integrations in the early 2010s, releasing extensions for in 2010 and shortly thereafter, enabling real-time website ratings during user browsing. By November 2013, the service had surpassed 100 million downloads across platforms. User adoption peaked at over 140 million installations by 2016, driven by crowdsourced ratings and compatibility with major browsers. Concurrently, WOT released APIs for developers, allowing integration of into third-party applications, with evolving to version 0.4 by the mid-2010s. In November 2016, following revelations of inadequate in sold user activity profiles, browser stores including Chrome and temporarily removed the WOT extension, prompting the company to pause distribution. WOT Services clarified its data handling policies, upgraded the extension for improved controls, and reinstated it in stores by late December 2016, maintaining core operations without fundamental changes to its model. From 2017 onward, WOT sustained growth through algorithmic refinements, incorporating to enhance rating accuracy based on community input and blacklists updated daily. No major strategic pivots occurred, with focus remaining on browser tools amid a broader decline in extension usage due to evolving web standards; by 2025, the service continued emphasizing cross-browser compatibility without reported expansions into new markets.

Operational Mechanics

Rating System and Crowdsourcing

WOT Services employs a rating model where registered users evaluate websites across four primary categories: trustworthiness, vendor reliability, , and . Users submit ratings on a scale typically visualized as sliders ranging from poor to excellent, equivalent to a 1-5 numerical assessment, based on their personal experiences with the site. These individual votes are not equally weighted; instead, each is adjusted according to the submitting user's reliability score, which is determined by a analyzing the user's historical rating consistency, of contributions, and alignment with the broader consensus over time. New or inconsistent users receive lower weights, starting near zero and increasing with demonstrated reliability, while algorithms detect and diminish or nullify votes exhibiting anomalous patterns suggestive of , such as coordinated voting campaigns. The overall site score is derived through an algorithmic aggregation of these weighted votes, combining category-specific into composite ratings displayed as color-coded indicators (green for excellent, yellow for uncertain, red for poor). This process resembles a weighted rather than a simple , prioritizing reliable user to mitigate from low-quality or malicious contributions, though the exact remains to prevent exploitation. Transparency is provided via a metric, represented by the number of "voter heads" icons, which reflects the volume of votes, their reliability dispersion, and inter-rater agreement; higher correlates with more stable and numerous , making low-confidence ratings more susceptible to shifts from new reliable votes. To address potential inaccuracies or disputes, WOT implements verification mechanisms including a maturation period for new ratings, where initial low-weight votes gain influence gradually, and a feedback system allowing site owners to submit for , prompting algorithmic reassessment or manual moderation if warranted. User comments accompany ratings but do not directly influence scores, serving instead to contextualize votes and aid in abuse detection. These measures aim to enhance rating integrity, though critics note that reliance on user consistency may still propagate biases from dominant voter demographics.

Browser Extensions and Tools

The MyWOT serves as the principal end-user tool for accessing WOT Services' reputation ratings, integrating real-time safety indicators directly into the experience. It displays color-coded icons and numerical scores adjacent to search results and in the browser , enabling users to assess site trustworthiness for risks such as , , and poor vendor practices before interaction. The extension is compatible with major browsers including , Mozilla Firefox, and , with installation available through respective web stores. Key features include customizable warning thresholds, allowing users to adjust sensitivity for categories like adult content blocking and phishing alerts; integration with search engines such as , Bing, and for seamless result annotation; and supplementary protections like notifications and safe shopping advisories for sites. Mobile variants extend these capabilities via dedicated apps for Android and , offering on-device scanning and warnings without full browser dependency, though with reduced integration compared to desktop extensions. Deployment remains active across platforms as of October 2025, evidenced by recent updates to the Chrome version on October 9 and version in March, alongside ongoing listings in extension stores. User adoption for the Chrome extension exceeds 2 million installations, reflecting sustained but diminished engagement from historical peaks of approximately 140 million claimed installs by 2016 prior to privacy-related disruptions. listings show a 3.7-star rating from 613 reviews, indicating niche but persistent usage.

Data Collection Practices

WOT Services collects user-submitted data primarily through its community platform, including website ratings, reviews, and comments provided by registered users to contribute to the database. Optional personal details such as name, email address, username, password, and profile information are gathered during account registration and verification to enable community participation and account management. For site-related data, the service aggregates metadata from user interactions and automated processes, encompassing URLs, search keywords, and basic site details like titles and descriptions derived from results pages. This includes elements such as product names, quantities, and prices encountered during browsing, used to contextualize ratings without direct crawling disclosures in current policies. Technical data for operational integrity includes IP addresses, device identifiers, browser types, operating systems, and timestamps from extension and app usage, primarily for detection and service enhancement. IP addresses are collected but irreversibly hashed and trimmed to aggregate location data (, , ) to prevent individual tracking. Prior to 2016, WOT's policies claimed through hashing techniques to protect user during collection of patterns inferred from rating interactions. However, independent analyses demonstrated that such methods allowed partial identifiability of users via cross-referencing with public data, undermining full . Current practices emphasize on-device before transmission to minimize personal information exposure.

Business Model and Monetization

Revenue Streams

WOT Services employs a , offering its core website reputation ratings, crowdsourced reviews, and free browser extensions to users without charge, while monetizing advanced features through premium subscriptions. These premium offerings include enhanced protections such as blocking of harmful websites, adult content filtering, and real-time alerts, available via plans priced at $2.49 per month when billed annually as $29.88, with a 7-day free and 30-day . Subscriptions support cross-platform access and additional safeguards beyond the basic service. Revenue is also derived from advertising mechanisms, including the disclosure of user to third-party networks for and market intelligence purposes, with options provided in user settings. Complementing these, aggregate and anonymized insights from collected are shared with business customers for consumer behavior analysis and research, aligning with standard practices for sustaining free tools in the online security sector.

Partnerships and Data Licensing

WOT Services formed strategic partnerships with security firms to integrate external threat intelligence into its reputation system. In July 2009, it announced a collaboration with , resulting in a co-branded that combined WOT's community-driven ratings with Panda's real-time data on distributors, sites, and dangerous domains, extending protection to WOT's approximately 5 million users at the time. Similar integrations occurred with entities such as PhishTank for verification and for site , enabling WOT to cross-reference user feedback against specialized blacklists and certificates. To facilitate third-party utilization, WOT offers access for developers to query reputations programmatically. Launched by at least 2013, the API delivers JSON-formatted results including trustworthiness scores, content categories, and third-party blacklist statuses for specified targets, supporting embedding of WOT data into external applications and services without direct user interaction via the extension. On data licensing, WOT commercialized aggregated, non-identifiable datasets derived from trends and metrics starting post-2010, supplying them to advertisers and researchers for analysis under terms outlined in its , which permits disclosure of such anonymized information for business purposes.607362_EN.pdf) These licenses emphasize bulk, depersonalized aggregates rather than individual user profiles, aligning with practices where browser extensions contribute to broader sales.607362_EN.pdf) Policy evolutions, including 2016 updates, incorporated opt-in prompts for certain data contributions, though implementation relied on extension-level consents amid extensive baseline collection.

Controversies and Criticisms

Privacy and Data Sale Allegations

In November 2016, an investigation by the German public broadcaster (NDR) revealed that WOT Services was selling detailed user browsing data to third-party marketers without adequate anonymization. The report, based on sample datasets obtained by NDR journalists posing as potential buyers, showed that the data included specific URLs visited, timestamps of access, and unique user identifiers, affecting an estimated 140 million users worldwide who had installed the . Analysis of the acquired datasets demonstrated that the anonymization process was insufficient, enabling the identification of over 50 individual users through cross-referencing with publicly available information such as addresses and patterns linked to personal interests like or health queries. This exposure highlighted how the crowdsourced ratings system, intended for , inadvertently facilitated the aggregation and commercialization of granular, non-aggregated user behavior data. WOT's at the time permitted the collection and of user with third parties for purposes including service improvement and , a disclosure that some observers cited as aligning with the operational necessities of providing a free tool reliant on and licensing revenues. Proponents of such models argued that sustainability for zero-cost security extensions inherently involves utilization, drawing parallels to competitors like , which aggregates and processes similar URL access logs for detection while anonymized insights with partners. The prompted an immediate user backlash, evidenced by widespread uninstallations and negative s emphasizing risks, contributing to a measurable decline in active installations following the public disclosure. Major browser stores, including those for Chrome, , and , temporarily halted distribution of the extension to compliance, underscoring the empirical fallout in user trust and adoption metrics for data-dependent browser tools. In February 2011, Career Network, Inc. and related entities filed a against WOT Services, Ltd. and certain forum participants in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, alleging , trade libel, and due to negative user-submitted ratings and reviews posted on the platform that purportedly contained false and damaging information about the plaintiffs' job websites. The plaintiffs argued that WOT facilitated the dissemination of without adequate verification or , leading to reputational harm and lost business opportunities. The court dismissed the claims with prejudice, ruling in favor of WOT Services on the grounds that the was protected under free speech principles and that WOT's role as a platform did not impose liability for third-party postings absent specific legal violations. This outcome affirmed WOT's position that users accept terms outlining the crowdsourced nature of ratings upon participation. In November 2016, a German public broadcaster investigation prompted and to remove the from the and Add-ons repository, respectively, citing concerns over undisclosed data collection practices. The probe alleged the extension captured and commercialized browsing data without explicit user awareness, though this constituted platform-level enforcement rather than a formal regulatory fine or proceeding. No subsequent governmental investigations, fines, or class-action lawsuits directly arising from these claims have been reported in public records.

Responses from WOT Services

In November 2016, following revelations from a investigation, WOT Services temporarily withdrew its browser extensions from major stores and committed to suspending data sharing until improvements were implemented. The company issued a public statement acknowledging the report and outlined immediate steps, including a full review of its anonymization methods to prevent re-identification risks. To address user concerns, WOT introduced updates enabling opt-outs for browser data collection and sharing directly through the extension's settings menu, emphasizing user control as a core principle. These changes aimed to provide explicit choices, with the firm arguing that aggregated, anonymized data enhances collective online security by refining reputation scores across its crowdsourced network, without targeting individuals. WOT maintained that its model empowers users through transparent ratings derived from voluntary contributions, positing that such aggregation mitigates harms like by distributing knowledge of threats, rather than relying on isolated judgments. By 2025, WOT had integrated enhanced measures into its operations, including irreversible and hashing for IP addresses, alongside aggregated for and third-party disclosures. The company continues to reject calls for stringent overregulation, favoring market-driven accountability via user opt-outs and ongoing policy notifications for material changes.

Reception and Empirical Assessment

User Adoption and Feedback

Web of Trust (WOT) browser extensions achieved peak adoption with over 140 million downloads across major platforms by late 2016, prior to revelations about data practices prompting temporary removals from extension stores. By November 2013, downloads had already surpassed 100 million. Following the 2016 privacy controversy, adoption declined significantly, with extensions reinstated but facing reduced visibility and trust; current active user estimates are not publicly detailed, though mobile variants report around 1 million downloads on as of 2025. User ratings reflect mixed sentiment, averaging 3.7 out of 5 stars on the Add-ons site based on 613 reviews as of 2023. Positive feedback highlights effective avoidance, with reviewers noting the extension's warnings against and sites as a lightweight complement to , crediting it for preventing risky interactions during browsing. Negative comments frequently cite false positives, where legitimate sites receive undue low ratings, and concerns over user-driven rating manipulation, which can skew scores based on subjective votes rather than objective threats. The primary user demographic consists of individual consumers seeking free, browser-integrated for personal online safety, rather than enterprise or institutional deployment. This focus on non-commercial users aligns with WOT's community-rated model, though post-scandal distrust has contributed to a user base contraction among privacy-conscious individuals. Overall, testimonials emphasize its utility for casual web users avoiding overt threats but underscore limitations in rating reliability.

Effectiveness Studies and Alternatives

Independent empirical studies on the effectiveness of (WOT) in detecting , , and other web threats are limited, with one notable analysis from evaluating its crowdsourced ratings against automated tools. That study found WOT classified 3.16% of examined sites as unsafe, outperforming SiteAdvisor (1.48%) and (0.51%) in identifying potentially harmful domains, achieving a higher recall rate of 22.1% under conservative assumptions and an of 17.3%. However, WOT exhibited lower precision (14.3% conservative), with many false negatives labeled as "unknown" or "caution" rather than explicitly safe, reflecting its reliance on user-submitted over algorithmic verification. Coverage reached 51.23% of sites overall, rising to 67.46% in high-activity regions like and the , but lagged behind SiteAdvisor's 87.84%. WOT's internal documentation claims rapid identification and blocking of , , and dangerous links, integrating user ratings with third-party blacklists for confidence scores. Critiques highlight vulnerabilities inherent to its crowdsourced model, including skewed participation where 89% of ratings came from 11% of users, potentially enabling manipulation through coordinated voting or "brigading" despite mitigations like Bayesian averaging. No large-scale, recent peer-reviewed validations correlate WOT scores directly with incidence rates in security incident reports, limiting claims of causal effectiveness beyond the 2011 benchmarks. Alternatives to WOT emphasize automated detection to reduce subjective biases. employs blacklist maintenance and to flag and sites, achieving low false positive rates (around 0.13% bad classifications in comparative tests) and broad browser integration, though it focuses narrowly on technical threats without user-rated categories like or child safety. uses server-side scanning for and , reporting higher reliability in database-driven assessments over crowdsourced inputs, with an of 5.5% in the same study but fewer manipulability risks. WOT's of safety ratings offers pros in capturing non-quantifiable risks but cons in precision and susceptibility to user-driven distortions, contrasting automated tools' objectivity at the expense of narrower threat scopes.

Broader Impact on Online Safety

WOT's implementation of crowdsourced reputation ratings has elevated general user awareness of online risks by visualizing site evaluations for trustworthiness, , and directly in browsers, thereby fostering cautious habits among millions of users since its inception. This model demonstrated the viability of community-driven assessments in supplementing automated detection, proving more comprehensive in identifying certain threats like poor practices compared to standalone scanners such as or , as evidenced by analyses showing WOT's broader coverage of nuanced user-reported issues. Its emphasis on multidimensional ratings—beyond mere flags—influenced the evolution of reputation systems in web tools, paving the way for hybrid approaches that incorporate user feedback to address gaps in algorithmic predictions. Conversely, WOT's reliance on user-submitted and behavioral tracking has illuminated inherent trade-offs between gains and individual erosion, particularly through revelations of anonymized histories being sold to advertisers without adequate , which compromised user trust and amplified risks of breaches in the ecosystem. Susceptibility to rating manipulation and popularity biases further exposed how crowdsourced systems can impose a on legitimate websites via undeserved low scores, potentially stifling free expression or innovation on niche platforms unfairly penalized by limited voter participation or targeted campaigns. These shortcomings have prompted scrutiny of whether such tools inadvertently prioritize aggregate vigilance over verifiable, tamper-resistant safeguards. As of 2025, WOT persists as a supplementary niche extension amid dominant alternatives like integrated browser protections and antivirus suites employing for proactive intelligence, underscoring the demand for safety mechanisms grounded in empirical, non-manipulable data sources to sustain long-term efficacy in an increasingly sophisticated landscape. While it highlighted the value of reputational heuristics, its trajectory reflects a shift toward AI-augmented defenses that minimize human bias and data dependencies, reinforcing the causal primacy of robust, privacy-preserving verification in enhancing overall online resilience.

References

  1. https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/55668-07
  2. https://www.linkedin.com/company/wot-services-ltd.
  3. https://www.mywot.com/
  4. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/wot-website-security-safe/bhmmomiinigofkjcapegjjndpbikblnp
  5. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wot.security&hl=en_US
  6. https://www.makeuseof.com/web-of-trust-verify-website-legitimacy/
  7. https://lifehacker.com/web-of-trust-sells-your-browsing-history-uninstall-it-1788667989
  8. https://www.silicon.co.uk/mobility/mobile-apps/web-of-trust-withdrawn-200370
  9. https://news.sophos.com/en-us/2016/11/09/wot-pulls-browser-extension-after-privacy-failure/
  10. https://www.movietvtechgeeks.com/p/wot-web-of-trust-or-web-of-lies
  11. https://eblocker.org/en/magazine/tip-iceberg-data-scandal-web-trust/
  12. https://www.mywot.com/blog/about
  13. https://support.mywot.com/hc/en-us/articles/360024398593-2-Our-Data
  14. https://www.pcworld.com/article/528541/wot.html
  15. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-WOT-Web-of-Trust-extension-reliable
  16. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/wot-services
  17. https://www.equitynet.com/c/wot-services-ltd
  18. https://www.billhartzer.com/marketing/web-of-trust-launches-first-online-reputation-rating-community/
  19. https://download.cnet.com/developer/mywot-web-of-trust/i-6287252/
  20. https://www.ventureradar.com/organisation/Web%2520of%2520Trust/719034ff-51ad-4185-b1fe-34b863f88971
  21. https://tesi.fi/en/news-item/michael-widenius-founder-of-mysql-invests-in-web-of-trust/
  22. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/
  23. https://tesi.fi/en/news-item/web-of-trust-hits-100-million-downloads-milestone/
  24. https://www.pcmag.com/news/web-of-trust-browser-extension-cannot-be-trusted
  25. https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/08/1551236/web-of-trust-downloaded-140m-times-pulled-from-extension-stores-after-revelations-that-it-sells-users-data
  26. https://support.mywot.com/hc/en-us/articles/360024397433-1-Introduction
  27. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8693963/wot-api-need-help-in-understanding
  28. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37909126
  29. https://thehackernews.com/2016/11/web-of-trust-addon.html
  30. https://support.mywot.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002791993-How-site-rating-is-calculated
  31. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/reviews/
  32. https://www.mywot.com/wiki/index.php/Rating_reliability
  33. https://www.mywot.com/wiki/index.php/Why_is_my_site_rated_red%3F
  34. https://www.mywot.com/en/support/feedback
  35. https://microsoftedge.microsoft.com/addons/detail/iiclaphjclecagpkkaacljnpcppnoibi
  36. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12870953
  37. https://www.mywot.com/privacy
  38. https://www.mywot.com/extension-privacy
  39. https://www.forbes.com/sites/leemathews/2016/11/07/web-of-trust-browser-add-on-blasted-for-breaking-user-trust/
  40. https://www.scworld.com/news/web-of-trust-browser-add-on-gone-for-now-after-privacy-issue
  41. https://app.mywot.com/chooseYourPlan?planType=extensionPremium&wot_product=terms
  42. https://support.mywot.com/hc/en-us/articles/360016468379-How-do-I-cancel-my-WOT-premium-subscription-trial-period-Chrome
  43. https://www.mywot.com/blog/panda-security-partnership
  44. https://www.darkreading.com/cyber-risk/panda-security-against-intuition-partner-on-co-branded-version-web-of-trust-add-on
  45. https://computersecurity.fandom.com/wiki/WOT:_Web_of_Trust
  46. https://www.mywot.com/wiki/index.php/API
  47. https://support.mywot.com/hc/en-us/articles/360024398673-3-Using-the-API
  48. https://www.dw.com/en/german-report-points-to-online-privacy-violations-by-add-on-site/a-36250477
  49. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/google-and-mozilla-remove-extension-that-was-caught-selling-user-data/
  50. https://www.theregister.com/2016/11/07/browsers_ban_web_of_trust_addon_after_biz_is_caught_selling_its_users_browsing_histories/
  51. https://www.thehackernews.com/2016/11/web-of-trust-addon.html
  52. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/reviews/?score=1&page=4
  53. https://thehackernews.com/2011/12/web-of-trust-wot-wins-in-court-favors.html
  54. https://www.ghacks.net/2016/11/05/mozilla-and-google-remove-wot-extension/
  55. https://www.databreaches.net/web-of-trust-wot-add-on-taken-down-by-chrome-firefox/
  56. https://databreaches.net/2016/11/05/web-of-trust-wot-add-on-taken-down-by-chrome-firefox/
  57. https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/08/web-of-trust-sold-browser-history/
  58. https://chrome-stats.com/d/bhmmomiinigofkjcapegjjndpbikblnp/reviews
  59. https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topic/107753-web-of-trust-trusted/
  60. https://www.ifca.ai/pub/fc11/25.pdf
  61. https://jdmdigital.co/news/wot/
  62. https://alternativeto.net/software/wot/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.