Spyware Warrior Spyware Warrior
Help with Spyware, Hijacking & Other Internet Nuisances
 
FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Register
Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in

De-listed Rogue Anti-spyware Apps
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Spyware Warrior Forum Index -> Anti-Spyware and Security Software Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
suzi
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Last Visit: 23 Apr 2014
Posts: 10310
Location: sunny California

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:14 am    Post subject: De-listed Rogue Anti-spyware Apps Reply with quote

I see references to apps being on the Rogue Anti-Spyware Programs page:

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm

which have actually been de-listed by Eric Howes, author of the page.

He has notes to explain why each one was de-listed including the date.

They are:

eAcceleration Stop-Sign
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm#ss_note

NoAdware
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm#naw_note

SpywareNuker & pcOrion
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm#swn_note

SpyHunter from Enigma Software Group
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm#sh_note

SpyWare Killer and SpyWare Killer Pro from Cosmi
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm#swk_note

ZeroSpyware
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm#zs_note

Note that being de-listed does not mean they are recommended, but that they no longer fit the definition of Rogue/Suspect as stated by Eric.

Quote:
"Rogue/Suspect" means that these products are of unknown, questionable, or dubious value as anti-spyware protection.


Edit on Dec. 8, 2004 by Suzi to add:

Xoftspy has been de-listed also. See this note for details:
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm#xos_note
_________________
Former Microsoft MVP 2005-2009, Consumer Security
Please do not PM or Email me for personal support. Post in the Forums instead and we will all learn. Smile


Last edited by suzi on Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Simple question - I can see why NoAdware might have gained a better reputation, but it still has pages such as www.hijack-this.com misleading people. What's up with this? Some rogue advertisers?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
eburger68
SWW Distinguished Expert


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 575
Location: Clearwater, FL

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nemesis6:

Hijack-this.com points to a program called AlertSpy (alertspy.com / adwarexterminator.com), which is listed on the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware page.

If you do know of other sleazy domains being used by NoAdware affiliates, please let us know, as they would be in violation of NoAdware's new affiliate contract.

Best,

Eric L. Howes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 7:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi again, this was a mistake on my part. I messed up the suffix. Here's the correct website - http://hijack-this.net/
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
eburger68
SWW Distinguished Expert


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 575
Location: Clearwater, FL

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Suzi:

Thanks for posting that. Some folks may be interested in just what a program or company must do in order to get de-listed from the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware page. The requirements differ from program to program because no two programs have exactly the same problems. Let me assure our readers, though, that anti-spyware programs listed on the Rogue/Suspect page must do more than simply sweep a few false positives under the rug.

Here are some of the things we're required anti-spyware vendors to do in order to get their applications de-listed:

1. Correct false positives and take steps to reduce the liklihood of future false postives.

2. Release major new versions of an anti-spyware application in order to correct problems with previous versions, break ties with those previous versions, and bring the development of the application firmly "in house."

3. Correct problems with scan reporting to improve the amount of information given to trial users and to avoid hard-sell tactics.

4. Remove high pressure, false, or deceptive advertising from web pages.

5. Remove dubious, onerous, or inappropriate license terms from the application's EULA.

6. Post a copy of the company's privacy policy and EULA to the application's home page.

7. Re-write the affilate contract to prohibit such affiliate behavior as:

* use of spyware and adware to promote or support the anti-spyware application or the affilate;

* association with any web site or application that employs adware, spyware, or malicious software of any kind;

* hijacking of users' computers or web browsers;

* use of high pressure, false, or deceptive advertising;

* use of unsolicited bulk commercial email (i.e., "spam") to promote the product and/or affiliate.

Two examples of affiliate agreements we have helped re-write are:

NoAdware
http://www.noadware.net/affiliate/agreement.htm

XoftSpy
http://www.paretologic.com/affiliates.aspx?w=a

8. Terminate the contracts of affiliates who are in violation of the above terms of agreement.

9. Correct other problems with the application or company web sites.

When we de-list an application, we add a note at the bottom of the main Rogue/Suspect list explaining the problems that originally caused us to list the application as well as the reasons for de-listing the application. An entry for the application is left in the main list itself, but that entry merely points to the explanatory note at the bottom of the list. We keep that entry with the pointer to the note so that visitors to the page won't miss the note and erroneously assume that we either don't know about the program or that we endorse its use.

One final word about the process for de-listing applications. we are always happy to work with companies and individuals who are sincerely committed to cleaning up their acts and resolving problems with their applications and web sites. Although this process can take some time (up to several months), we will work with such companies and individuals, provided there is genuine commitment to addressing and resolving the problems we've identified.

We do not knuckle under to threats, however, esp. legal threats. In the past few months Suzi and I have been threatened so many times that I've lost count. Not a single one of those threats has achieved the desired results. Indeed, threats to file lawsuits -- usually on the basis of flimsy, unsupportable "defamation" claims -- are not only ineffective, but completely counterproductive. Every single entity who has threatened us with a lawsuit has eventually (and wisely) decided that such a lawsuit would do more damage to themselves than any reasonable person could justify. Indeed, a number of these entities realized that it would be much more productive simply to work with us to improve their products and services than to pursue a pointless, frivolous lawsuit.

In any case, I hope our discussion here sheds some light on why applications are de-listed from the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware page and what the process is for de-listing those applications.

Best,

Eric L. Howes


Last edited by eburger68 on Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
eburger68
SWW Distinguished Expert


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 575
Location: Clearwater, FL

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nemesis6:

Thanks for the information. I've contacted NoAdware about that page and have requested action to enforce their affiliate contract.

Eric L. Howes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
noadware.net
Junior Member


Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Last Visit: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nemesis6:

We had contacted the affiliate responsible for this site approximately 2 weeks ago, after seeing a comment posted about one of Suzi's blogs. We then proceeded to contact both Suzi and the affiliate to have the affiliate remove the ad. I am sure Suzi would be happy to confirm this for us. Although the website appears to still exist on the web, it hasn't been promoted in any capacity and we're working on steps to have it removed right away. If in the future, you or anybody else encounters any particular thing you are concerned about, we kindly ask you to email us immediately so we can act accordingly.

As some of you might know, we have been a member of COAST for some time, and have been active in anti-spyware far longer than most currently in the industry. It is our intention to continue to improve our product and our advertising standards, and we publicly want to thank Eric for taking the time to work with us over the last several months.

Thanks in advance to all of you for taking the time to work with us in whatever capacity you deem appropriate.

Best Regards,

-Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
suzi
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Last Visit: 23 Apr 2014
Posts: 10310
Location: sunny California

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael, thanks for coming and posting here. I can confirm that Michael did contact me regarding this issue. The owner of the domain hijack-this.net, a Mr. Fred Engh, also contacted me because I had posted the whois info for the domain name registration in the blog comments after someone mentioned it there.

http://netrn.net/spywareblog/archives/2004/11/09/is-your-computer-plugged-up-with-spyware/

I did remove his address and telephone number as he requested but reminded him that information is public record.

The Google AdWords ads using hijack-this.net are no longer showing up on Google searches for HijackThis. However, I now see another ad that is somewhat misleading on this page:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=hijack+this

Quote:
Sponsored Links

Hijack Remover - Free
Accept No Substitutes - Remove All
Hijackers on your PC Now!
Anti-Hijack.net


It is an ad for NoAdware also. That ad seems to indicate that hijacks will be removed for free, but as I recall NoAdware's free scan does not remove anything unless you purchase the program.
_________________
Former Microsoft MVP 2005-2009, Consumer Security
Please do not PM or Email me for personal support. Post in the Forums instead and we will all learn. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
noadware.net
Junior Member


Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Last Visit: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for clarifying that Suzi.

We have already begun working on an addition to our affiliate contract to address the issue of the use of the word "free" in advertising, as to avoid any consumer confusion.

Regards,

-Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
3162
Honorary Site Admin


Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Last Visit: 04 May 2009
Posts: 4452

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me at least, http://www.hijack-this.com/ redirects to http://hop.clickbank.net/?lllll/microa2 and the page doesn't load (not that that surplises me, with all the protection on this machine).
None of the images on http://hijack-this.net/ load, either, and undoubtably the referrals and glowing comments are fake.
_________________
Proud member of the Chest Zipper Club!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noadware.net
Junior Member


Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Last Visit: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3162:

As a matter of fact, all of the testimonials posted on our site are 100% real. We also have many more that we simply have not posted. Although we do not have a direct connection with the site hijack-this.net, the testimonials were pulled from our main website.

Regards,

-Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
3162
Honorary Site Admin


Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Last Visit: 04 May 2009
Posts: 4452

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael, I was referring to the testimonials on http://hijack-this.net/
Sorry if there was any confusion
_________________
Proud member of the Chest Zipper Club!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey again. I did a search for one of the exact statements on the hijack-this.net scare page, and here's the result - [url]Hey again. I did a search for one of the exact statements on the hijack-this.net scare page, and here's the result - shortened url

5 pages of scare-sites.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
herbalist
Warrior Addict


Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Last Visit: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 726
Location: northern Michigan

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

noadware.net
I see it listed in sites using variations of the SpyBot name. Also see it advertised on one selling spy cameras and other spying equipment.
www.spycameras.com.au/catalog/
That's very questionable in itself.
Stuff like this image has to go:

On a positive note, I did try your scanner on my unit, and there were no false positives.
Rick
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
noadware.net
Junior Member


Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Last Visit: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Herbalist:

Can you let us know where the image is pulled from? That's not an image our team has created or ever distributed, so it most likely is from an outside source.

-Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
herbalist
Warrior Addict


Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Last Visit: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 726
Location: northern Michigan

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

noadware.net,
The page it pops up on is:
http://www.worldssp.net/store_web/Noadware-net.htm
The ad links to:
shortened url
The image itself loads from:
http://www.worldssp.net/ad/nuker_banner4.gif
It's not there every time. Image rotates between several.
Following the link took me to:
http://www.paretologic.com/xoftspy/lp/5/
A banner ad from Xoftspy on a page advertising Noadware, set up to look like it's part of your ad.
I should have checked farther.
Rick

edit
The other link in the previous post should have been:
http://www.spycameras.com.au/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/35/products_id/208


Last edited by herbalist on Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
noadware.net
Junior Member


Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Last Visit: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many affiliate sites link to a variety of products, so that could explain it...

Thanks for the detailed information though!

-Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Scaramouche
Malware Expert


Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Last Visit: 03 May 2006
Posts: 141
Location: Manila, Philippines

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eburger68 wrote:
Suzi:

We do not knuckle under to threats, however, esp. legal threats. In the past few months Suzi and I have been threatened so many times that I've lost count. Not a single one of those threats has achieved the desired results. Indeed, threats to file lawsuits -- usually on the basis of flimsy, unsupportable "defamation" claims -- are not only ineffective, but completely counterproductive. Every single entity who has threatened us with a lawsuit has eventually (and wisely) decided that such a lawsuit would do more damage to themselves than any reasonable person could justify. Indeed, a number of these entities realized that it would be much more productive simply to work with us to improve their products and services than to pursue a pointless, frivolous lawsuit.


I don't know Eric, that severed horse head I sent you seems to have done the trick.






(it was made of chocolate)
_________________
---
My comments represent my own opinions and research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
suzi
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Last Visit: 23 Apr 2014
Posts: 10310
Location: sunny California

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't know Eric, that severed horse head I sent you seems to have done the trick.


(it was made of chocolate)


Scaramouche, I cant speak for Eric, but since I'm a chocolate freak, that would have done it for me. Wink Laughing
_________________
Former Microsoft MVP 2005-2009, Consumer Security
Please do not PM or Email me for personal support. Post in the Forums instead and we will all learn. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know if I'm being overly sensitive here, but google's sponsored links still show NoAdware.net when I search for "Ad-Aware", or just "AdAware".
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
suzi
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Last Visit: 23 Apr 2014
Posts: 10310
Location: sunny California

PostPosted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nemesis6, when the ads show up in the sponsored links, that in itself is not the problem, at least to me. It's the wording used in the ad that was problematic, for example, some used AdAware in the title of the ad or Addaware, Adaware, variations on the spelling, which had the effect of leading users to think it was the real Ad-Aware.

I think this one is very borderline - pushing the limits of the affilate agreement.

Ad-ware - Free Download
2005 Highest-Rated Adware Remover.
Stop Pop-Ups & Adware - Free! (aff)
Free-Adware-Scan.com

(I added the bold tags.) That small TM mark should not be there because it's very misleading and it is an ad for NoAdware. The link goes here:

http://free-adware-scan.com/ which in turn says "This page has moved HERE"

HERE shows this link if you hover the mouse over it:
http://x.cb.count.com/pop/1103349540/battlecat.noadware/1/1/3/3069208/?

(I typed that by hand because there is no way to copy and paste it - I'm not sure it's correct)

When I open that "HERE" link, it shows that URL (a clickbank URL)briefly, then redirects to here:

http://www.noadware.net/?hop=battlecat

battlecat is the affiliate ID, I believe. I previously noted a number of even more deceptive ads being used by that affiliate ID, but I think they have been changed now.


Another ad shows this:

Ad-ware Aware - Free
100% Removal. 2004 Highest Rated
Free Spyware & Ad-ware Killer. aff.
www.SpyKiller.com

which is even worse. It's not for NoAdware though. SpyKiller is on the rogue list.
_________________
Former Microsoft MVP 2005-2009, Consumer Security
Please do not PM or Email me for personal support. Post in the Forums instead and we will all learn. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
3162
Honorary Site Admin


Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Last Visit: 04 May 2009
Posts: 4452

PostPosted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Suzi,

In IE:
r-click over link
Copy Shortcut
Paste into message or into new window



Mr. Green
_________________
Proud member of the Chest Zipper Club!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.theshopontop.com/spywareremovers/

I don't really know Paretologic's policies on advertising, but is it morally defensible to advertise on one of those sites where the hostmaster is a clickbank affiliate(if one can call it that) of all the products on the page? How exactly can these de-listed applications be advertised by the publishers?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
eburger68
SWW Distinguished Expert


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 575
Location: Clearwater, FL

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nemesis6:

The page you found is just one of many "review" sites out there on the Net. Although this particular one reviews only apps that currently are or once were listed on the Rogue/Suspect page, there are plenty of others that mix rogue/suspect apps with ones that most of us would consider completely legitimate.

What should I do in those cases? Should I list Pest Patrol, Spyware Doctor, or Spy Sweeper as "rogue/suspect" just because some affiliate put together a review page that places Spy Sweeper, Pest Patrol, and Spyware Doctor next to Spyware COP?

The real problem here is sleazy affiliates who will sell anything to make a buck. In many if not most cases, the companies are probably not even aware that their products are being listed on those dubious review sites.

Best,

Eric L. Howes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Recently, I did a google search for "grisoft", with both two s's, and with one, both showed this - http://www.google.com/search?hl=eng&q=grissoft&btnG=S%C3%B8g&meta=

Look on the left at the "sponsored links"... spyware-hq.com isn't that a bit mis-leading? Try clicking on the "Virus - Free Download" one. Leaving out the details, you will end up at http://www.noadware.net/?hop=jds016
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
webwatcher
Newbie


Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Last Visit: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Suzi and Eric,

There have been many posts here, at wilders security, dsl reports and lavasoft support forums about Lavasoft's targeting of other anti-sypware applications as spyware. These applications have included spybot, aluria, and Zerospyware. Lavasoft has systematically denied some of these accusations even though they are obviously true, and independantly verifiable. They have no method of vendor dispute. They don't define vague categories such as "potential browser hijacker", They shut down forums on their site and delete messages regarding these unsavory topics. So the question I have is why don't you list them as Rogue anti-spyware?

Obviously there is a trust and credebility issue here. Eric, according to at least 2 of your criteria, Lavasoft is not in complince.

1. Correct false positives and take steps to reduce the liklihood of future false postives.

3. Correct problems with scan reporting to improve the amount of information given to trial users and to avoid hard-sell tactics.

There have been several posts in these forums about the actual damage that has been caused by Adaware false positives. In the case of Zerospyware Adaware actually removes installshield configuration components which damages the uninstall process of some versions of Zerospyware. While it is my understanding that FBM has responded by patching Zerospyware to detect curropt installtion files, this behaviour on the part of Lavasoft is unacceptable. If this was a mistake on their part, they should have addressed this long ago. I visited some lavasoft forums regarding this issue where lavasoft reps actually denied that there is any detection of Zerospyware components. Many forums members then responded with their adaware scan logs showing the components. Subsequently these forums were shut down and removed.

This isn't suspect behaviour? Why go through all this effort to shut down support forums instead of just fix the error?

Is the real issue that Adaware is free? Because the company does sell product. The free application is a lead in to a paid application and corporate sales. So they DO HAVE financial motivation to misrepresent their spyware counts. They simply follow a different path.

The problem is as it stands this list is arbitrary, and biased against companies that spend marketing dollars on their applications. Is there really a moral difference between a trial and freeware that leads to more money. Perhaps if Lavasoft was a non-profit organization... It is not.

I believe the Rogue list is valuable as their are some true rogue anti-spyware companies that consumers do need to be warned about. But the current list is both too broad and not broad enough. According to any reasonable standard. Lavasoft's behavior has been suspect, and should be in question. So why not place them on the list? You could easily test the applications in question and verify the issues. Some of these false positives have been long standing for well over a few months. If not for consumer awareness then what is the point of this list?

Why not break the list into new categories. Such as Rogue, and then suspect. Rogue anti-spyware would then include applications that have clearly manipulated consumers into buying an ineffective application. Suspect anti-sypware could include applications such as Adaware that have a shakey reputation for dealing with false positives, and introduce ambiguous defintions of spyware without providing reasonable time for remediation, and no forum for vendor dispute? Perhaps then they could be encouraged to clean up their act as well?

-webwatcher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eburger68
SWW Distinguished Expert


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 575
Location: Clearwater, FL

PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Webwatcher:

You wrote:

Quote:
There have been many posts here, at wilders security, dsl reports and lavasoft support forums about Lavasoft's targeting of other anti-sypware applications as spyware. These applications have included spybot, aluria, and Zerospyware.


A quick point here. The Spybot detection was indeed a false positive, which Lavasoft quickly acknowledged and fixed. They didn't intend to detect Spybot, so far as I know. The ZeroSpyware and Aluria detections are not false positives. As far as I know, they do intend to detect those applications and, lo and behold, they do in fact detect them. The Aluria detection, if memory serves me correct, is based on some advertising for Aluria that was done by one of its affiliates via an adware application. The ZeroSpyware detection is murkier, and Lavasoft has indeed not done a good job of explaining just why its detecting ZeroSpyware. But it's not a false positve. This is a policy decision.

Quote:
Lavasoft has systematically denied some of these accusations even though they are obviously true, and independantly verifiable. They have no method of vendor dispute.


Denied the accusations? They've publicly posted on the Aluria detection -- can't find it right at the moment, but I do recall seeing such a post. The Spybot false positive was also publicly acknowledged and fixed. As noted above, the ZeroSpyware is much murkier, and they have not done as good a job explaining this one. I haven't followed the ZeroSpyware debate quite as closely as I wish I had. But your allegation that they have "systematically denied some of these accusations" isn't quite fair in the picture it paints.

Quote:
They don't define vague categories such as "potential browser hijacker",


Most anti-spyware vendors don't define terms and criteria as well as they should. Most don't even post criteria or defintions. Lavasoft's criteria are in need of revision, and they are in the process of upgrading their TAC. Even their deficient TAC is worlds better than what the vast majority of vendors provide, though.

Still further, I think it important that anti-spyware vendors do provide guidance about their detections, definitions, and criteria, but I've never made that a condition for staying off the Rogue/Suspect list.

Quote:
They shut down forums on their site and delete messages regarding these unsavory topics. So the question I have is why don't you list them as Rogue anti-spyware?


Again, I've never made forum management a criterion for getting listed on the Rogue/Suspect page. I believe that Lavasoft deserves to be criticized, even excoriated, for its handling or inquiries and criticism. But 90 percent of vendors don't even have their own forums, and I'm not going to make forum management a criterion for the Rogue/Suspect page.

Quote:
Obviously there is a trust and credebility issue here. Eric, according to at least 2 of your criteria, Lavasoft is not in complince.

1. Correct false positives and take steps to reduce the liklihood of future false postives.


As explained above, two of the three detections you mentioned are not false positives. The one false positive that you did mention was quickly corrected. In fact, Lavasoft has an outstanding record of late with false positives. They are very few, and the ones that do pop up are quickly corrected.

The problem they do have involves targeting policy decisions. They're not explained as well as they should be; in some cases they're not explained at all or even announced; and they've been known to dig in their heels and not provide explanations when their customers are demanding them.

Quote:
3. Correct problems with scan reporting to improve the amount of information given to trial users and to avoid hard-sell tactics.


This doesn't even remotely apply. Ad-aware's reporting of detections within scan results is outstanding. Moreover, Lavasoft doesn't use hard-sell tactics -- at least not compared to the ones that I usually encounter.

Quote:
There have been several posts in these forums about the actual damage that has been caused by Adaware false positives. In the case of Zerospyware Adaware actually removes installshield configuration components which damages the uninstall process of some versions of Zerospyware. While it is my understanding that FBM has responded by patching Zerospyware to detect curropt installtion files, this behaviour on the part of Lavasoft is unacceptable. If this was a mistake on their part, they should have addressed this long ago. I visited some lavasoft forums regarding this issue where lavasoft reps actually denied that there is any detection of Zerospyware components. Many forums members then responded with their adaware scan logs showing the components. Subsequently these forums were shut down and removed.


As I said, Lavasoft has done a poor job in responding to complaints about the ZeroSpyware detections, and I encourage folks to keep holding their feet to the fire over it. But it is not the basis for listing Ad-aware on the Rogue/Suspect, because the application nonetheless remains an excellent anti-spyware scanner -- very useful and effective.

Quote:
This isn't suspect behaviour? Why go through all this effort to shut down support forums instead of just fix the error?


Again, I never made forum management or even responses to user complaints a basis for listing on the Rogue/Suspect page. If I were to go down this road, I would need to start monitoring support provision as well more generally. That in itself would prove most interesting -- and most damning, I suspect, for many companies. Alas, not enough time.

Quote:
Is the real issue that Adaware is free? Because the company does sell product. The free application is a lead in to a paid application and corporate sales. So they DO HAVE financial motivation to misrepresent their spyware counts. They simply follow a different path.


Please don't impute to me motives or hidden criteria that are based purely on your own imaginative and irresponsible speculation. Nowhere have I ever indicated that free software gets a "pass" simply for being free. And, as you point out, Lavasoft does have a commercial version, which makes them a commercial vendor. I've always been aware of that.

Moreover, their free Personal version performs removals, unlike so many of the trial versions of other commercial apps. The result is that many consider the free version to be perfectly adequate and don't upgrade to the for-pay Plus version. This, by the way, completely undermines your earlier attempt to suggest that they use "hard sell" tactics with trial users. In fact, many in the industry have wondered just why Lavasoft continues to offer such a functional free version, when it could very well be cutting into their Plus sales.

As for their using ZeroSpyware and Aluria detections to pad their numbers in order to sell more applications, that is ludicrous. If Lavasoft wanted to pursue that strategy, they surely would have chosen detections with more liklihood of showing up in scan results -- they simply couldn't expect to get much mileage out of those detections. And they'd also choose detections that were much less likely to raise the ire of those in the anti-spyware community.

Quote:
The problem is as it stands this list is arbitrary, and biased against companies that spend marketing dollars on their applications. Is there really a moral difference between a trial and freeware that leads to more money. Perhaps if Lavasoft was a non-profit organization... It is not.


And this is just plain silly. The vast majority of anti-spyware applications in existence are commercial, for-pay applications. Given that, the list is almost certainly going to lean towards commercial vendors, because that list of applications is drawn from a heavily commercial pool of candidates to begin with. Moreover, my short list of recommended apps breaks down as follows:

* Commercial/for-pay: Pest Patrol, Spy Sweeper
* Free: Spybot S&D, Microsoft AntiSpyware
* Mixed: Ad-aware (both free and commercial available)

Before Microsoft acquired GIANT, I was recommending GIANT AntiSpyware, and that application was commercial, making my short list also biased in favor of commercial apps. Still further, the applications that are detailed on my "comparisons" page are heavily biased towards commercial apps:

http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm

Sorry, but you won't hang that cheap charge on me.

Quote:
I believe the Rogue list is valuable as their are some true rogue anti-spyware companies that consumers do need to be warned about. But the current list is both too broad and not broad enough. According to any reasonable standard. Lavasoft's behavior has been suspect, and should be in question. So why not place them on the list? You could easily test the applications in question and verify the issues. Some of these false positives have been long standing for well over a few months. If not for consumer awareness then what is the point of this list?


As demonstrated above, your understanding of the Rogue/Suspect list, its criteria, and how Lavasoft's behavior compares with the criteria is quite mistaken.

Quote:
Why not break the list into new categories. Such as Rogue, and then suspect. Rogue anti-spyware would then include applications that have clearly manipulated consumers into buying an ineffective application. Suspect anti-sypware could include applications such as Adaware that have a shakey reputation for dealing with false positives, and introduce ambiguous defintions of spyware without providing reasonable time for remediation, and no forum for vendor dispute? Perhaps then they could be encouraged to clean up their act as well?


Now, this is a good idea: dividing the Rogue/Suspect list into sub-lists or categories. Things might get difficult if programs fit more than one category, but making further divisions might be useful, esp. given that we're now at 180 applications.

The bottom line is that Ad-aware is not going to be added to the Rogue/Suspect list. That's not to say that Lavasoft shouldn't be criticized for the behavior you outline: it should, and very loudly. But I am not going to use the Rogue/Suspect to punish companies whose decisions I disagree with.

I should note, before closing, that in the past week I have had people demand that the following legitimate, useful anti-spyware applications be added to the Rogue/Suspect list:

* Pest Patrol
* CounterSpy
* Ad-aware

And that's just in the last week. In past months I've had people posting or emailing me to loudly, vociferously, and even belligerently demand that these others be added to the Rogue/Suspect list:

* Spybot S&D
* GIANT AntiSpyware (now MS AntiSpyware)
* Spyware Doctor
* Spy Sweeper
* Spy Subtract
* X-Cleaner

I should also note that I've had demands or suggestions, made both publicly and privately, that some applications be re-listed, including ZeroSpyware.

None of these applications is being added to the Rogue/Suspect list because, whatever problems they might have had, they remain decent anti-spyware applications that should prove extremely useful and effective for victims of spyware and adware.

Regards,

Eric L. Howes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mikey
Malware Expert


Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Last Visit: 29 Jan 2014
Posts: 1071
Location: CenTex

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eburger68 wrote:
Eric L. Howes


What a book!...but well said.

I think you covered it very nicely.

I don't know of anyone more tuned to the LS lack of ethics than I, yet I would not be accusing them of being a scam.

As I understand it, NOT being on the rogue's list isn't an endorsement from Eric...it just means that they aren't yet bottom feeders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
webwatcher
Newbie


Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Last Visit: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eric,

Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. I apologize If you took my first message to be an attack on either you or the Rogue spyware list. I believe that the Rogue spyware list serves a very important function in the community and I commend you for your work on the list, please keep it up. The Rogue anti-spyware applications you have identified deliberately deceive consumers into purchasing their applications through scare tactics and generally do not provide much value, or worse are dangerous (or bottom feeders as mikey put it). I also do not believe that Lavasoft should be on this list. Nor do I agree with any of those that are coercing you to put other reasonable anti-spyware applications on this list. My question was rhetorical, provocative, and worded more strongly than it should have been.

However, you do have Adaware listed as a trusted application. And your word carries a lot of weight in this industry. My real focus was on the fact that the current categories break down into trusted applications, rogue spyware applications, and those that used to be rogue spyware applications. While I don't believe Lavasoft is scumware or a bottom feeder, I'm not sure we can completely trust them. Your criteria for Rogue spyware applications are fairly clear. I'm not sure the criteria for trusted applications are as clear. In the realm of the non-bottom feeder anti-spyware applications false positives, bad policy issues, or aggressive component detection remain major customer issues.

Here is a scenario. A consumer runs adaware and Zerospyware. Adaware declares that there are 14 instances of Zerospyware browser hijacker attempts. Adaware is a spyware warrior trusted application. So these scan results must be true. Right. Wrong. I know you don't intend it this way. But this is what happens when you get famous. Smile

I believe that I was being kind when I suggested that this detection was a false positive. If it is a policy decision, and you know this to be true then it is a very bad one. This is a policy that not only does nothing to protect the users, but it actually hurts them. The fact is that Zerospyware is not a browser hijacker, not even possibly (whatever that means).

I think its worth getting into the specifics on this one. Adaware detects and removes installshiled registry keys from Zerospyware's uninstall. These registry keys are identified as possible browser hijacker components. They are listed as spyware critical objects in the results window. These registry are functionally no different than other applications uninstall registry keys. They are detected in the scan log in red as possible browser hijackers, and listed as malware. Only when the user double clicks on the item would they see that it has a low tac rating of 3. What does this mean anyway? I tried right clicking on the TAC lookup (cool feature) but here is what I found.
http://www.lavasoftnews.com/ms/display_main.php?tac=Possible%20Browser%20Hijack%20attempt

TAC - No match found
There was no match found on this search.

So there is a possible browser hijacker which is undefined but associated with an anti-spyware application, with a low threat rating coming from another major Anti-spyware application. So I checked some others. DyFuca reg keys received a 3 rating as well, Perfect keylogger a 5 (still low). So I guess the Zerospyware uninstall reg keys are in the same league as known commercial keyloggers? Note that if you do remove these registry keys, Zerospyware software still runs unaffected. The problem emerges when you try to remove this application, when without the registry keys required for install shield, the uninstallation is corrupted. Now where does someone go with this information? Off to the support forums I guess.

According to Scaramouche from FBM Software
Quote:

Lavasoft has not provided concrete information as to what a "Possible Browser Hijack Attempt" is, how it can be classified under their TAC system, or even what specifically ZeroSpyware does to be classified as such. It has taken over four months for me to get a response from Lavasoft on this issue, after both forum postings and email, and even that response has been minimal and informal.
This classification has clouded our reputation, prevented us from being reviewed by certain media, prevented us from being listed on certain download sites, and has now contributed to the degradation of our customers systems.


Not good.
I guess what upsets me most about this false positive or bad policy decision is that it is dangerous and unhelpful. Removing uninstall related registry components without removing the application itself poses no value to the consumer, and in fact can severely damage their systems. This is also not how browser hijackers work and here is also no evidence whatsoever that FBM is in the business of hijacking browsers. Since they seem to be a retail software company with a presence in top retail outlets and with several other products, this claim seems unlikely to say the least.

Regarding Lavasoft's denial about this issue. I witnessed it myself on lavasoft forums before they were taken down. This is taken from one of the other spyware warrior forums, from a spyware warrior member who was active on the lavasoft forums on this issue.
Quote:

3) ian tucker of lavasoft has publicly stated on more than one occaision that ad aware dose not have Zerospyware in their targeted detections(core definitions).

From fcukdat

Now out of the details and into the big picture issues. False positives and or bad policies are big issues in this industry. They are a reality of nearly every major anti-spyware application, and they can also be devastating to consumer pc's. I'm not attacking Lavasoft for having them, since most anti-spyware vendors have some. But I believe their ability to address these issues is seriously deficient. Microsoft has forums, newsgroups, and vendor dispute forms to deal with these issues. Webroot has technical support through email to deal with these. FBM software has email, and 24/7 chat to deal with these issues. Lavasoft support forums don't seem to be that effective here.

What I'm concerned about is not specific to Zerospyware, but the lingering question of how many other false positives or bad policy decisions may exists with ad-aware, given ineffective channels to address these issues? Sure they fixed the Spybot False positive quickly because there was such a large public outcry. But how do know what other outstanding issues are left?

I'm not suggesting that you, or anyone should be required to surf forums as a requirement for Rogue spyware list criteria. But I do believe that the ability of an anti-spyware company to address false positives or policy issues is important to quantify (again perhaps in another list). I'm not impressed with Lavasoft's forum since it is the only method of support they seem to offer. A reasonable time to redress an issue should be established. I think that 1 week is reasonable. 4 months is not. It also seems highly unreasonable that Lavasoft is not responding to FBM software's correspondence on this issue at all.

Aside from the danger of false positives. Legitimate Anti-spyware vendors should aim their guns at each other very carefully. This is an extremely serious issue IMO. It's unfair to the consumers when the applications they turn to, to solve their problems, detect each other. Consumers are already having a hard time figuring out who to trust. Legitimate anti-spyware vendors shouldn't make it worse. I absolutely agree that true Rogue anti-spyware applications should be targeted, especially those that actually install spyware. But the criteria for targeting these applications should be absolutely clear, and clearly stated.

I also didn't mean to imply that you were biased towards Lavasoft since adaware SE is free. I suppose I was incensed by their targeting what I consider to be an excellent anti-spyware application unfairly. Whether as a result of a false positive or through bad policy decisions, I find this reprehensible behavior for a security company particularly since it has dragged on for so long. I also found the Spybot false positive troubling. You would expect it to be standard to test definition files against some of the most popular anti-spyware applications. My point, badly stated, was that this behavior would probably be placed in a different light if it was perpetrated by any application except for spybot and adaware. Both of these applications have generated quite a bit of goodwill based on the value they provided the public with powerful free removal tools, but I would hope that that goodwill does not exclude them from further scrutiny, and an impartial assesment of their value.

Now to the final point. You have done the community a great service with this forum and the rogue spyware list. My question now is how can we improve on this list, by subdividing the anti-spyware categories, and re-examine the criteria for which anti-sypware applications and vendors we should rely on? I'm interested in identifying which vendors have the best criteria? Best process for handling false positives? best record regarding policy etc? And how do we sort out issues regarding vendor responses to pressure from spyware or purported spyware vendors?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eburger68
SWW Distinguished Expert


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 575
Location: Clearwater, FL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Webwatcher:

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed reply. I think we're agreed that Lavasoft's explanations and behavior in response to the ZeroSpyware detection leave a lot to be desired, and I would urge folks to keep pressing them on this issue. There's simply no good reason why Lavasoft can't and shouldn't provide a straightforward explanation to FBM Software, its customers, and the rest of the anti-spyware community about why this detection remains in its database, esp. given the potential for problems to result.

That said, I can't see removing Lavasoft from my short list of recommended apps just yet. I must admit they've certainly tried my patience and tolerance over the past few months, esp. following the WhenU fiasco -- not telling your customers that you've removed detection that you must know they'll care about is simply unacceptable.

The acid test for me comes me when I think of what tools I would take to someone's house if they called me to clean up a spyware infestation (and I do get those calls). At this point in time, Ad-aware would still be one of those tools. The scan engine is fast and accurate, and the definitions are comprehensive and largely free of false positives. In short, it's a tool that I still find immensely useful, whatever problems Lavasoft has had recently.

I will certainly be watching the ZeroSpyware case more closely. I'm hoping that Lavasoft might be persuaded to be more forthcoming on this issue, given the beating it took over the lack of openness on the WhenU detection.

Best regards,

Eric L. Howes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
fcukdat
Warrior Addict


Joined: 01 Jan 2005
Last Visit: 08 Apr 2009
Posts: 757
Location: Yeovil,England.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:55 pm    Post subject: lavasoft/zerospyware dispute Reply with quote

whilst the LS support forum's are still down Rolling Eyes

the much vaunted "research portal" forum at LS including vendor request(dispute) form has appeared Wink

http://www.lavasoftresearch.com/index.shtml

EDIT:it took about 36hrs from posting the above link for LS to remove several research portal options(vendor form+research forum).very strange indeed Rolling Eyes
_________________
Malware hunter....Got Bot ?

MIRT Handler >>>
http://www.castlecops.com/c55-MIRT.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2005 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got a question: If a product like, say... SpywareNuker, was advertised through spyware, would that classify it for the rogue list? Let me elaborate: I ran into a spyware infection today at school where a "kill spyware" shortcut, along with others like Casino and vacation ones, appeared on the desktop. Naturally, I checked it out, and it leads to one of those hop.clickbank.net places, and I was ultimately redirected to SpyWareKiller.exe . I can provide proof, and the link if needed.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
eburger68
SWW Distinguished Expert


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 575
Location: Clearwater, FL

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2005 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nemesis6:

That's a dicey situation. Certainly we'd want to know about that, so please send the info to Suzi or me. The question becomes whether the vendor was aware of that advertising -- in many cases, the vendor wouldn't necessarily be aware of it.

We will contact the vendor and insist that it be stopped, but a one-time problem is difficult to pin squarely on the vendor alone. If the problem persists, however, that's another question.

Best,

Eric L. Howes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
muf
Warrior


Joined: 22 Apr 2004
Last Visit: 09 Mar 2008
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eburger68 wrote:
The ZeroSpyware detection is murkier, and Lavasoft has indeed not done a good job of explaining just why its detecting ZeroSpyware. But it's not a false positve. This is a policy decision.


Please take a look at this thread over at BBR. Towards the end of the thread there is a statement from a Lavasoft employee stating that after review Zerospyware will no longer be detected.
http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/remark,14339045

muf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hijack-this.net

It now leads to an XoftSpy affiliate.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh yeah, one more thing - hijackthis.com leads to a advertising Spy Sweeper and PestPatrol.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
eburger68
SWW Distinguished Expert


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Last Visit: 18 Nov 2008
Posts: 575
Location: Clearwater, FL

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nemesis6:

I've contacted Webroot and CA about hijackthis.com.

Best,

Eric L. Howes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nemesis6
Warrior


Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Last Visit: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 235
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both websites (hijackthis.com, hijack-this.net) are still active. Active in the sense that operation doesn't seem to have been affected.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
channi
Warrior


Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Last Visit: 12 May 2006
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nemesis6 wrote:
Both websites (hijackthis.com, hijack-this.net) are still active. Active in the sense that operation doesn't seem to have been affected.


I just checked myself, and hijackthis.com is still active.


I hope you wont all stomp on me for saying this, but it appears to me that a great many of these new and or lesser known, somewhat questionable apps, all come from the same adware and spyware distributors.

I realize that going by appearances is frowned upon often, in any sort of investigative endeavor, but very often things really are as grossly bad as they seem. I mean just look how many antispyware apps show up each month. Is this merely because there is money to be made?

Could this not also be a blitz, launched by distributors of adware and spyware, to muddy the waters and confuse us all? Surely you must admit, it really is difficult now to keep track of it all, and perhaps this is by design.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EASTER
Warrior


Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Last Visit: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 220
Location: Far Moon Of Endor

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nothing at all is been added to this very interesting and informative discussion since it tailed off in December but i will say it has done myself some good to read it.

Before educating myself to be able to adequately determine safe choices with these type offers i had early on run across & then installed NoAdware and at least found it's scanning engine "speed" far superior to any others at the time.
Even after quickly learning it was not to be depended on i still kept it as a personal novelty of sorts, i guess i was just obsessed with "speed" when it came to some programs.
Anyway now it seems after all these years in the suspect zone this NoAdaware is on the up & up path finally or certainly appears to be serious in making some strides in that direction, good to see.

Quote:
As some of you might know, we have been a member of COAST for some time, and have been active in anti-spyware far longer than most currently in the industry.


I found that quote interesting in that my very early on observations years ago determined even while this soft proddy was a known and verified 'false pos" producer it did also appear to me to have some very positive coding techniques applied to the scan engine itself, hence the rapid-speed scanning point i bring attention to.
Hopefully now they will even more improve on that aspect and coupled with this new improved behavior & detections attention, can serve a very useful purpose in this field?

Just another note:

Upon a new installation of NoAdware V.4 it attempts to "change" the HKLM IE SEARCH PAGE from the custom settings on my machine to www.msn.com/access/allinone.asp from what i keep mine at Google.com
_________________
*******************


THE FORCE IS VERY STRONG IN THIS FAMILY!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Spyware Warrior Forum Index -> Anti-Spyware and Security Software Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



smartBlue Style © 2002 Smartor
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group