 japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
1 edit | Too bad - I guess we didn't send him enuf $ We need strong legislation so endusers & software makers can go after these creeps. What's the next-best anti-hijack (browser) tool that's being actively maintained? |
|
|
|
 nklbPremium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
kudos:2 | The company that owns CWS is in Russia, so not much American legislation can do about that.
--
for all your Linux questions |
|
japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
1 edit | said by nklb:
The company that owns CWS is in Russia, so not much American legislation can do about that.
That they are in Russia impedes enforcement, but there has to be an established law-breaking before things like imposed blockage of an offshore IP can be setup, or rights to operate trade in the US can be suspended. Granted, there's no way to stop but these are always games of multi-front resistance = attrition rather than outright stoppage. Laws help raise the resistance factor - in fact that's all they ever do. |
|
| I think we are missing the point. CWS and others of their ilk are only the tip of the iceberg, the supporting advertisers put up the $$$$ to support spyware development. It's those same ADVERTISERS' pop-ups that you see. Take away 'Madison Avenue' and the spyware crafters have no resources to support thrie evil ways! IMHO |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to nklb
The trick is to find who benefits from CWS, and then hit them. |
|
 keith2468Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB | reply to jap
we blacklist spammers all the time Naw, we blacklist spammers all the time, and that is blocking by IP address. |
|
keith2468Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB | reply to KrK
Re: Too bad - I guess we didn't send him enuf $ Finding out who benefits from CoolWebSearch is easy: let a computer get infected and then surf on it.
CWS delivers pop-ups and search hijacks that favor its customers -- few of which are located offshore. |
|
japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | Right - the money starts & ends mostly in N.America: the offshore component is the malware-for-hire layer. With good legislation users &/or regulatory (FTC) could go after the businesses that hire CWS. |
|
japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
1 edit | reply to keith2468
Re: we blacklist spammers all the time said by keith2468:
Naw, we blacklist spammers all the time, and that is blocking by IP address.
I wasn't clear: block an operator's IP or range on the national level. My position is we need a broader front to present to malware originators: private-sector tech alone won't do it - but we still need the tech component too. |
|
 fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | reply to VA_Greywolf
Re: Too bad - I guess we didn't send him enuf $ I couldn't agree more. Why are we spending so much time wringing our hands trying to stop jerks that write this stuff when we could be going after those financing it which I'd think would be much simpler? I'd think for a company to do business this way, they have to have a money trail so you can actually pay them for the merchandise they're peddling. Follow the trail and nail the company for using this kind of advertising.
Granted some companies simply make mistakes and may not intend for their advertising to end up like this.
--
Famous last words: "Who are you kidding, we both know that thing isn't loaded!" |
|
