Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Security Software Your Rights Online

Spyware Coming Under Scrutiny 134

Posted by michael from the tables-turned dept.
trick-knee writes "Nytimes.com has an article considering the ethics of snoopware. In it, TrueActive is given positive press for removing a 'feature called "silent deploy", which allows the buyer to place the program on someone else's computer secretly via e-mail, without having physical access to the machine', although little criticism is made for making the stuff in the first place. Supposedly, Symantec and Network Associates have added features to their antivirus programs that detect snoopware, which may be a good thing. One surprising point you may be shocked to hear is that 'at least one program... may not pose a real threat of spying, at least. Mr. Gordon said that his company's security researchers, working with the Justice Department, were unable to find any actual working software that could be downloaded from the LoverSpy site after paying the fee. He seemed less than stunned by the notion that a product advertised via spam might not be all that it was claimed to be.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spyware Coming Under Scrutiny More

Spyware Coming Under Scrutiny

Comments Filter:

  • I'm nothing like those guys... (Score:3, Funny)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @09:46AM (#7182324) Journal
    He seemed less than stunned by the notion that a product advertised via spam might not be all that it was claimed to be.

    Any orders that I take for the Brooklyn Bridge will be honoured. Just make sure that $5,000 is in my PayPal account and you're good to go.

  • Spyware (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dolo666 ( 195584 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @09:47AM (#7182329) Journal
    So you're telling me that the spyware company True Active is given kudos for deciding not to send trojans out to the public anymore?

    That's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer should get kudos for not killing anyone anymore.

    • Re:Spyware (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That would be silly. Jeffrey Dahmer is dead, and we have yet to get our hands on True Active.

    • Re:Spyware (Score:4, Informative)

      by _Sharp'r_ ( 649297 ) <sharper@@@booksunderreview...com> on Friday October 10, 2003 @11:24AM (#7183250) Homepage Journal
      So many IE web users have some sort of spyware/parasite installed (about 10%, based on my web logs) that I finally put up a Spyware Detection and Removal [booksunderreview.com] page on an unrelated site, just so I'd have something to refer people to!

      If you are serious about privacy, then downloading and installing one of the commercial products (I like Aluria's Spyware Eliminator [aluriaaffiliates.com] or the BPS Spyware and Adware Remover [regnow.com] the best) is actually worth it. I didn't believe that until I happened to get a free copy of a couple of the commercial versions and found all the features I was missing in the freeware I was using, like a good list of domains and IPs that have been found to have been used by parasites/spyware ready for one-button access denial!

      If you just want a "quick" fix that isn't quite as comprehensive (but covers the basics), then hit the Spyware Detection and Removal [booksunderreview.com] page above and follow some of the "free scanner" links, or go to one of the commercial sites listed and get their "free" version. I've also tried AdAware, but like most of the other free versions, it didn't seem to pick up as much stuff as my the commercial version of the Aluria software.

      Of course, if you aren't running MS Windows, you can pretty much disregard all of the above advice.
      • I for one am very much personal-privacy/security online, but even I have my limits. I have worked tech support before, and you'd be amazed how many 1.4 gHz processors with 512 megs of RAM can run like crap. With Kazaa, WinMX, and Limewire ALL installed with all their ad/spyware, along with cometcursor and webshots...
        I mean, come on, what do you expect? Some people just have it coming to them. I've just run out of sympathy for protecting the masses. All it takes is a quick skim over the EULA. "..
    • So you're telling me that the spyware company True Active is given kudos for deciding not to send trojans out to the public anymore?

      In related news, Attilla the Hun has been award the Nobel Peace Prize for not invading any sovreign lands since his death (although in all honesty he is far more deserving of it than Henry Kissinger)

  • Loverspy? (Score:5, Funny)

    by gykh ( 625487 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @09:47AM (#7182337) Journal
    Mr. Gordon said that his company's security researchers, working with the Justice Department, were unable to find any actual working software that could be downloaded from the LoverSpy site after paying the fee. He seemed less than stunned by the notion that a product advertised via spam might not be all that it was claimed to be.'"
    Havin a bit o' trouble with the missus there, eh, Gordo?

  • Spyware versus Virus (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DigitalSorceress ( 156609 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @09:52AM (#7182366)
    What I've never gotten a satisfactory answer on is: Why is it that a program that silently installs itself and is written by j.random is quickly added to the antivirus program updates, but yet if a coprpoation writes something similar, it never makes the list. Politics anyone?

    Don't believe me, two words:

    Comet Cursor

    Nowadays, I scan with antivirus software AND AdAware on a regular basis

    • Re:Spyware versus Virus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lane.exe ( 672783 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @09:58AM (#7182421) Homepage
      Because generally, users give consent in some form to spyware. Remember the last time you installed AOL IM for your little brother or sister, and at the end of the install, you were offered a free "once-in-a-lifetime" chance to cash in on that helpful Bonzai Buddy/Gator/GAIN software that AOL was nice enough to include with their product? Well, you and I may know that the "free deal" is a bad thing, but Joe 56k-Modem thinks "Hey, if it's good enough for AOL, it's good enough for me!" and goes ahead with the install, which then makes him agree to the license which lets them do this.

      It's more or less the same thing that happens with a Microsoft EULA. You agree to it, so it's not illegal anymore. I'd be curious to see what would happen to a virus writer who included a EULA with his next e-mail worm. Since mostly stupid people open those e-mail attachments anyway, a little box popping up with "OK" and "Cancel" and a license agreement might be a nice little legal loophole.

      Please be advised that I am not advocating the wanton destruction and/or infection of Microsoft systems. They'll do so on their own if you watch 'em long enough.

      • Generally users may be giving consent in some form to spyware, but every user whos computer i've ever removed gator etc from has had no idea the programs were there or that they were installed with something they downloaded. So part of the problem is the ignorance of the "unwashed" masses, these folks are never going to really read the EULA, nor are they going to understand it.
      • Okay granted, the "users give consent in some form to spyware" but you and I both know that in reality, most users are completely unaware that they have done so. It's just a form of social engineering or misdirection.... just like the magician who gets you to look that-a-way for the split second it takes to pull the pigeon out of his sleeve.

        That being said, I will conceede that an AV company might just get itself embroiled in a lot of lawsuits exploring that very issue... not a really great way to stay pro
        • At first I thought, "Yeah, AV companies selling a product that uninstalls another product the user agreed to, that's legal trouble."

          But then I realized, the user must also agree to install the AV software. That means any actions the software takes are done on behalf of the user, and the user can certainly consent to have files deleted from his own computer. This doesn't, of course, rule out the possibility that spyware companies could sue your the mcafees of the world, but it does pretty much preclude th
          • If the spyware companies included in their EULA that the user was forbidden from removing of having an agent remove the software without the consent of the spyware company or something like that, then the anti-virus company would be liable for interference with contractual relations. The virus company is inducing the user to break with the contract formed with the spyware company. I dunno...
            • it's a nasty idea, and I bet someone's doing it already. In Europe a provision like this would be unlawful under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive, but in the US... ?
      • Read my post here [slashdot.org].

        Remember, "YES" or "I AGREE" was never clicked..
      • Any software installed on your computer should be explicitly installed. It is wrong that rights are given away by an EULA. Most folks don't read the license agreement, they just want to use the software they bought. Most folks don't have a lawyer to advise them on the intricacies of the contract (so called) they have just entered in to.

        People do have a choice to use free software, but most are not aware of this choice. It's a consumer market and sadly, the market for computer software needs some over
      • As far as I am aware, a EULA is a legal contract and all the parties involved have to be named. Call me sceptical, but I have serious doubts about a virus writer giving out his real name in a EULA.
        • While I concur with the second part of the statement I'm not sure I agree with the first. A EULA (in many cases) is NOT a legal contract.

          Legal Contracts can't be signed under durress. If I go out and buy MS Office XP for whatever crazy price they charge for it now-a-days... here's how the system plays out.
          1. Pop in disk 1 to begin the install
          2. EULA pops up.
          3. I read it, and disagree
          4. So I click "No" or "I disagree"
          5. Installation quits
          6. I take Office XP back to wherever I bought it, with my recipt to ask for a re
          • you're crazy.

            Your beef is with the shop that won't let you return the software, and the shop's attitude can't affect your (separate) contract with Microsoft.

            And you may think this is "duress" but the legal definition is way narrower than the colloquial use of the term.
      • I'm surprised EULAs have any legality at all. Software (at least when used by individuals) should be like any other consumer product, the terms of its use should be covered by a consumer protection act that definitely and finally determines the responsibilities of both the maker and the user.

        You don't have to agree to a EULA when you buy a TV or a car, you shouldn't have to do it either for software. And in an ideal world, if a vendor tried to sneak in spyware (or obtrusive DRMs) with their main software,
    • How about this one...

      dameware for NT [dameware.com]
      http://www.dameware.com/ has been used by MANY crackers to remote control and take over systems.

      It has been installed by crackers via automated scripts exploiting the same code that recent trojans have used to silently install the "application" and then use it to control the systems. [I have seen at least five that have been compromised within hours of the exploits announcements. The managers of the systems thought that they had patched in time but they were mistaken..
    • "What I've never gotten a satisfactory answer on is: Why is it that a program that silently installs itself and is written by j.random is quickly added to the antivirus program updates, but yet if a coprpoation writes something similar, it never makes the list. Politics anyone?"

      Viruses don't have EULAs.

  • Google link, for those who refuse to register. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 10, 2003 @09:52AM (#7182369)
    For those who hate registering, here's the google news link. [nytimes.com]

  • Google Link (Score:2, Informative)

    by Flower Punk ( 411839 )
    Google Link to story [nytimes.com]

  • Well, sheesh. (Score:4, Funny)

    by LNO ( 180595 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @09:56AM (#7182398)
    He seemed less than stunned by the notion that a product advertised via spam might not be all that it was claimed to be

    You .. mean .. th-..that the hot hot young barely legal teenage vixen sluts ... DON'T really want me?

    But the nice man in the email said ..

    He ..

    God, my life sucks.
    • You mean I can't get a college degree by just paying a small fee?

      And my penis wont magically grow?

      And there arent lesbians waiting for me in college dorm rooms?

      NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  • Not about Spyware. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hanssprudel ( 323035 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @09:56AM (#7182402)
    This isn't about spyware (the first paragraph says so), but about programs that completely monitor users, and that to my knowledge are not bundled with freeware downloads.

    These programs are simply trojans, nothing else. It's just BackOrifice or Netbus for the less technically inclined, and maybe without the remote control features.

  • Huh? (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by kurosawdust ( 654754 )
    in it, TrueActive is given positive press for removing a 'feature called "silent deploy", which allows the buyer to place the program on someone else's computer secretly via e-mail, without having physical access to the machine'

    Does this sound to anyone else like those annoying people who think they should be rewarded for feeding, clothing and spending time with their children (something they were supposed to do anyway)? Perhaps we can work out some sort of compromise: if you want to make spyware, you ha

  • BO2K, cDc and Spyware? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Asprin ( 545477 ) <gsarnoldNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:02AM (#7182456) Homepage Journal

    Talk about passe' -- hey, how come nobody in the spyware/drive-by-installer/adware discussion ever talks about cDc [cultdeadcow.com] or Back-Orifice [bo2k.com] anymore? Have they been rendered totally irrelevant or are those bastards in the spyware "industry" the only ones who actually paid attention to the lessons they tried to teach about MS security?

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:03AM (#7182461)
    ...Mr. Gordon also expressed surprise that, despite claims, his researcher's penis remained at exactly 5 1/2" in length.
  • eBlaster is a similar piece of software that can be remotely installed...it has the same purpose such as keeping tabs on your kids, finding out if your wife is shagging the milkman etc. Although it's legitimate commercial software, it is truly evil. Apparently eBlaster is recognizable by its main program file, which is URLMKPL.DLL (486k), in the Windows/System folder. ZoneAlarm will also complain when eBlaster tries to send reports on your activity. The Windows XP firewall will not help one bit.

  • Ethics (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ericspinder ( 146776 ) * on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:06AM (#7182489) Journal
    Yes, spyware has some tricky ethics.
    Not that it really applies to my situation of course, but has it been legally decided that spyware logs from a family computer is admissible in court?
    How is it different from normal archives like web history lists, cookies, or logs of chat rooms(or IM).

    Is it a type of log or a wire tap. I see a wire tap as intercepting communication between two devices, but what is the device, the computer or the program running on the computer.

    Many chat programs have features to capture messages to an internal log. Is it legal to turn it on, without informing the other party or anyone involved in the conversations (if you are doing it to spy on a chat-addicted mate)?

    • How is it different from normal archives like web history lists, cookies, or logs of chat rooms(or IM)[?] Is it a type of log or a wire tap[?] ... Is it legal to turn it on, without informing the other party or anyone involved in the conversations (if you are doing it to spy on a chat-addicted mate)?

      The basic idea behind wiretap and evesdropping laws are:

      Alice and Bob are talking. If Alice wants to record the conversation, then she is allowed to. She doesn't need to tell Bob, although it is usually

      • or if she doesn't ask before making a recording, that is illigal.

        So, unless an app (whether it be spyware, trojan, virus, whatever) pops up a 'this program may monitor your keystrokes/conversations/http traffic/tcpip packets, do you want to continue [y/n]?' dialog (or hides it in a EULA), then its illegal.

        That kind of makes all those spyware programs illegal if you weren't aware they were being installed - I know many apps tell you (this is adware supported etc), but the others.... tut.

        what's the penal
      • In the Bill and Monica circus, someone taped a conversation with Monica about the affair. I remembered talking heads (people from the news shows) pointing out that in Maryland (where at least the caller resided) it is illegal not to inform both (or all) parties about the recording.

        I am sure that the laws of other states (and countries) are different. It might be great to say "this is how it is", but I believe that the real case-law involving computer conversation has yet to be written.

        I suspect, however

        • pointing out that in Maryland (where at least the caller resided) it is illegal not to inform both (or all) parties about the recording. ... I am sure that the laws of other states (and countries) are different.

          Good point, which is why I said for anything more specific, see a lawyer. The federal law follows the rules I outlined above.

          The US federal law permits recording by either side if they consent to it, such as me recording my home phone calls, or my employer recording phone calls if they have no

    • ASCII is generally not admissable in court because it's too easy to falsify. For other types of data, your mileage may vary.

  • Comcast spyware (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Darth Fredd ( 663620 ) <DarthFredd.gmail@com> on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:09AM (#7182512) Journal
    My sister got broadband for her windows PC. Comcast gave her a cd with the instructions "pop this in your computer and your broadband will work". So she did.

    It reconfigured the network settings so the broadband *did* work-but it also changed a bunch of stuff such as the IE icon, the title of IE "Microsoft Explorer-provided by comcast", bringing up popups and breaking the browser at random moments: which was all small stuff. The thing I worry[d] about was strange proccess's running..which could be anything, because my sister gets taken in by those "YOUR COMPUTER IS BROADCASTING AN IP ADDRESS" popups.

    She never signed anything, never clicked "yes", it was all autorun.
    • She never signed anything, never clicked "yes", it was all autorun.

      ....thats why her keyboard came with a shift key.


      [*rimshot*|groan]

      -b
    • The really annoying thing about the Comcast software is that it's completely unnecessary.

      My Mom recently got a new computer (bought through a computer show) so I put it together for her and set it up. After installing Windows XP and activating the firewall (why isn't that thing on by default?), I plugged her into the Comcast cable modem, and set up networking to use DHCP.

      That's it. That's all you have to do. If I had left it plugged in, Windows XP probably would have set up the network automatically

      • I guHs#it worked

        Nice.

        I know that was "guess it" - I can look through the "back" pages and see it. I've known that some packets have been getting just a little mangled through Comcast, and they managed to strike down one of the packets headed for that post. (Presumably the error correction for "Hs#" and "es " match? Just my luck.)

        It's kinda amusing, though. "I guess it works" and Comcast zaps it for me. It's be even funnier if we weren't paying for this.

        So, any typos in this post, blame it on wi

      • It is true that you can set up your connection throught the web-from, I bet it might be too difficult for a novice user. For me setting up my comcast connection involved setting proxies and typing in weird urls. If you run one of the programs off the CD, not the entire CD this is done automatically. Of course I elected to use the webform.
        • At least you got the choice - I didn't know there was a CD until after visiting my Mom's house. They had decided we had canceled the order and it took them a week or so before they would accept that we really did want Internet service through them. So we were unable to use anything besides the web form due to their little database glitch. (Apparently it takes them 3-5 buisness days to reverse a cancellation. You'd think they'd be a little more eager to get customers than that.)

          I'd really rather suppor

          • The only reason I got a choice was because my the CD failed repeatedly on the OSX machine in the house. I figured it was a problem with the software and called them. Turns out they didn't have the connection set up right (and it took them 3 days to fix it without them telling me it was fixed). But in testing the connection they showed me how to use the web form. After that I ditched the CD.

      • The really annoying thing about the Comcast software is that it's completely unnecessary.

        In my part of the country, it is apparently necessary, at least in the beginning. Around here, when you plug in a cable modem even without service you get a dhcp address but you cannot get out of comcast's network because the router stops you. here is a process of registration in which the MAC address of the cable modem (and ostensibly of the computer you are using) are registered. It is a very buggy process, and

    • I hate to break this to you but this is hardly the most offensive thing comcast does. In order to use certain portions of their support website, like chat help, you have to install a support agent [answersthatwork.com] (aka spyware agent) which allows comcast to muck around with your PC. It is also KNOWN to collect usage statistics and other data, and send it to comcast. Interestingly enough comcast's AUP [comcast.net] says you may not

      "participate in the collection of e-mail addresses, screen names, or other identifiers of others (without t

  • These programs have legitimate uses (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMikeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:10AM (#7182525) Journal
    It is going to be unpopular here, but you don't have right to provacy at work, and your children don't have a right to privacy from you.

    An employer has every right to monitor the usage of their computers and their network, just as they can go through your desk if they want. With very few exceptions, they don't have a right to look at your home pc. (For instance, if you work for a defense/intelligence organization as a government employee or a government contractor, you must consent to additional priovacy intrusions.)

    Likewise, you can monitor what anyone else does on your computer.

    The issue here is that the company in question made software that could easily be installed on machines that you don't own. They reduced that potential, and should be lauded for it.

    • can you wire tap your home phone to spy on your wife, husband, SO, or roommate?
      • can you wire tap your home phone to spy on your wife, husband, SO, or roommate?

        There are specific laws in most states that prohibit listening in on a telephone conversation with the knowledge of both parties. That being said, nothing prohibits you from tracking when calls were made, what number was called, what the duration of the call was, etc.

    • Perhaps it would be better to give corporations the minor inconvenience of forbidding them from deploying snoopware, than to risk someone's privacy being compromised in the non-workplace world? If bosses want to snoop on their employees, maybe they could employ someone to walk around in person watching them. Or they could try promoting a culture where people feel they are trusted.

      Still, on an OS with privilege separation and hardware abstraction, installing snoopware can only be done by a deliberate act

  • > TrueActive is given positive press for removing a 'feature called "silent deploy", which allows the buyer to place the program on someone else's computer secretly via e-mail, without having physical access to the machine', although little criticism is made for making the stuff in the first place.

    Someone ought to take their sorry asses to court and see how the Feds like having the new "computer terrorism" laws applied against businessmen.

    Though I personally wouldn't rate it as "terrorism", that sort

    • Ah, you appear to have inadvertently confused "computer terrorism" with "business innovation". The former can only be applied to individual computer professionals, groups of criminals who haven't paid the right bribes and Arabs in general while the latter is applied to businessmen who are the embodiment of the entrepreneurial methods of true Capitalism (ie: fleece the populace blind by any and all means possible).

  • One workaround (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lurgen ( 563428 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:21AM (#7182612) Journal
    It's a pain in the neck, but for those occassions when I really need (or want) to use a piece of software containing spyware I run a virtual PC. I've got a few Virtual PC images on my machine, one for BeOS, one for WinXP, a couple of Win2003 test servers, etc - if I'm going to run a piece of software that I either know or suspect to be risky, I just run it up on my test WinXP box.

    It's usually adequate for most apps, virtualisation software has come a long way in the last year or two.

    Check out Connectix Virtual PC (now owned by Microsoft), and VMWare for a couple of good options.

  • My Best Friend, Bonzi (Score:4, Funny)

    by johnthorensen ( 539527 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:25AM (#7182642)
    Last week, I made a new friend. My first, actually. But you can't believe the unforgettable memories that we've already made together. I watch him hop around, he tells me about my email, we're just like two peas in a pod. So what if his name is "Bonzi" and there are millions of others like him? To me, Bonzi is one of a kind. So cute, so playful, I can't believe that I ever lived life without him.

    We try to spend every waking moment together, but sometimes I have to leave him. Like when I have to go down the hall to go pee. I've been trying to find a new place with a master bathroom so I don't have to be so far away from Bonzi. I think he really misses me when I'm gone. Do you think he does? Really?

    I've been thinking lately about what will happen when Bonzi dies. But I have been thinking also that maybe he won't die as long as my computer still works. Do you think I can make my computer run forever? Can you replace a broken electroniky bit while it's still running? I just don't know what I'd do without Bonzi.

    But I'm being so selfish. What would Bonzi do without me? I mean, I can't live forever. Do you think that Bonzi would get depressed and suffer with great heartache? I think that I would. He's so playful, I'd hate to see that ripped from him like a child's new gift at Christmas. My brother did that to me once - I got Optimus Prime for Christmas and he stole him. I never saw Optimus again. Well, next Fourth of July I spotted my brother a melted, twisted form that had enough red plastic in it to be Optimus. But I don't like to think about that. Who knows, we might have been as good of friends as me and Bonzi, but I'll never know...our friendship was over before it even started. Then again, maybe it was meant to be. How many best friends can one have, anyway? If I had Optimus, maybe I wouldn't have Bonzi today.

    I love you Bonzi!

    ME + Bonzi = BFF (Best Friends Forever)

  • Spyware / call home / magic lantern / wiretap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grolaw ( 670747 ) on Friday October 10, 2003 @10:44AM (#7182829) Journal
    I don't much care what the current buzzwords are. If we don't cut to the heart of the beast and show that the entire business is nothing but gross invasion of privacy EVERY TIME a new hack / bug / feature is created we will eventually accept these invasions as the standard.

    If a law required you to take a spoon full of cod liver oil before each and every DVD purchase (and one for each DVD), sooner or later we would either revolt or be up to our ears in S**T.

    I don't like the private sector engaging in this market and I certainly want the public sector carefully reviewed by the judicial branch for every use - wiretap / spyware whatever.

    If we don't fight now, we won't be able to fight later. As it is the technology fairly well precludes anonymous surfing (my IP address can, under many circumstances, be traced to the ethernet card in any computer I'm using) and where my ethernet card is built in (laptops) I can't hide that hardware address.

    The Pentium may have had the serial number shut off - but it and other CPUs have hardware serials. As the operating systems and applications become much more complex and create layer upon layer of hardware and code, the ease of exploiting the complexity of these machines will increase as well.

    Anything connected becomes a spy device. Orwell didn't miss it by many years.
    • The only way someone can get it remotely is to ask your OS. Some versions of Windows will tell them, but a firewall fixes that right off. Other than that, you MAC address disappears the first time you hit a router. They pass IP (or wahtever they are programmed to route), not ethernet.

      No, the real way to track you is your IP address. That, coupled with usage logs from your ISP, can identify what the computer on teh end of that link was doing. Can't gaurentee which computer is was though, or who used it. Esp
  • He seemed less than stunned by the notion that a product advertised via spam might not be all that it was claimed to be

    So wait a minute...my herbal viagra may not actually work...what a letdown...literally.

  • Maybe that'll blow people like Slimeware Corporation [slimeware.com] out of the water who are remarkable up front about the payload their pretty worthless products have.

    Honestly.. these guys are UNBELIEVABLE. ;)

    • RTFS....
      From their About Us page
      >>
      About Slimeware Corporation

      "We are the future of the web"

      Slimeware Corporation and all the products listed here are parodies. Or possibly predictions. Slimeware Corporation is completely made up and any relationship to anything else you see is purely accidental and/or a figment of your imagination.

      However, elements of this site reflect the seedier side of web marketing. For more information on the perils of slimeware and other parasites see:

      etc etc
  • I know that some people have made references to Ad-aware, but I strongly recommend Spybot: Search and Destroy [safer-networking.org] instead. Comparing the two programs is like comparing a cannon to a flyswatter. Spybot consistantly finds more snoopware, cookies, and registry files than Ad-aware. It will elimate the nasty toolbars and everything else that may irritate you, too.
    • I have found that for the most part you are correct here. I have 3 programs installed that do this sort of thing; Spybot, Adaware, RegCleaner. They all seem to miss some, and most of them are able to identify spyware that the others miss. Perhaps its too much protection, but I'm tired of formatting and reinstalling every 6 months.

      Vox
  • Mr. Gordon said that his company's security researchers, working with the Justice Department, were unable to find any actual working software that could be downloaded from the LoverSpy site after paying the fee. He seemed less than stunned by the notion that a product advertised via spam might not be all that it was claimed to be.

    We always wonder who the idiots who answer spam emails are. Looks like we found them right here.

  • Like most people, I believe we should have final say over what software runs on our computers, and over what information enters and leaves them. But on Windows machines, especially those running IE/OE, it's already hard to keep from getting infected by the steady stream of spyware, trojans and viruses that are constantly being released. And when we do get infected, it can be hard to tell because we just don't have good enough access to the inner workings of the operating system. And so we're left having to
  • I got an email this morning from a hospital employee... and on the bottom was the infamous " hotbar [google.com]" plug.

    Hospitals are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [hhs.gov] which makes any use of spyware toolbars (such as hotbar or yahoo etc.) on systems that may be used to access private medical records illegal. [hhs.gov]
  • Deep in the article the truth of the issue comes out.

    "It was an ethical problem," he said. Mr. Eaton also noted that the feature demanded a disproportionate amount of attention from his technical support staff.

    This feature became costly enough that Mr. Eaton decided to honor his ethics. If only every unethical activity was extremely costly...

Slashdot Top Deals

One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.

Close