McAfee SiteAdvisor for Windows 3.7.190

2.7 out of 5 stars 2.7 (88 votes)


Windows 7/8/Vista/XP / Freeware / 10,066 downloads

SiteAdvisor helps protect you from all kinds of Web-based security threats including spyware, adware, spam, viruses, browser-based attacks, phishing, online fraud and identity theft.

The authors automated testers continually patrol the Web to browse sites, download files, and sign-up for things with e-mail addresses. As you search, browse, download or register online, SiteAdvisor's safety ratings help you stay safe and in control.

Reviews of McAfee SiteAdvisor for Windows

  1. 3 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 3.5 (Sep 20, 2012)

    Seems a good idea but doesn't actually work, the opinions IMO are very highly suspect & using a modicum of intelligence works far better.?

  2. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 2.9.258 (May 5, 2009)

    I like this site advisor because before opening the site it let me to Know that site is safe for me or not and all site which is represented by red are always give some trojans so it alerts us to not to surve/download from this site

  3. 1 out of 5 stars
    Young Strider

    Reviewing 2.9.242 (Feb 2, 2009)

    This is not freeware, this is nagware.

  4. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 2.9.242 (Feb 2, 2009)

    I used to use this program with Firefox was great at the beginning but then McAfee took it over and it was not long it became more like nagware then freeware, the system resources it used started to increase plus the add-on for Firefox began taking a life of it's own elsewhere on my computer I consider that a security risk (when you are not clearly told) etc.
    Plus I really don't think any one can take SiteAdvisor's rating etc. seriously anymore. McAfee managed to take something good and scew it up to something useless like their other products.

    I've been trying out WOT add-on for Firefox looks like a far superior product. Looks like it has a community supporting it, rating websites, wanting comments etc. there's even settings for children etc. I've just starting to use it so for now have little to say about WOT but so far it is far superior program then SiteAdvisor and far more accurate since you can rate a website yourself etc.

  5. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing 2.9.242 (Feb 2, 2009)

    I don't know- something about this thing I don't like. Smells fishy to me.

  6. 1 out of 5 stars
    Undesired Username

    Reviewing (Dec 2, 2008)

    What Duster said. This is a piece of crap. Good luck if you're a domain owner who has their domain slurred as "dangerous" by SiteAdvisor, because McAfee will ignore your pleas to have the rating undone, even if it was a mistake, even if the "malicious" download was never really "malicious", and even if you no longer offer it as a download at all.

  7. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (May 26, 2008)

    Just that little extra to add to all the other security I have installed. I appreciate when arriving at a new site the green for OK sitting in the corner of my browser.

  8. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (May 24, 2008)

    It's the most dangerus and worst thing that happened to the internet! This product from McCafee although well intentioned has punished websites by flagging them as spammers, and or dangerous downloads thus affecting the livelihood of the webmasters. Upon "finding" a malicious download, McCafee then "flags" the entire sie without attempting to contact a webmaster. For the websites that have been flagged as spammers, McCafee staff sign up on a pop-up and get on the webmasters' mailing list. They chose to recieve whatever mail that is sent to them, and then claimed the site was a spam site! If you use your website in your "tag line" on Yahoo Answers, and articles, they label that website (mentioned in the tag line) as a spammer site in the search engines. Have you noticed a dip in traffic check your ratings on Yahoo and Google! Look up your site's name and see if you have been flagged without your knowledge. You want to challenge the scan...good luck! Yahoo refuses to answer you...and McCafee tells you that they have to review your site, but first you have to fill out some application! Total waiting time is about four weeks...I haven't heard from anyone who has been susccessful of removing the flag. Better yet, what is the long term affect of having your site flagged? The flagged sites aren't even P2P sites!!! Just hard working webmasters and mistresses who have created a legitimate business....How's that for real time results! Don't believe me? Now, I want to challenge anyone that reads this...Yahoo, McCafee and anyone else that does a search on Yahoo for a friend of mine's site "" One hundred dollars goes to the person who finds as McCafee claims "a dangerous download" on that site...then post a review of how great this product really is!

  9. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Nov 12, 2006)

    great software it can help you reduce the risk of infection

  10. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Oct 4, 2006)

    I choose to install in IE but Mcafee SiteAdvisor to insist install in Firefox too. Also can't uninstall from add-ons. So I uninstall from my computer!

  11. 4 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jul 24, 2006)

    The program performs as advertised. Very useful and uses very little room on the toolbar.

    This program is not censorship because it requires your authorization to be installed, and sites which are considered "dangerous" by SiteAdvisor can still be accessed.

    Also, you can't buy steak and return it to the store complaining that it doesn't taste like chicken. No one said SiteAdvisor would work with alternative browsers, and you shouldn't discount it's usefulness with IE. It would be the same as me going to all of the Mac programs and giving them all 1 Star and complaining that they didn't work on my Dell. Well, no kidding..

  12. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jul 5, 2006)

    going to "bad" sites was never this much fun

  13. 1 out of 5 stars
    Blue Joker

    Reviewing (Jun 22, 2006)

    Now a bunch of people decide what content can be see
    and what can not...
    Honest , I think that applications like this are garbage and no one should use them ,
    there are better protection than that of a censorship decided studied by who knows who...
    Shame on this...

  14. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jun 22, 2006)

    I don't use IE as my primary browser, but I do require an IE-based browser for work purposes, and for this, use Maxthon. As another reviewer has stated, this won't work with Maxthon, and is therefore utterly useless to me.

  15. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jun 21, 2006)

    This is NOT compatible with Maxthon. So, it is of no use at all for users like who are using alternative browsers like Maxthon and Avant. The first thing they should do is make it compatible with other alternative browsers so that people can actually use it.

    I hope they make it compatible with Maxthon in the next release.

  16. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jun 21, 2006)

    Most of the sites I've checked have been mis-categorized. Pretty useless.

  17. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jun 21, 2006)

    "BetaNews is labeled by SiteAdvisor with a Yellow warning. We have contacted McAfee to resolve this matter. Please contact McAfee if you wish to help us correct this error."

    I pointed this out in my review of this product in January 2006. There were other sites that were/are mislabelled and haven't been corrected either. My review of 1 star still stands.

  18. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jun 21, 2006)

    "NOTE: BetaNews is labeled by SiteAdvisor with a Yellow warning. We have contacted McAfee to resolve this matter. Please contact McAfee if you wish to help us correct this error."

    Just another fine Mcafee product.

  19. 4 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jun 21, 2006)

    Very nice app....except they rate BetaNews as a caution due to some downloads containing adware. Never mind that adware is CLEARLY labeled as such...

  20. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jun 21, 2006)

    I'm really not a McAfee fan, but this application is very useful and needed. Everyone should have it.

  21. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (Jun 18, 2006)

    McAfee will always stay McAfee. You are out of range for your competitors guys. Two thumbs up!

  22. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (May 16, 2006)

    Everyone who surfs a lot on the web should have this installed! Been using for a long time.Uses very little system resources. I do a lot of surveys for money & wouldn't be without SiteAdvisor.Best feature is that it warns you, when filling out a web form,if you will end up with a mailbox full of spam,or not.Also tells wether a site has any dwnlds. with adware or spyware,or links to any sites which have malicious software. LilMom59

  23. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing (May 4, 2006)

    I like it; it does what it says. Once in a great while it will have a bad review of a site, giving it a yellow status, although sometimes the offending link on the site being reviewed has already been removed by that site!
    I joined to be a contributor/reviewer of sites and now get to put in plugs for reviewed sites, and sites that I'm the first to visit.
    I like it, download it, it is one more level of protection!

  24. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing Beta (Mar 2, 2006)


  25. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing Beta (Feb 4, 2006)

    Hi all,

    I have checked out SA and so far, I give it two thumbs up. I'm recommending it.

    I have an "inside" source who tells me that SA will continue to offer a free version in addition to a "plus" service.

    As someone said below. We've needed this service a long time ago.

    Have fun!

    Clif Notes Newsletter -

  26. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing Beta (Jan 21, 2006)

    I've found this software to be unobtrustive and incredibly helpful for identifying potentially malicious web sites and downloads. I also love the feature that warns about which online forms result in large amounts of spam. This is a very valuable feature that all of the search engines should be providing to their users. AOL talks a lot about making the web safe for users - they should take a close look at this.

    I also disagree with Zee7's statement that "net savvy users know better" about DoubleClick. DoubleClick isn't a bad site in and of itself, it's just a banner ad network that is not inherently good or bad. It's the malicious sites who make overly heavy use of popup ads (many from DoubleClick) that are the ones that should be and are red in the SiteAdvisor database.

    I also haven't seen any sites that are mis-labeled. It would be great if Zee7 could point some out. I do agree with him that the idea is nice and the service much-needed, and that the database will only get better with user input over time.

  27. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing Beta (Jan 20, 2006)

    First of all, IS rated yellow by Siteadvisor, just like It's a different site than, which is, as you said, rated green.

    Second, Siteadvisor shows you exactly where it found the questionable file on See
    The program in question (BearShare) did indeed have adware and was indeed found on the domain. Siteadvisor did NOT say BetaNews is a bad website, just that a small fraction of downloads tested there had adware.

    Finally, most people disagree about the safety of Most people who don't like doubleclick feel that way because of their cookie policies, but Siteadvisor has already said they don't (yet) test for cookies. Instead of criticizing, why don't you go help change the rating of by commenting on the SiteAdvisor doubleclick page.

  28. 1 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing Beta (Jan 20, 2006)

    Although the idea is nice and the service much-needed, their database needs a complete editorial overhaul and a broader spectrum of user input/analysis intergrated into the ratings. For example: is rated "yellow" and bears this warning: "Be careful. In our tests, we found a small fraction of downloads on this site that some people consider adware or other unwanted programs." DUH! No kidding! SiteAdvisor makes no mention of the fact that betanews is the news site and FileForum is a separate software repository where the users are clearly informed of which products contain adware or spyware and, in fact, allows users to filter out such programs when using the site's search engine. (with being their software area), is exactly the same as betanews and hosts the exact same downloads, yet Cnet is rated "green". Why is that? is also rated "green" and SiteAdvisor insists: "We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems to report." Net savvy users know better. An anonymous writer on SiteAdvisor's page says of "Bad download/software or contains spyware/adware
    Found changes in Firefox's about:config after visiting site -- no notification was given." Another user says, "Rating: Advertising - Very aggressive popups or banners
    Advertising agency; source of numerous banners and tracking cookies across the web. Should *not* be green." And another, " One of the most annoying advertising companies in existance."

    There are numerous other erroroneous and/or misleading entries in SiteAdvisor's database, therefore, until such time as it is updated or corrected, I'd advise users to proceed with caution. This program might give you a false sense of security.

  29. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing Beta (Jan 18, 2006)

    Great program!

    Although BetaNews got a yellow rating...

    Down with spyware/adwares!

  30. 5 out of 5 stars

    Reviewing Beta (Jan 18, 2006)

    This is a tool that should have been around a long time ago. It works as intended and I haven't noticed a performance hit while browsing.

    I've never heard of this company before and I'm usually hesitant on installing spyware tools but for some reason I had to install it. Basically zero config and easy to use.

    So far so good. I will update this review if I anything changes my opinion.

Discuss McAfee SiteAdvisor for Windows