"Requires an additional security check" page from SiteLock

[SitelockedAndConfused]

Hello

I got the following screen when trying to access a website for the 3rd time in a short timeframe (URL is on screenshot) http://i.imgur.com/9Ym2pHx.jpg I'd never seen something like this before.
I've run a full system scan with my AV and also a full scan with MBAM and they both came back clean. Yet, this warning page puzzles me. Would it be related to NoScript?

This is how this message came about:

1. A friend linked me to this page (seen on screenshot; I'm not typing out a live URL link in case there's something wrong with the site). Before I accessed it, I copied the URL and ran it through onlinelinkscan.com; it came back green, so I proceeded to the site.
2. I looked at the page (not enabling anything new on NoScript - I had never visited this site before, so the domain was not whitelisted and I left it that way), finished looking, closed it.
3. Immediately after that, I decided I wanted to save a photo from there, so I clicked the link again. This time,instead of the site I'd just seen, I got a white page with blue text redirect links on the top left; sometimes you get these when you have NoScript. Since that hadn't happened the 1st time, I closed the tab.
4. Opened the link a third time. This time, I got neither the site, nor the white page, but the screenshot linked above instead. I did nothing; just took the screenshot and X-ed out

Any idea what's going on? Is it something I should be worried about on my computer, an unknown side effect of NoScript on a SiteLock-protected site, or something else?
Any insight would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

[barbaz]

SiteLock does seem to be a legitimate server-side security suite, so I'm guessing it's probably something on their end (in particular, some sort of anti-DoS protection gone too far maybe?).

I would suggest contacting SiteLock about this. Be sure to mention everything you said in this thread, and also that you were using Private Browsing. Please let us know what they say.

[therube]

The website looks to be down at this point, "Error establishing a database connection".
Google cache show what looks to be a legit site.

That said, while "Sitelock" may be real, I'm wondering if that "Sitelock" warning is not bogus?

Searching for:

"the web site you are visiting is protected and accelerated by sitelock"
or
"your computer might have been infected by some kind of malware and flagged by sitelock"

only turns up a myanimals.info domain, which looks to contain malware.

And a search for "sitelock "requires an additional security check"" turns up nothing (except for this thread).

[therube]

Dropping "sitelock" turns up more.

Turns up "Incapsula" (seemingly to become Imperva").
And then you can find "incapsula" URL's.

https://www.google.com/search?q=_Incaps ... eamonkey-a

[therube]

I'm not sure what to make of it?
Other then to say good thing you visited with NoScript active & prudence on your part.

[SitelockedAndConfused]

Thank you, both of you, for your responses!

That said, while "Sitelock" may be real, I'm wondering if that "Sitelock" warning is not bogus?

This exactly is one of my worries. Would NS being active on the site have helped me not get malware/a virus from it?

And yeah, I searched for "sitelock requires an additional security check" before I made this thread and found nothing.

The part on the bottom left, the last sentence that says "This page is presented by SiteLock to verify that a human is behind the traffic to this site and malicious software." sounds fishy too because that last part of the sentence makes no sense. It's like those phishing emails with badly written language.


I'll keep on researching and report my findings.

[Thrawn]

This exactly is one of my worries. Would NS being active on the site have helped me not get malware/a virus from it?

Yes, absolutely. Without active content, it's all-but-impossible for a site to infect your PC. There would have to be either a serious bug in NoScript (which usually only occurs with development versions or Firefox alphas), or a truly horrible bug in the Firefox HTML rendering.