how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 antiseriousThe Future ain't what it used to bePremium
join:2001-12-12
Scranton, PA | reply to Corrine
Re: ASW Vendors in La-La Land
... still doesn't pass the smell test, sorry ... and I would suggest that if WhenU passes your 'TAC' test, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate THOSE standards ... I think hpguru's suggestion of 'maintaining a below threshold TAC score over a period of time' is a much more prudent approach, especially since it's obvious to all that explaining your actions in advance is NOT in the Lavasoft game plan ...
... but hey, it's your company, your product, and YOUR credibility at stake - here's hoping that means something to you folks ...
... I bet their refund policy gets a workout in the next few days ... wonder if they have one ...
--
... "Nobody's perfect - well, there was this one guy, but we killed Him" ... Christopher Moore, 'Lamb' ... | |
Kr0m
join:2000-10-26
Fredericton, NB | gah, this is horrible. Bad Lavasoft.. bad. I wonder how many other pieces of adware/spyware have been removed from their reference lists over the past months due to their 'ratings'.
I guess that's what I get for having 'blind' trust in a company's software. Now I have to go and tell people to remove ad-aware from countless PCs I've worked on, and to not support Lavasoft anymore.
--
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada | |
| reply to antiserious
I think Lavasoft might want to consider replacing their TAC Test with the Smell Test when determining whether a product warrants inclusion to or exclusion from their detection database. 
Anti-spyware, anti-virus and anti-trojan developers almost universally make a point of publicizing their ever-increasing number of detections, and AdAware is no exception. The logfile for each scan informs us of a number of detection statistics, and with each update a list of New Definitions and/or Updated Definitions is provided.
It would seem obvious to most of us that the removal of detection of a well-known adware product deserves to be publicized as well.
Lavasoft has finally presented their (dubious at best) justification for removing WhenU from their detection database, but the manner in which they did so speaks volumes. When the research and observations of well-respected people such as Eric, Suzi, Mike, etc. are responded to with a 1-paragraph dismissive post ... well, the needle on my Smell-O-Meter just pegged.
The Lavasoft response was quite insufficient and quite late in coming. It included no apology for the delay and did not address the question of why the WhenU detection removal was not publicized at the time the update was released. It gives us no confidence that other significant detections have not already been (or will be) removed without the users being properly informed.
File sizes can possibly be reduced through optimization, but when numbers such as total signatures and target families decrease after months and months of unrelenting increases, an explanation or identification of the removed items is clearly required. I would imagine that the 800 signatures and 3 target families removed were not all false positives ... | |
|
