how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
40049 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 sybilleNot only "just visiting"Premium
join:2004-04-06
France | reply to eburger68
Re: Sunbelt Adjusts WhenU Detections I fully agree that what users want is convoluted. If it were not, the users would not install unwanted software in the first place, for example.
I think your idea to require that users clarify their intentions by means of different checks is a very good one. It both helps protect the ASW vendor and can serve to educate the user.
In that case, the aims of the two parties converge, at least to some extent.
I doubt this would be the case in each instance.
I still believe that what users want, in so far as it can be determined and however complex it may be, could run counter to the interests of the ASW vendor.
I didn't see that you responded to that concern in particular.
Of course, you're not required to respond, either.  | |
1 edit | Sybille:
You wrote:
said by sybille:I still believe that what users want, in so far as it can be determined and however complex it may be, could run counter to the interests of the ASW vendor. I didn't see that you responded to that concern in particular. It's always possible that there could be instances in which their interests are not identical. The better that anti-spyware vendors can discern or compel users to announce their true intentions and preferences, the less likely that will be a problem. In fact, it's in the interests of anti-spyware vendors to align their programs with users' desires and intentions.
I agree, though, that convergence can never become perfect union.
Eric L. Howes
--
Microsoft MVP
Sunbelt Software Consultant
Spyware Warrior | |
| reply to eburger68
Hi Eric,
Thanx 4 your earlier reply, i did check out those links you posted, and a few more besides !
I don't know where you + Suzie + TeMerc + all the other good peeps get the patience to to do as MUCH as you All do. I'm a very patient guy, but i think the mountains of info you all must read/write, along with the significant amount of time it must take researching + cross referencing it all + hosting/posting it etc, would burn most people out.
- - -
2 everybody -
Sure people will have differences, that's just how life is. Not perfect, never has been and Never will be, and they should get used to it and relax a bit more. But when it gets personal it's stepped over the line and benefits No One or the issues. In fact it makes it so much worse cos some people waste lotsa time on that and not what it's Really about.
Exchanging ideas and discussion is great cos it helps us All move forward, sometimes faster, sometimes with hurdles thrown in the way. Who said everything was meant to be easy peasy all the time, cos it aint, but let's @ least try and move in the right direction together.
The crapware merchants would just love it if we all fell out and couldn't sort it out amongst ourselves ! So let's try and keep focused on the Real bad guys hey.
Regards,
Spanner
--
I Only Know What I Know But I'm Learning all The Time - Stay Safe - Spanner intheWorks/SpannerITWks | |
| reply to eburger68
Eric,
You wrote:
This looks to me like yet another attempt to insert a "because-it's-WhenU" trump card into the review process.
You worried earlier about anti-spyware vendors getting buried by petitions and legal threats -- this is the surest way to achieve that outcome.
Not exactly- You had said something to the effect that past reputation could be taken into account, but could not be an "end all" criteria, I simply proposed that if the company offered no spyware in any way for a reasonable period (1 yr was the example) then the delisting would take place- Perhaps I read you wrong. It seems you are now saying that past reputation cannot be a factor whatsoever! (?)
Perhaps you could flesh out how you see "past reputation" being applied?
Sunbelt does not make targeting decisions by starting with labels, which I've already explained are useless as the basis for targeting decisions
I understand perfectly that labels are useless for targeting decisions (and I agree with your writings to that effect), but they are awfully handy in discussions. One saves alot of time labeling a creature a "duck" rather than explaining all the features that separate it from other avians in general every time a duck is described... Perhaps with a few well placed labels we might stop talking past each other.
Truth be told, I don't even know what you mean by "ad-sponsored" software and how that would differ from the wide range of software most folks already call "adware." These labels are a dead-end street -- they're pointless and useless as the basis for targeting decisions.
I was trying to delineate software that has install, notification, keeps ads within itself, and has an uninstall etc. Features you (seem to) describe as making it legitimate, though it is still adware. To me there is no difference, but if you need to define a legal difference, so be it.
I was suggesting an expansion of detect/remove to cover that "group" as well (AolMess and YahooBar were suggested earlier as examples of inclusion), so that these morphing companies could not say they were being unfairly singled out.
I am against the idea that since the user was stupid enough to install it there should be no easy way to remove it and it must be relegated to A/R simply because it supplies an uninstall routine, or that it would be "Line item only" for removal.
In other words, Sunbelt should start basing its targeting and evaluation decisions not on what its customers and users want, but what some IT guys think is appropriate for them.
Sorry: that dog just died.
I didn't mean that in any legal way- I was just suggesting that "user wants" are not an effective platform in this forum. We all know what the user wants, and it is generally not thought of as a good thing... at least not with me. Whether that is legally defensible wasn't the point. Sorry if I was not clear on that.
However, since you raised the point (and with any couched threat unintended), you would be suprised how many of your users ARE your users only with the blessing of their local guru or tech. If it doesn't fly with me, you can bet my users will be elswhere- especially when it comes to security software. My previous post aside, most of my users listen to me and accept my recommendations. I say this only to highlight the point that you do well to be here (and other places like in kind) and pound this out in an acceptable fashion.
But we can't take a consumer product and turn it into a poor-man's backdoor admin tool for IT admins to exert control over their know-nothing clients.
But you also can't take away the ability of the program to do the meat and potatos work that we rely on it to do. As I said before, CYA legally... fine. but give me a "Select all /remove" and keep detecting... Or a global option to select all... so that I can override the suggested action.
I know that you are holding your nose while you do this. I understand that you don't like these companies any more than I do. But in the midst of it you seem to be making the case for a type of "acceptable" level of adware, rather than a rally to "how do we beat 'em now?" which is an uncomfortable residue of this discussion.
So what are you saying in a general sense (not WhenU particularly for the moment)? Is there no productive way that Anti-Spy can assist if an adware drops below a certain level? And if such is the case, where might that level be defined? And if defined, How does one prevent further slippage (herein lies the brow of the proverbial slippery slope)?
And who will be paying the legal bills of anti-spyware vendors once they start targeting such software and hanging scarlet letters on the ones that IT admins really hate?
I didn't figure there would be any. Adware is within your pervue (at least traditionally). There are lots of mass uninstallers out there (regedit comes to mind), so that concept shouldn't be a problem... If the "known offender" thing is what is in the way, then just give me a PUP (Spybot S&D) page with a "Select all" in settings. Then I can cherry pick the acceptable ones out of the list rather than checking the whole list except three or four...
I'm sorry, but most of the ideas you've offered in this latest post are simply not practical or advisable for anti-spyware companies, who are already faced with a minefield of trouble as it stands.
*sigh* that is odd, as this post was basically a recap of a previous one which I felt you found acceptable (re: What were we arguing about?)
Regards,
Bruce | |
| reply to eburger68
said by eburger68:Bruce: otice the "Set a single action for all items" link next to the "Take Action" button. That link brings up a dialog box (see the second screenshot) that allows you do configure all detected items to for "Remove" or "Quarantine," no matter what the default action is. I guess I didn't remember that such an option existed because in the testing I do, I never use it. I always inspect each detection one by one and select or verify the actions for each detection. My apologies for the oversight and confusion. (Note: the screenshots above are from CounterSpy 1.5 beta, but the same option and dialog box exist in the current release version 1.0.29.) Best, Eric L. Howes Apologies not required.
Beauty day. Make it GLOBAL, Make it stick.
Regards,
Bruce | |
| reply to roamer_1
Bruce:
You wrote:
said by roamer_1:
Not exactly- You had said something to the effect that past reputation could be taken into account, but could not be an "end all" criteria, I simply proposed that if the company offered no spyware in any way for a reasonable period (1 yr was the example) then the delisting would take place- Perhaps I read you wrong. It seems you are now saying that past reputation cannot be a factor whatsoever! (?)
Perhaps you could flesh out how you see "past reputation" being applied?
I'm sorry, but the pre-checked boxes still amount to the same thing as a default action of "Remove," and you want those pre-checked boxes to be determined on the basis of a "known offender" status, which is itself reputation, which takes us right back to the original argument that some made in this thread, which was: "WhenU ought to be set to 'Remove' by default because it's WhenU." That's why I called it merely "another attempt to insert a 'because-it's-WhenU' trump card into the review process."
said by roamer_1:
I understand perfectly that labels are useless for targeting decisions (and I agree with your writings to that effect), but they are awfully handy in discussions. One saves alot of time labeling a creature a "duck" rather than explaining all the features that separate it from other avians in general every time a duck is described... Perhaps with a few well placed labels we might stop talking past each other.
Well, we're talking about the nitty targeting decisions here. For general coversation, labels can be handy. Beyond that, though, they become problematic. We like to think that the world is so simple that we can "call a duck a duck." But when we're dealing with anti-spyware targeting decisions, things are a bit more complicated because different people have different ideas as to what's a duck in some cases -- and we've seen as much right here in this thread.
said by roamer_1:
I was trying to delineate software that has install, notification, keeps ads within itself, and has an uninstall etc. Features you (seem to) describe as making it legitimate, though it is still adware. To me there is no difference, but if you need to define a legal difference, so be it.
I was suggesting an expansion of detect/remove to cover that "group" as well (AolMess and YahooBar were suggested earlier as examples of inclusion), so that these morphing companies could not say they were being unfairly singled out.
Actually, Sunbelt already does include similar applications in its database: Download Accelerator Plus and Weatherbug, for example. But Sunbelt doesn't include those apps because they fit some general label. They're included because they trip particular targeting criteria -- criteria which were developed with an eye towards what could cause users significant problems.
said by roamer_1:
I am against the idea that since the user was stupid enough to install it there should be no easy way to remove it and it must be relegated to A/R simply because it supplies an uninstall routine, or that it would be "Line item only" for removal.
First, what's not "easy" about Add/Remove Programs (assuming the uninstaller does the job as advertised? It seems that you want a general uninstallation utility for all manner of applications, but anti-spyware apps are not that kind of beast. They selectively detect and present applications of a certain quality based on certain criteria, which suggests to users that the selected/detected apps are somehow less desirable or more problematic than the ones not selected/detected. And once they do that, they've got take great care in how they select/detect/present.
Anti-spyware vendors can detect and present a wide range of different apps to users, but they must have some good rational for doing so (e.g., the app verifiably could present a problem or threat to users of some sort). Moreover, they must take special care in presenting applications that could be wanted and voluntarily installed by users, as I've explained in several other posts. That's where "Low risk adware" adware categories come from -- from an attempt to treat these types of applications differently.
It looks like you to want an easy way to erase all the default presentation differences, because you think it would suit your needs. But erasing those presentation differences could cause problems for other users -- tech gurus with clueless clients are not the only ones using anti-spyware apps.
said by roamer_1:
However, since you raised the point (and with any couched threat unintended), you would be suprised how many of your users ARE your users only with the blessing of their local guru or tech. If it doesn't fly with me, you can bet my users will be elswhere- especially when it comes to security software. My previous post aside, most of my users listen to me and accept my recommendations. I say this only to highlight the point that you do well to be here (and other places like in kind) and pound this out in an acceptable fashion.
Fine, but tech gurus are not the only ones using the anti-spyware applications, and anti-spyware vendors can't enshrine their preferences as the defaults just because they might feel they ought to be, esp. once we're dealing with types of software where the users themselves are divided and have differing needs and expectations.
Now, what anti-spyware companies CAN do is build in features that allow users of all kinds to customize the behavior of the anti-spyware programs to suit their particular needs -- a "Select/Remove All" button is a very simple example of that. A user-customizable "blacklist" (which I also discussed earlier today) is another example of that. But those kinds of preferences have to be incorporated into the product's performance through your own expressed customization/preference selecting actions. The defaults for anti-spyware applications, by contrast, have to be very carefully selected, and they may not absolutely match your own preferences.
said by roamer_1:
But you also can't take away the ability of the program to do the meat and potatos work that we rely on it to do. As I said before, CYA legally... fine. but give me a "Select all /remove" and keep detecting... Or a global option to select all... so that I can override the suggested action.
I know that you are holding your nose while you do this. I understand that you don't like these companies any more than I do. But in the midst of it you seem to be making the case for a type of "acceptable" level of adware, rather than a rally to "how do we beat 'em now?" which is an uncomfortable residue of this discussion.
So what are you saying in a general sense (not WhenU particularly for the moment)? Is there no productive way that Anti-Spy can assist if an adware drops below a certain level? And if such is the case, where might that level be defined? And if defined, How does one prevent further slippage (herein lies the brow of the proverbial slippery slope)?
It's not a matter of "acceptable" vs. "unacceptable" adware: it's a matter of finding ways to deal with applications that users can very well regard differently. As I've said several times, anti-spyware vendors can't just use your preferences as the defaults for the behavior and performance of their applications; they have to accommodate a wide range of users, and once we get down to handling what you're calling "ad-sponsored software," your preferences aren't universally held and could cause problems for other users if enshrined as the default preferences within anti-spyware applications.
said by roamer_1:
I didn't figure there would be any. Adware is within your pervue (at least traditionally). There are lots of mass uninstallers out there (regedit comes to mind), so that concept shouldn't be a problem...
But those kinds of applications don't selectively detect and present software based on the kinds of criteria that anti-spyware apps do. And users don't necessarily interpret the "results" presented to them by system cleaning applications in the same way as they do the "results" from "anti-spyware" apps.
As I said before, it looks like you want a general system cleaning app, and anti-spyware applications can come to resemble such applications, but the evolution isn't easy because of the expectations (from users, vendors, admins, etc.) that are brought to bear on anti-spyware apps, which started their lives closer to the "malware cleaning" side of things rather than the "system cleaning" side of things.
said by roamer_1:
If the "known offender" thing is what is in the way, then just give me a PUP (Spybot S&D) page with a "Select all" in settings. Then I can cherry pick the acceptable ones out of the list rather than checking the whole list except three or four...
Such a thing is easily implemented. Your suggestion from a later post to "make it global, make it stick," is more problematic without building checks or safety features for less knowledgeable users. You know enough to "select all" and then cherry pick the "acceptable ones," but I can already hear the complaints from users who didn't fully understand that the detected apps may not all be "bad" and who blindly selected that global option: "This @$#$%F*&S)#W! anti-spyware program said my screensaver and weather program were viruses and removed them!" And then we're right back to square one.
Best,
Eric L. Howes
--
Microsoft MVP
Sunbelt Software Consultant
Spyware Warrior | | |
|
ghost16825Use security metricsPremium
join:2003-08-26 | reply to eburger68
said by eburger68:That's all very well and good, but things do get a bit murkier when we're dealing with less knowledgeable users who don't always act consistently. ...which goes back to the point about assumed user knowledge.
--
Admin of the Kerio 2x-like open source project:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kerio/
http://kerio.sourceforge.net/
| |
| OK I have to rant here. First let me say that I skipped about 16 pages of posts but from what I've seen it all looks the same anyway.
I think this thread is a perfect example of one of the major problems that plagues this industry today. This industry has developed a regrettably zealous and uninformed following. By that I mean that absolutely nothing any of these companies ever does will ever work as an apeasement to the large group of individuals that 1. Do not do their own research, 2. Take the word of self-appointed "experts", and 3. Allow their mentality to be formed by the highest common denominator, or simply, follow the herd.
From what I've seen here about the only thing that would satisfy the majority of these posters is to plant a nuke at each and every one of these adware companies and delisting antispyware companies and wipe them out. Unfortunately this is the kind of juvenile mentality that these antispyware companies are up against. It doesn't matter that these companies typically stock themselves with anywhere from 5 to 100 real experts that evaluate and fight this stuff everyday, publish legitimate research, and have the background to actually decide what stuff is harmful and what is not, as seen with Lavasoft and Pest Patrol one zealot starts a rampage about a delisting that 1,000 blind sheep jump on board with and naturally a commercial company has to cave. It's a disservice, to the antispyware companies, to the delisted companies, and believe it or not to the end user. This mentality is so rampant that often an end user that doesn't spend 10 hours a day often receives this extremist advice in some forum from some 13 yr old kid who received the same advice from an "expert" and they take it as gospel and voila, we're crowning another tin foil beanie chief. Now the antispyware company providing that end user with the solution has to take 3 days to calm down and explain to that user how their information is wrong.
I would venture to say that 95% of people in these forums have no formal education in regards to spyware evaluation, detection, and removal. Their education is solely in HJT logs and what someone else has told them is bad. Find me 10 people that have researched every entry on their own and based their decision on that and I'll come to your house and brush your teeth. I would also say that 85% of these people do not do their own research and accept what is spoon fed to them. You spend 3 hours a day on Hijack This logs you say? Great, from that I want you to tell me every distribution method that application takes advantage of as well as provide me with a detailed analysis of captured packet sniffer logs. Along with that I will need to know the company that produces the application, including registrar, address, and contact info. While you're at it go ahead and disassemble all the executables and dlls and get me a detailed report on those.
While we are on the subject and you have your assignments lined up you might as well provide us with every correspondence, contract, agreement, and conversation that has taken place between every antispyware company and every adware company or researcher that they have dealt with. I'm sure this will help you to prove the "conspiracy". Transparency is your argument to that? Well folks unfortunately we live in a corporate world and there's things called NDA's or Non Disclosure Agreements that are typically precursors to any kind of exchange of proprietary technology and information, which of course is a necessity to an honest and partial evaluation.
Now I'll use what I've seen in this thread as a perfect example. I've seen Eric Howes posting in this forum and references to his research. I'll be frank and say that I'm no fan of that rogue antispyware list. While I do believe it serves a purpose and can be informative to those who know how to filter out the biased leaning in favor of Lavasoft I have seen that thing quoted left and right, up and down, 9 ways to Sunday by this zealous following. Up until the point when he justified the Sunbelt changes you all thought Eric and that list was the best thing since sliced bread. Once his research came out and he justified the claims of Sunbelt you people turned on him, tried to chew him up, and spit him out. Absolutely zero weight was given to the fact that he actually did perform and provide non-biased research to back up the decision.
I don't think you can find in any other industry, firewall, antivirus, or otherwise, such a close minded, uninformed, blinder view of progression than in the spyware industry. It suffers from a mentality that is a cancer to the greater good. With such a blind outlook on things you have to realize, if an adware or whatever company honestly cleans up its act and justifies non-detection, only to have the antispyware company have to cave to a herd following public, we're never going to see an end to the problem. What encouragement do these guys have at all if their best efforts go for nill because of an uninformed public? They might as well keep exploiting loopholes and achieving installs and just deal with the antispyware removals than attempt to spend money righting their wrongs.
OK I think I've ranted enough and hopefully you understand my point. I think it applies to life as it does to the industry and I'll provide a couple recommendations to what should be done.
Lessons:
1. Do your own research
2. Use what your told as a factor of your research, not an excuse to do your research
3. People are grownups and need to accept some of the responsiblity over what they do. Your hand wasn't held when installing Windows, why can't we expect the same responsibility for an install dialog?
Resolution:
1. A non-biased researcher standard needs to be created, such as an MCSE or MVP for antispyware studies. This standard could be collaberated on by antispyware developers and open to the public for testing.
2. Subject the standard to strict revocation until we balance the industry. You start slanting in a bias manner or providing pure opinions in your advice, bye bye certification.
3. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. God, Buddha, and all others gave you a mind of your own and you didn't spend 13+ years in school to be told what to believe by others.
4. Use SaranWrap, not tin foil. This has got to be the most important of all. And no, antispyware vendors didn't kill JFK, build and isolate Area 51, hide Martians, start the FreeMasons and New World Order, pollute the water with pacifying hallucinogens, or turn a blind eye to Pearl Harbor | |
| reply to eburger68
You really should have taken the time to read the 16 pages of posts you admitted to skipping. I'm sure some of the info in them would have enlightened your somewhat sour and obtuse view of the companies and people involved.Oh and by the way, YOU never stated your qualifacations to berate the posters involved in this thread.  | |
 antiseriousThe Future ain't what it used to bePremium
join:2001-12-12
Scranton, PA | reply to IndustryBurnout
said by IndustryBurnout:
First let me say that I skipped about 16 pages of posts but from what I've seen it all looks the same anyway.
... and that's as far as I got, except to scroll through your verbose blather to get to the 'post reply' button ...
... but thanks for stopping by ...  ... always swell to hear from a burnout ...
--
... "Do You Know Where Your Towel Is ?" ... | |
mongol
join:2004-06-21
Friendswood, TX
kudos:1 | reply to eburger68
You rant at us about doing our homework and doing our own research and then admit you skipped 16 pages of posts. I think you sat in front of me at College. Is that you Bob??. | |
 ctripIslam is a Religion of PeacePremium
join:2002-07-16
New Cumberland, PA
2 edits | nevermind | |
|
