Information Security Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for information security professionals. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Antivirus writers have agreed for their software to recognize a standard "fake" virus file - the EICAR file, to let users check, that the software is up and running.

Are there any equivalent test sites for trying out McAfee SiteAdvisor, Kaspersky URL Advisor, Norton Safe Web, Google Safe Browsing, and others?

Or can anyone share any running sites, which they use to test out whether their reputation services are working?

share|improve this question

Unfortunately Google Safe Browsing doesn't recognize "" of as a malicious site. Instead you can use which is, I guess, the Google Safe Browsing test site.

Just in case you are wondering, Ian Fette is a software engineer at Google.

share|improve this answer
Strange - accessed the ianfette link via the latest version of Chrome from two different MacBooks. Got the safe browsing warning on one but not the other. – Craig S. Anderson Dec 3 '15 at 23:08
@CraigS.Anderson Maybe it was disabled? Under "Privacy," verify if the box "Protect you and your device from dangerous sites." is checked. – ForguesR Dec 4 '15 at 16:33
I checked, and the box is checked on both machines. Thanks for the suggestion. – Craig S. Anderson Dec 7 '15 at 19:52

Tests are typically done by finding a known malicious site and browsing to it while in a sandboxed environment. NSS labs used that technique for its recent tests this year, testing IE, Chrome, and Firefox. One of the sources of malicious URLs that NSS used was, which might serve as a something you could use in the same way, as long as you protect yourself.

I'm not sure how a fake malicious site would provide value, a la EICAR. I use EICAR to test AV avoidance and unique protection configurations, but the file is under your control and is readable. In that case, using Metasploit or SET might be a better way to test for browser protection because it is under your control and you know what it is doing, although you won't be able to test reputation services in the same way.

share|improve this answer
The value I think they would add is to do a sanity test that browser-plugin based or proxy server based malicious site blockers are working, without the risk of going to an actually known malicious site. – HeyWatchThis Sep 2 '13 at 22:13

"The website was designed to test the correct operation your anti-virus / anti-malware software."

"The website contains actual browser exploits, therefore, regardless of search engine, web browser, filtering appliance or desktop anti-virus product you use, it should be marked as malicious."

(No connection, just used it myself).

share|improve this answer

To my knowledge no such site exists.

You could maybe host a static webpage via or something similar, and include some Javascript that's very similar to a known exploit kit's payload, just with the final eval replaced or removed. That would probably be the simplest way you could test.

share|improve this answer
The problem with that is it might get blocked by the hoster. Hosting your own site gives you more control but you risk never being rated by a reputation service. – schroeder Jun 13 '13 at 21:38
Ah, interesting, so your 'faux' malicious site will inevitably get crawled by a reputation service which will likely mark it as risky. And if your ISP or your co-lo gets wind, they will try to take you down. I suppose that is what should happen but it will make these "Reputation Service test sites" short lived or put YOU at risk of criminal intent. – HeyWatchThis Sep 2 '13 at 22:17

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.