Microsoft Denies Claria got Spyware Exception 275
daria42 writes "Microsoft has denied its AntiSpyware application has given adware-maker Claria special treatment. The denial has been issued amid reports MS is looking to buy Claria, and is in response to security researchers' reports stating AntiSpyware had downgraded the threat level posed by Claria's adware products. The downgrade in threat level merely represented an effort to be "fair and consistent with how Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) handles similar software from other vendors," according to a statement published by Microsoft." As reader jfengel writes, though, "they neglected to mention what software that might be, nor did they publish the analysis."
More info and analysis (Score:5, Informative)
Compare and contrast to the lies and misdirection spread (as is normal), by Microsoft's resident spin doctor Robert Scoble [weblogs.com]. See his Ballmer interview [msdn.com], aka, The Idiots Guide to Brownnosing, to see his true colors.
Lots of Gator-bashing is rightly occurring all over the MSDNosphere, see here [msdn.com] for a funny example. Remember, even Microsoft employees [blogspot.com] (commenting anonymously, of course) hate this idea.
I'm guessing that Microsoft will somehow integrate Claria's obnoxious 'personal marketing' tactics into Internet Explorer 7 or the new RSS functions to get a chunk of the targeted intarweb ad market which Adsense has completely sewn up for normal web pages. We should go and tell them [msdn.com] what we think about Claria and Gator, not to mention their general business ethics. Don't let Scoble's lies deceive you, and don't hold back.
Re:More info and analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Any attempt to incorporate software like Gator into Windows, or an attempt to allow software like Gator greater control...will mean I am no longer a card-carrying member of the fan club.
Seriously, I have spent way too much time cleaning that junk off of my daughter's computer. The MS anti-spyware program works well now, but if they disable it for their 'partners' it will royally suck.
And then I'll have to eat crow for quite a while.
Re:More info and analysis (Score:5, Funny)
Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Welcome.
Re:More info and analysis (Score:5, Funny)
They're solving that. Once MS buys Gator, they'll fix the bugs that make it removable.
"Integrated into the operating system," like IE, Media, etc. The script should be familiar by now.
Re:More info and analysis (Score:2, Insightful)
But please, don't fall into the fallacy that if Microsoft didn't exist, that you would have no way of earning a living, or any of the other variations along the continuum.
The Microsoft monopoly hurt the computer industry including everybody in it from consumer to worker to investor to competitor. Monopolies charge prices that are too high and that depresses economic activity and that hurts people. It's that simple. That is the beef, and you are free to hold all the other opinions you have.
[Theory] backwards-compatible AdSense competition (Score:2)
MS is likely hoping to counter Google by integrating an AdSense competitor directly into the browser, in a manner similar to Claria, but shipped with the next OS. However, the huge install base of previous versions of windows is likely to be dominant for the next 5 years at least.
This is their way of ensuring that their AdSense competitor is available for previous versions of their OS -- allow their own viral marketing products to slip by.
Frankly, it would be an intelligent tactic, and not necessarily a bad way of accomplishing their ends.
The less scrupulous way would be to force people to upgrade to the newer OS, but they are rightly wary of losing trust, particularly with corp. clients.
Disclaimer: hey, I'm a
Re:More info and analysis (Score:2)
There are any number of scenario's, some good, some bad, as to what MS will do. They could be buying them to shut them down (and don't want to tip their cards before the purchase, thus we have their silence on the matter). Or they could be buying them for some other technology they hold, and don't plan to continue their business (or sell it off without said technology to someone else).
I think it's a bit premature to be claiming the sky is falling, especially in light of the fact that other spyware vendors seem to reclassify vendors all the time:
http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/threats/ [benedelman.org]
Re:More info and analysis (Score:4, Informative)
And oh, it's really funny to see an anonymous coward carp at Scoble, who consistently has shown that his opinions are his own, whether it be about MSN/China or Microsoft/Gay Rights. Yes he works for Microsoft. Yes he blogs. If you can't deal with that, don't read him. But stop calling _him_ a brown-noser when we know nothing about you or your biases.
Re:More info and analysis (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of his questions in the Ballmer interview:
* Why does Microsoft care about developers?
* Microsoft is a leader in transparency and blogging. Why did you allow blogging?
* Coming up with tough questions for you is hard. If you were in my position what tough questions would you ask Microsoft's CEO?
I'm sorry. That's a man brown-nosing just as hard as he can.
Chris Mattern
Re:More info and analysis (Score:2)
Pfft.
Re:More info and analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you want to be taken seriously, shouldn't you give interviews to people you don't have the ability to fire?"
Re:More info and analysis (Score:4, Interesting)
On the contrary, we should encourage them to integrate obnoxious adware into every aspect of the browser and OS. If that doesn't persuade the world to switch, nothing will.
Re:Difference between Opera and Gator? (Score:4, Informative)
Gator is often installed automatically by other software/websites. The only way to get Opera is to install it yourself, implying that you actually want it.
With Opera, the ads are obviously linked to a piece of software (the browser) and only appear in that software, in a well-defined area. With Gator, ads appear whenever you surf the Web with no immediately obvious link to any piece of software.
Spy Sweeper too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:5, Insightful)
That is part of why a program that installs itself, logs your keystokes, saves your credit card info, and turns on your webcam while you are in the shower is a "petentially unwanted program" As long as anti-adware companies are suable entities, we are going to have these issues in addition to absolutely egregious issues like MS buying a spyware company.
Next thing you know Cancer will have to be called "potentially unwated cells."
And let us not be of the mindset, if people can't figure out how to keep spyware off their computer, they deserve it. A lot of those people are our parents and grandparents.
Can you imagine spyware clippy- It looks like you are writing a letter to a bankruptcy attorney. Would you like me to set you up with my rich exiled Nigerian uncle?
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:5, Interesting)
The needed mechanism is already in windows. All we need to do is find and distribute hashes of known spyware (software permissions policy, or something like that, it works by hash, filename, certificate, and maybe location). Windows will then simply refuse to execute (if it's an executable, or load it if it's a library or control).
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, a few years ago I worked in a lab that was developing video conferencing software. One of the guys had a cool tool that he liked to demo. He's ask you if your machine had a camera, and if so, what's the hostname or IP address. He'd type it into his program's "host" widget, and if it was a Windows machine, a few seconds later the view from the camera would appear on his screen. It didn't matter whether the camera was on or off; his program remotely turned it on. It also turned on the microphone, if there was one.
You can probably imagine the effect this had on a lot of users.
One fun thing was the people who would ask if there's anything that can be done about it. He would basically say "Well, I know how to remotely turn the camera off, if that's what you mean. But that doesn't do you a lot of good, because someone else can come along and just turn it back on, if they know what I know." He'd also say that his code only works with Windows machines; no other system that he knew of had the glaring security holes that allowed such remote access.
All this came out of a few guys' research into what it took to get their conferencing software running on Windows.
Dunno if it still works, though. It's been a few years.
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:3, Insightful)
The GAIN Network has a unique permission-based relationship with tens of millions of users. The GAIN Network enables consumers to download and use some of the Web's most popular software applications -- for free. In return, consumers agree to receive targeted promotions/ads from GAIN Network advertisers
Instead of ad-ware removal tool, call it permissions-based Universal Uninstaller of Various Advertisment Delivery Applications.
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:3, Insightful)
AdWare is very different IMHO - it displays ads in the program in lieu of you paying for it.
Now, I think adware can work as a business model - it works for most websites for instance, no reason it can't work for some software - like Opera for instance.
Spyware should be flat out illegial - anything that installs as part of another program, or like GAIN pops up windows to display ads is just wrong. It's one thing to have an ad that is clearly part of the program chrome, and you know what program it's associated with as well as presumebly why it's there and another to cause more pop-ups on the web.
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:3, Insightful)
Now antivirus software, that is dangerous, because in some cases they really do interfere with each other, and therefore you have to rely on a single product to catch everything.
Re:Spy Sweeper too (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why people should not be supporting commercial entities that are selling spyware detection/removal software.
This should all be free, open source, software that includes a community updated database of spyware junk. That way money and corruption stay out of the mix.
A question of trust (Score:5, Informative)
The real issue here is Microsoft abusing their position of trust within the general computer user community. No, I'm not talking about people like us here...I'm talking about Ma and Pa Computer User...the ones who see a virus or spyware warning and panic. Many of these people rely upon the recommendations offered by the spyware detection/removal applications to decide on how best to manage their systems. By artificially upgrading Claria products from 'remove' to 'ignore', Microsoft is taking unfair advantage of these users' trust.
Also from TFA:As far as I'm aware, no other spyware removal application has promoted Claria products in this fashion. Until Microsoft publishes these 'objective criteria', and shows how Claria products managed to get upgraded from 'remove' to 'ignore' under them, we will have no choice but to assume more ulterior motives.
A very simple explanation. (Score:5, Funny)
First, a quote:
Has Microsoft given in to vendors' threats? Or forgotten how badly "adware" damages the Windows experience (ultimately encouraging users to switch to other platforms)? [benedelman.org]
Now, the key, critical piece of information.
Microsoft's anti-spy ware devision is headed by a MAC user! You see, MAC zealots have infiltrated the Microsoft hierarchy, and are plotting it's downfall from within.
As a matter of fact, this is a pervasive presence, weaving into all levels of the company.
Think about it. Doesn't Clippy make much more sense as MAC sabotage than as an actual feature? No doubt someone floated a mock up with the note, "Looks just like something I saw at the last MAC expo."
Architecture changes that mean the XBOX II won't be able to run XBOX games, the endless delays in Longhorn, the XP default theme, the differences between XP Home and XP Pro, these are all contributed by MAC users who are gradually whittling away Microsoft from within.
And because Microsoft has been shamelessly copying the MAC for so long, all they have to do is float the rumor that MAC is going to do something, and Microsoft programmers and management throw themselves into trying to replicate it, or at least toss together a half asses rip-off of the feature / technology.
Re:A very simple explanation. (Score:3, Interesting)
Dude, I have sources. [gamesindustry.biz] It's not FUD, it's what Microsoft has been announcing all along. There are major architecture changes taking place (Video card and processor for example), and they won't be able to either emulate or embed the original XBOX hardware on the new XBOX.
To quote the article linked above:
On the flip side:
Here's the deal, MS will be recompiling a lot of games to run on the new hardware. Why they expect this to work without any problems I don't know. They're switching processors for crying out loud. How do they plan to get these recompiled games out to customers without charging them for a new copy, they haven't said. They've made a lot of promises about things just "working" but the fact that at the very least a recompile is necessary means at the moment they're spewing a lot of vapor and marketing but not any substance.
Re:A question of trust (Score:3, Insightful)
The real issue is "where does Microsoft want to go tomorrow"? Today they downgrade the recommendation on what to do with Claria. Microsoft revolves around the long-term strategy and to believe that this is one of the few times when one of their decisions isn't a stepping stone towards something else is to take the bet on the horse with the longest odds on the field.
Funny qote from TFA (Score:5, Funny)
Well, 10 million compromised windowsboxes seems to contradict that belief.
Re:Funny qote from TFA (Score:5, Funny)
Not at all...they firmly believe that everyone should have complete control over what runs on your computer... ^_^
Not funny, really. (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as it's MS DRM approved (Score:2)
Re:Funny qote from TFA (Score:2)
Also, why won't ms let me run a windows machine without IE, or outlook express? I don't have complete control if theres software there that i can't remove.
Microsoft was always a kidder (Score:3, Insightful)
"'We firmly believe that people should have complete control over what runs on their computers,' Microsoft added."
Anyone else find that funny?
Let's hear it for conspiracies... (Score:2, Interesting)
Please take off your tin foil hats, guys!
One might say that Microsoft is primarily responsible for the entire spyware issue (although I suspect Firefox's track record would be worse, albeit better than IE, if it were as popular). But MS AntiSpyware is a fine piece of software, however. It's easy to use and does its work better than many of its competitors.
Re:Let's hear it for conspiracies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's AntiSpyware worked well because Microsoft didn't write it...Giant did. Back before Microsoft got their hooks into it, it was a fine piece of sofware...past tense.
Re:Let's hear it for conspiracies... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not a fine piece of software. It _was_ one and it has been intentionally made otherwise.
I'm keeping my tinfoil hat firmly on. Imagine if Ford bought the company that checks for defects in cars, and the next week all Ford defects were considered as desirable behavior. Imagine if Monsanto bought the company that decides whether Bovine Growth Hormone is bad for you, and the next week it was announced that BGH is just fine... actually, you don't really have to imagine that.
This is a tiny attempt to extend to the software industry what is already standard in the 'traditional' industries; the use of quality and safety regulating entities to discourage competition rather than to protect the consumer.
I _will_ say that I don't expect MS to be as evil about it as Monsanto et al for a good many years yet.
Re:Let's hear it for conspiracies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please take your head out of the sand.
"One might say that Microsoft is primarily responsible for the entire spyware issue..."
No, thousands of knowledgeable people *do* say it.
"I suspect Firefox's track record would be worse, albeit better than IE, if it were as popular"
That's a moot point.
"MS AntiSpyware is a fine piece of software..."
Penicillin is a fine medicine, but its makers don't go around spreading syphilis.
Re:Let's hear it for conspiracies... (Score:2)
Penicillin is a fine medicine, but its makers don't go around spreading syphilis
That's not a valid comparison. It's more like the makers of penicillin supplying leaky condoms.
Re:Let's hear it for conspiracies... (Score:2)
bah (Score:4, Funny)
Re:bah (Score:2)
I have 2modpoints left, and I'm in bad mood. So I wanted to mod insightful a comment like: "microsoft sucks!" but there was no comment like that. What's up with you guys?
Simple. There is one thing slashdotters hate even more than Microsoft, and that's karma whoring.
Re:bah (Score:3, Funny)
YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this in YRO? What right is being infringed or threatened? If you don't like MS's anti-spyware tool, don't use it!
Re:YRO? (Score:4, Insightful)
The right to privacy. This is a tool created by the same people who make Windows, and shows that Microsoft may well start favouring certain spyware companies.
Re:YRO? (Score:2)
And, how is your right to privacy infringed or threatened when you simply choose not to use this free product? As the GP said, there are plenty of others to pick from. Who cares if MS is less stringent on some ad companies? There's nothing stopping AdAware, or SpyBot or any of the others from doing exactly the same. Nothing, that is, except people just walking away from them and using something else. "Rights" are not involved when you're simply picking among a range of free tools and deciding which one you want to use.
Re:Bah (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bah (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bah (Score:3, Informative)
"Microsoft has denied" (Score:3, Funny)
this is
[evil demonic laugh]MWHAHAHAHA ![/evil demonic laugh]
What else did they change? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, um, what other program has had it's threat level changed?
What really annoys me (Score:5, Interesting)
The small print says they may not be actual spyware, but potentially dangerous items, most unknowledgable people will just remove them anyway, because it's the default option.
Re:What really annoys me (Score:2, Funny)
Why doesnt remote desktop show as a possible threat?
It's easier to connect to a remote host with that software!
OH yeah right,,,it's a ms product!
Re:What really annoys me (Score:3, Interesting)
At least MSNger Plus! doesn't automatically check the "Yes, install this" box for the adware, you'd have to ignore the warnings, then click "YES, INSTALL THIS" to get it. I use MSNger Plus! and don't have any spyware at all.
Re:What really annoys me (Score:2, Insightful)
How about showing me where MS Antispyware lists Remote Desktop as a potentially dangerous application. Can't do it? That's what I thought.
Don't be a dumbass.
Re:What really annoys me (Score:2)
The problem is not detecting it (thus making those who do not know aware of it) the problem is removing it by default.
Master Plan (Score:2, Funny)
Multiple programs.... (Score:5, Informative)
PS. M$ sucks.
Re:Multiple programs.... (Score:2)
(I acknowledge the other reasons, of course... Linux is cool, I get to hack my way through things to make them work sometimes... the regular upkeep keeps me busy, up2date and new kernels and all that... it's fun in its own way.)
Re:Multiple programs.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Less than GATOR......
OSS spyware detection (Score:5, Interesting)
I manage a number of windows machines at the office and wit he recent declassification's without good explanation that has occurred in the sector i have lost all faith in most of the products
An OSS solution would be wonderful (hell i would rather switch the machines to linux , but that is not an option right now due to certain programs that are required by the company)
Commercial solutions always to me seem rather susceptible to legal action for the classification and or bribery.
Re:OSS spyware detection (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OSS spyware detection (Score:2)
Re:OSS spyware detection (Score:2)
Its a last line of defence
So long as your network is as safe as you can make it from intrusion , and you make sure people abide by your protocols you should be safe.
My main problem is How can i be totally safe if i cant trust the provider of the defensive software.
Having half of your network with Admin privileges is daunting and i do not envy you , i had the same problem at one point with an insurance program , Thankfully there was an update which didn't require that level of access so i got out of that loop rather quickly . Whilst i was stuck with it i had to basically limit net usage , which did not make me very popular , but it was better than the possibility of having to fix all the machines
Re:OSS spyware detection (Score:2)
If an open DB could be created and a server side POSIX program it could serve to support linux in the server market
Spyware as now is only a major windows problem , but in the future i can see it attempting to nudge into the Unix based OSs as market share increases so it may be an investment for the future
Linux on the desktop needs every push we can give it , but we should not forget about the server side
Clam-av is a great example of a program that Spyware definitions could be added too , personally i don't have the knowledge of windows to really do anything about this but im sure there are still a lot of people who have to use windows (and have the know how) for various reasons that may want to contribute to it.
PS:Much respect , i do enjoy reading your site.
Anyway you get spywares because you decide it (Score:2, Interesting)
I get it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I get it! (Score:2)
Re:I get it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Scarier thought: How long have people tried to make a sure-fire money-generating internet ad system? Once MS buys up all the adware and spyware code, they will have instant access to the Windows desktops. Streaming ads 24x7, a new "feature", without which XP won't install.
And no, I don't think the Antispyware Formerly Known as GIANT will object to MS adware - do you?
Suuuuuuure, Bill (Score:4, Funny)
Hmm, I'm sure they wouldn't lie and I shall read the statement as soon my flying pig is back.
It's on a mission, surveying the earth in order to prove that it's flat.
Re:Suuuuuuure, Bill (Score:2)
So what they're really saying (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, that's what they're saying (Score:2)
If you read their whitepaper, they probably consider the thing to be relatively low on the damage scale, which is kinda true: it doesn't wipe your disk or log your keystrokes. It is sending out personal info, but it's not sending out your credit card numbers. It's just tracking your browsing habits.
I'm not saying that's good, especially since it's potentially worse than the declared intent if there are any bugs or undeclared "features". But the declared intent is comparatively benign. The tin-foil-hatters will tell you that any privacy breach is major, and they're not wrong, but it's not the reason I'm ticked off.
The real evil with Gator is how hard it is to remove. That's what makes the thing truly malicious malware. The "ignore" setting should only be applied to software that can believably be removed by uninstalling it. That's not Gator, at least not last I heard. (I'm sure not gonna install the thing to find out.)
If you install it and you like the popups and don't mind people tracking your browsing, well, bully for you. But if you don't like it and you can't get rid of it, that makes it an even better candidate for the "quarantine and remove" setting even than a keylogger that can at least be deleted easily.
confusing the user (Score:2, Insightful)
However, with some programs having the "ignore" recommendation, and others having "quarantine", it will probably give users the impression that Claria is at least somewhat ok, or something like that, which it is not (at least in my opinion).
Actually, what kind of impression does that give someone who doesn't know any better?
Something is detected by the spyware scanner, but the default recommendation is to leave it there.
"Hey, this one is ok because it only spies me or invades my privacy a little bit."
Don't let this put you off the product (Score:4, Informative)
There are really two issues. The first is the catalogue of what's spyware and what isn't. I don't know if MS's program is good at that, and the stories we're reading are sort of disturbing. I buy all of that.
But the second issue concerns the product's ability to remove nasty stuff on your machine. And their anti-spyware app is very good at that.
It's much better than spybot or ad-aware, in fact -- especially with the stuff that scatters hundreds of files and registry entries around your system and reinstalls itself after you try to clean it with another program.
There's nothing that will prevent you from running another program to clear off the stuff that MS's product doesn't get rid of. So don't let this situation prevent you from running this software to get rid of other stuff. It's good at it, and it's free.
Re:Don't let this put you off the product (Score:2, Interesting)
If you've got a spare machine that can handle a 2k/XP install, install either of those OS on the computer. Grab MS Anti-Spyware, Grab Ad-Aware, and Spybot S&D. Install all of them.
Let MS-AS be your default scanner/detector of on the fly spyware threat detection instead of Spybot. Now go find a webpage (or deliberately install thru some other program) the ISTsvc (Internet Search Toolbar) spyware. Now, run either ad-aware, or spybot, and try to remove it. Worked, right? Ooops, notice how MS just trusted a change to your computer? Okay, that's detcting spyware being removed. You should get another notification immediately afterwards showing that another change has been allowed within windows. Go to MS-AS security section, look up all the alerts you've gotten. Scroll down that list. Notice a trusted change by MS-AS allowing ISTsvc to reinstall itself on your computer?
Now, I admit I may not be totally correct. I have yet to do a vice-versa and allow Spybot S&D to be the on the fly detection program. But from what I've noticed, companies providing anti-spyware solutions seem to have incentive to sneakily allow some unwanted stuff on your computer; they eventually want you to pay for their full version of the program, which you'll hope will do the job even more thoroughly. They've set out a mousetrap in order to try to make more money off of you.
Re:Don't let this put you off the product (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't dispute that they're letting some things through, and that the decisions they make about what gets through aren't always in the end user's best interest.
I don't have a lot of experience with spyware, because I mostly run linux, and on windows I find that it's not too hard to avoid it in the first place. I'm not an expert. But the other day I had to clean off someone else's machine that was infect with the IBIS toolbar.
I couldn't get rid of it with spybot or ad-aware. They'd find a bunch of junk and clean it off, but you'd reboot and it would come back.
When I ran the MS tool, it found more than 500 files and registry entries for it, and it cleaned them off. When I rebooted, it didn't boot cleanly (missing files were being referenced in the registry), and I thought "oh no, here we go". Then I started to get pop up windows about things trying to make changes. It told me to rerun the scanner. I did, rebooted again, and it was clean.
This is speculative on my part, and I could be wrong -- so people, please don't yell at me too much if I am, I'm aware I'm on shaky ground here -- but I had the impression that the MS tool was tagging things as spyware *because* they were trying to change registry entries and hijack the browser.
In other words, they weren't just using a file name, or a signature of a file to tag something as spyware, they were looking at the behavior of the thing. If a process tries to do something nasty, they follow it back to the source, and nuke it.
If that's what it's doing (and again, I think, but don't know, that it is), it's a big innovation. It's a good way you to fight spyware that generates lots of random files with randomized data and random names to reinstall itself.
MS, for all of their flaws (and they have plenty, I don't want to be an apologist) has vast resources and a lot of smart people. Their tool lets people report back on infestations automatically. They can throw people at the problem and code for new problems almost as soon as they arise.
They understand the OS better than anyone, obviously, and can use that knowledge to track down the source of reinstalls more effectively than comparatively small outsider shops.
That doesn't take away from the negativity of their deals with the devil. That sucks, they shouldn't do it, and they're really shooting themselves in the foot over the long run by making those deals, because no one has a bigger stake in making windows solid and trustworthy than MS, and this crap really undermines that effort.
But if you have IBIS, and you need to get rid of it, their tool is terrific. If you have that problem, don't let the fact that they've decided to be deliberate bad at ISTsvc removal prevent you from using it for IBIS. That's really all that I'm saying.
Don't stop running spybot or ad-aware. But add the MS tool to your arsenal. It does a lot of good stuff.
I will try to run your expiriment so I can learn more about this... thanks for posting about it.
Re:Don't let this put you off the product (Score:3, Insightful)
Not from what I've read from numerous people who have tried it, here and on Usenet.
It finds some stuff the others miss, it protects against some stuff the others miss - but so do they in relation to it.
Adding the MS product to your bag of tricks is reasonable, but dumping any other antispyware product would be a mistake, as you said.
But saying it's MUCH better than Ad-Aware or Spybot I think is incorrect.
And finally, the point of the article is: you can't trust it anymore. That simple.
Re:Don't let this put you off the product (Score:2)
That's probably a real problem, though. I wouldn't be surprised if installing things like java are a pain as well.
I had done my tweaking before I installed the tool, so I didn't see that stuff.
In related news, Microsoft makes bicycle advances: (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft has made a stunning leap forward in the field of bicycle locomotion technology, developing a system of operation that allows for the appearance of forward progress whilst routinely backpedaling.
another brilliant marketing strategy? (Score:5, Insightful)
When microsoft bought Giant their antispyware program was one of the best. When microsoft re-launched it under Microsoft AntiSpyware (and marketed as a new product), it got raving reviews.
The effects are that people will start to trust MS antispyware, and will be starting to ditch their other antispyware programs. As soon as the majority of the people are used to the program, microsoft can dictate their own terms to what is spyware and what is not. Ofcourse microsoft will never go too far, but the changes will be "subtle", not enough to get angry about and still have solid bunch of supporters defending the program for microsoft.
Claria = Windows Installer Service version 4? (Score:2, Funny)
Think about it...delivering A/V and system updates via clickable Ads - brilliant!
Oooohhhh...and so so profitable.
JB
fair about how other companies' software? (Score:3, Interesting)
This denial just proves once again MS' dishonesty towards customers, may they be corporate or individuals.
Why don't people act upon the fact that MS is just lying so blatantly? Oh sure, their lawyers are good, but lawyers can't do anything against massive boycott!
Action, to the streets dammit! Make piles of MS CDs to melt!
Re:fair about how other companies' software? (Score:2)
How they do that (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/
This white paper provides an overview of the approach and criteria categories currently used by the Microsoft research team to analyze and classify software.
let the users decide (Score:2)
What other programs? see below... (Score:3, Informative)
Think about it folks... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me give you a hint.
NO!
So if they're going to make any statement about it at all, this is the one it will be. Anybody having trouble understanding this?
Re:Ad-Aware (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ad-Aware (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ad-Aware (Score:2)
But I digress... This news really isn't anything major. It is just a standard business practice. Though posting up something like that on a site like this will almost always generate anti-M$ flamewars.
Anti-spyware does the trick for me every time, but then again the only thing it ever detects are a few cookies.
Re:Ad-Aware (Score:5, Insightful)
Before around '98 you needed only 'antivirus' software mainly. Then with the broadband spreading came the 'personal firewall'. In the last few years came Ad-Aware which is 'needed' if you want to get rid of spyware. In the last year and a half i was starting to see reports about needing both Ad-Aware and S&D, and now people are starting to suggest that someone needs 3 independent spyware/adware removal tools to clean up!!! Not to prevent infection, but to clean up!
Seriously folks, when will the madness stop? You can't patch a broken design combined with user unawareness by semi-working cannot be trusted commercial programs!
Personally i stopped using windows around the time XP arrived in 2001. I just had enough. I don't need no antivirus software, firewall software, ad and spyware removal and detection software and to fight an uphill battle trying to contain IE with an alternative browser. It is absolutely ridicoulus what someone needs to put up with.
Re:Ad-Aware (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting comment, which reminded me of a story:
I once worked for a bank, where there was a computer that processed all electronic banking files. The majority of the programs on this computer were written by a guy I worked with. This guy considered himself a programming god, while I thought he was below average.
Now, one of the quite critical programs that ran on this computer was in the habit of crashing occasionally. The guy attributed this to an OS fluke, and instead of debugging the program and resolving the error, he wrote a program that simply checked whether the crashing program was running, and if it wasn't, would restart it.
Without our department knowing, the crashes increased in frequency. We didn't know this, because the crashing program was restarted all the time. Unfortunately, at a certain point in time the crashes occurred about every few seconds, and our system basically went down. I was part of the team that analysed and resolved the problem, and, of course, we found that it was a basic DESIGN flaw in the crashing program. I won't go into details, but basically, with some knowledge of file transfer protocols, this flaw would have been avoided.
Now, why is this story on topic? Because Windows is JUST like this crashing program, Microsoft is JUST like the guy who wrote the crashing program, and AntiSpam/AntiVirus/Firewalls are JUST like the program that restarted the crashing program.
What I expect to find, in the not-too-distant future, is that our Windows systems will simply stop running because the patch programs need all computing resources to keep Windows from going down. And the only way to resolve this, is a redesign. Which should be done by people who know how to design a good system, and not by a marketing company.
Re:Ad-Aware (Score:2)
And sometimes I start the spy ware tools to keep my hands occupied while I am waiting for the inspiration.
Re:Wonderful (Score:5, Interesting)
You, sir, are entirely unfair!
Microsoft clearly said The downgrade in threat level merely represented an effort to be "fair and consistent with how Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) handles similar software from other vendors,"
It's entirely consistent. Microsoft has consistently held their software offerings to, ahem, an improved standard.
I mean, have you ever looked at how Microsoft's C++ compilers, um, pioneered their own standard, entirely different -- and, so long as you don't like correct exception handling, consistent RTTI, or the availability of a Standard library, entirely better -- from the ANSI/ISO standard. Or look at the, um, improvements to JavaScript and the browser DOM.
Or just look at the XML for Word docs. Ok, well absent a non-disclosure agreement you can't actually look at it, but trust Microsoft it's entirely consistently inconsistent with anything else out there.
How anyone can say Microsoft isn't being consistent in its approach I just don't understand at all.
Re:Wonderful (Score:2)
Re:Wonderful (Score:3, Funny)
You make a good point, and what GCCs does is actually a good thing: something slightly different is like The Crying Game -- hey, she looked like a chick until I'd invested in weeks of dating, and when after all that effort I got into her pants, out popped a pee-pee!
Same with Microsoft extension -- you gets lots of people who don't notice the slight difference -- the Adam's Apple, if you will -- and think that C++ is what Microsoft calls C++. Then they get a real girl, and don't know what to do with her, because they've been dating Microsoft "almost girls" all their lives.
GCC's extensions, on the other hand, are like a big, hairy, honest gay guy buying you a drink in gay bar: you see the bulge in the pants, it's totally different, and hey, if you want to try that lifestyle, it's gay, but, as Seinfeld says, "not that there's anything wrong with that". But it's different enough that you know it's different, and you know if you go back to girls, you'll need an entirely different technique to get anywhere.
No offense to anyone intended by the analogy: the point is that obvious differences are honest -- they don't fool you into thinking you're not using an extension. Slight differences are pernicious, not because they're necessarily bad, but because it makes it hard to recognize when an extension is being used.
A similar concern is why C++'s casting is so ugly compared to C's: a C style cast (MemPtr *a = (MemPtr) 0xb800
Re:Commercial programs (Score:5, Interesting)
Where is the Open Source anti-adware, anti-spyware stuff? I don't see a spyware removal tool for Linux. Oh
But the point is that all the Open Source software available for Windows is there by accident. It wasn't written for Windows, it just was ported to Windows from some unix variant. Nobody writes GPL software with Windows in mind -- it's just that some Windows user manages, with more or less effort, to persuade it to compile, and is obliged by the licence to make the source available. {If anybody persuaded BSD-licenced code to compile under Windows, they probably would keep it closed-source -- and maybe even disable some options in an effort to extort money out of users}.
My computer is my property, and I have the right to determine what software runs on it. Installing software without my explicit consent is at least trespass {which is a civil offence and grounds to sue} and may constitute criminal damage {which is a crime, so dial 999 and let the police deal with it}. These things were already offences long before computer-specific legislation was passed. The use of confusing language to persuade someone to install software may additionally constitute Burglary Artifice. If it's a Crown Court, then the odds are in your favour -- out of a jury of 12 people, how likely do you think it is that none or only one have experienced PC trouble due to spyware?
You know, I often wonder what would life have been like if, way back in early 1976, some members of the Homebrew Computer Club had dragged Bill Gates {the author of that letter [cryptnet.net]} into the gents' and given him a bloody good hiding. That has to be my second choice for an "if I could alter the course of history" fantasy.
Linux Gets the BSOD (Score:3, Funny)