how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
40049 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 danny9Go Ahead, Make My DayPremium
join:2002-07-14
Clinton Township, MI
kudos:2 | reply to CalamityJane
Re: Sunbelt Adjusts WhenU Detections Well said and well thought out as usual Calamity Jane. I too jumped the gun alittle but backed off to read more about it and decide for myself.
As you said I do use several and what one doesn't catch the other will.
I do give Counterspy, which I use, credit for being open about it and stating their reasons for this.
--
To Think or not to Think: That is the real question. VoicePulse 07/29/04 | |
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | reply to CalamityJane
Well said, Miss Jane.
-- B | |
1 edit | reply to eburger68
Hi All:
I knew that this announcement wouldn't be a popular one, and I'm not surprised to see some of the reactions that have been posted here. That said, I had hoped that more people would actually take the time to read Sunbelt's analysis of WhenU's products, its decisions, and the reasoning behind those decisions. (To those of you who have read Sunbelt's write-up on WhenU, thank you.)
As I said in an earlier post in this thread, Sunbelt and I are happy to listen to arguments that the following software products ought to still be listed as "Moderate" threats with a Recommended Action of "Quarantine":
* WhenUsearch
* ClockSync
* Weathercast
But to be convincing and useful, those arguments need to be grounded in a specific analysis of the programs themselves and WhenU's own practices, preferably with examples and evidence. To wit:
* Tell me why you think a desktop search bar that displays some unobtrusive advertising within the context of its own GUI ought to be classified as something higher than "Low risk" adware. And, by the way, would you insist that other programs with similar, unobstrusive advertising also be similarly classified (ad-supported Opera, Eudora, etc.)?
* Tell me why a clock synchronization program that displays no ads and that only serves as a bundler application for WhenU's main ad program (Save!/SaveNow) ought to be classified as something higher than an "Adware bundler." Do you think other programs than merely bundle adware (e.g., KaZaA, screensavers, wallpapers, etc.) also ought to be classified as a "Moderate" threat?
* Tell me why a weather program that displays unobtrusive text advertising within the context of its own GUI ought to be classified as something higher than "Low risk" adware. (Same or similar questions as WhenUSearch.)
* If you think WhenU's installation practices are unfair, deceptive, or misleading (beyond the problems already noted in SUnbelt's write-up), please do tell us why. Point us to examples where WhenU's installation practices and provided notice/disclosure are problematic.
* And to those who will inevitably reply with blanket statements like "Because it's spyware! Because it's malware! Because if it looks like a duck...," please tell me why WhenUSearch, Weathercast, and ClockSync ought to be regarded as "spyware," "malware," "duckware," or whatever other label you're slapping on the software. We need concrete reasons, not useless labels.
The bottom line here, folks, is that we need good reasons to continue listing these programs as something other than "Low risk." If you can provide those reasons, I'll be all ears.
said by stufried:
Has Cool Web Search applied for declassification. After all it is just an internet enhancement being unfairly maligned by its competitors.
Please. CoolWebSearch variants...
* are usually if not always installed without any notice or disclosure whatsoever
* use malware and security exploits to install
* use resusicitators to thwart removal
* hijack users home page and search settings
* infect NTFS Alternate Data Streams to resist removal
* drop other potentially malicious programs (including porn dialers) on users' systems without any notice whatsoever
Given those characteristics and practices, why would think that CWS would have any chance of be treated similar to Weathercast, ClockSync, or WhenUSearch? Do you really see no distinctions between the several WhenU programs involved in Sunbelt's decision and CoolWebSearch?
said by RobertLudlum:
BTW, I'm kind of confused, if there are no concrete citeria used by Sunbelt to categorise threats, what then made them decide to downgrade some whenu products, but not others?
Sunbelt has what are perhaps the most extensive (and toughest) published listing/targeting criteria in the business:
»research.sunbelt-software.com/li···eria.cfm
If you want to understand Sunbelt's decisions in this case, then please read the write-up that Sunbelt has made available on its blog. If you want to disagree with the conclusions that Sunbelt came to, then please answer the questions that I listed earlier in this post.
said by StraitShoot:
If Adaware or Spybot S&D did what Sunbelt did, WE'D be ALL over them, including probably Eric.
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but Ad-aware and Spybot already have the equivalent of Sunbelt's "Low risk"/"Ignore" classification, and they appear to be using it. Spyware Doctor has something similar. See the above screenshots.
Spybot allows you to see in advance of a scan which particular programs are classified as "Low risk" and will be ignored by default. Sunbelt lets you browse and search categories on its research site:
»research.sunbelt-software.com/Br···rary.cfm
In CounterSpy 1.5, users will be able to click a link within CounterSpy to view all programs classified as "Low risk."
said by CalamityJane:
However, the hype created in the earlier thread lead many new readers to this forum to think that Adaware was bad for them to use.
»Re: ASW Vendors in La-La Land
That is my disappointment. Make another product look bad, so yours can look better is how that looks now.
A few points:
1) As I emphasized earlier, my biggest problem with the Ad-aware de-listing was that it was done behind users' backs and with no notification. Moreover, it was a DE-LISTING of all WhenU's products including the Save/SaveNow pop-up ad program, so users wouldn't necessarily know that WhenU wasn't being detected -- it simply wouldn't show up in scan results. That's not the case here. Also, as emphasized earlier, I stated back in February that I thought WhenU was making substantial progress in cleaning up its installation practices.
2) In that earlier thread I ultimately came to the following conclusion ( »Re: ASW Vendors in La-La Land ):
said by Eric L. Howes:
Despite the manifest problems we've seen with Lavasoft's policies and procedures over the past week or so, Ad-aware remains an excellent anti-spyware application. The scanning engine is mature and robust, and the research that goes into the definitions is among the best in the industry. We need more applications like this, not fewer of them. That's why Lavasoft's Ad-aware will continue to be included on my "short list" of recommended anti-spyware applications (see »spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm#rec ).
I rejected calls to remove Ad-aware, as well as Pest Patrol and more recently MS AntiSpyware, from my short list of "recommended apps." (I also flatly refused to consider listing any of those programs on the Rogue/Suspect page, and I did receive several calls to do so.)
Similarly...
said by CalamityJane:
I have to wonder about this:
»www.adwarereport.com/mt/archives/000073.html and this new development just makes one wonder if Aluria is still evil or just ahead of it's time? Hmmmmm.
...I would ask that you return to the earlier discussion here at DSLR/BBR:
»WhenU Enters the Anti-Spyware Market
Please notice that I emphasized over and over that the biggest problem in my eyes was the partnership between WhenU and Aluria, not the classification decision that Aluria made:
said by Eric L. Howes:
...even if we were to grant that it was legitimate for Aluria to de-target WhenU, we would STILL reject its partnership with WhenU, because no anti-spyware company should ever exploit the same advertising model as used by the applications it targets, no matter the legitimacy of the particular adware company it partners with. Period.
This is a conflict-of-interest problem, not a legitimacy-of-WhenU problem. Indeed, given Aluria's financial ties with WhenU, it is impossible even to have a productive discussion with Aluria about its decision to de-target WhenU. That's the real story here.
I made this point over and over in that thread, yet it now seems to be ignored.
In any case, let me close by pointing you to several resources that Sunbelt makes available in order to keep users abreast of what's going on with CounterSpy:
1) CounterSpy forum (CastleCops)
»castlecops.com/f164-CounterSpy.html
2) Sunbeltblog (Alex Eckelberry)
»sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/
3) Sunbelt Research Center
»research.sunbelt-software.com/
4) Sunbelt Definitions Update Summary
»research.sunbelt-software.com/de···ions.cfm
5) Sunbelt Threat Library
»research.sunbelt-software.com/Br···rary.cfm
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
| reply to eburger68
I personally do not take issue with the changes Sunbelt Software has made to its database. In fact, not currently being an owner of their software, I probably am leaning MORE in favor of buying their product than I was previously. I agree with the results of their testing that the changes they made were appropriate, and the fact that they were very upfront about the changes and why they occurred is very impressive, IMHO.
I don't understand the level of panic people reach when new items like this our posted - even if I disagreed with the changes made (which I don't) it's not like Sunbelt removed detections - all they did was change the recommended action, which can always be overridden by the user. Calm down!
I would like to thank eburger and Sunbelt for being very upfront and informative in regards to the changes made to their detection database, as well as the reasoning behind it.
[Disclaimer] I'm 17 and work at the local supermarket. Not much of a bias, eh?
--
iPodder - Simply the best Windows podcasting client.
this WEEK in TECH - Simply the best podcast.
Join the fun! | |
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | reply to eburger68
said by eburger68:I knew that this announcement wouldn't be a popular one, and I'm not surprised to see some of the reactions that have been posted here. That said, I had hoped that more people would actually take the time to read Sunbelt's analysis of WhenU's products? Why? It's not relevant. People simply don't want anything from WhenU running on their computers or bundled with applications they run. (And yes, they should be taking their own pains to avoid same.)
* Tell me why you think a desktop search bar that displays some unobtrusive advertising within the context of its own GUI Because it's from WhenU.
* Tell me why a clock synchronization program that displays no ads and that only serves as a bundler application for WhenU's main ad program (Save!/SaveNow) ought to be classified as something higher than an "Adware bundler." Because it's from WhenU.
Do you think other programs than merely bundle adware (e.g., KaZaA, screensavers, wallpapers, etc.) also ought to be classified as a "Moderate" threat? Sure.
* Tell me why a weather program that displays unobtrusive text advertising within the context of its own GUI ought to be classified as something higher than "Low risk" adware. Because... it's from WhenU.
Yup, I'm advocating unreasoned prejudice against a company based on its past and current bad practices. Works for me.
please tell me why WhenUSearch, Weathercast, and ClockSync ought to be regarded as "spyware," "malware," "duckware," or whatever other label you're slapping on the software. We need concrete reasons, not useless labels. Because they're from WhenU, a company that makes its living by harassing people, to a degree approaching evil. The concrete reasoning is to refuse to allow anything from an adware company onto one's computer.
I know this is overly simplistic for your (and others') tastes, Eric, and I certainly understand if you choose not to reply.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
3 edits | B:
Thanks for being honest. I'll reply to you this one time, but you won't be surprised to hear my response.
said by B:
Yup, I'm advocating unreasoned prejudice against a company based on its past and current bad practices. Works for me. (...)
I know this is overly simplistic for your (and others') tastes, Eric, and I certainly understand if you choose not to reply.
Well, that makes your position abundantly clear, doesn't it? And you seem to recognize that there really can't be any further discussion between us, given your position.
As such, I trust you won't be too disappointed if I decline to engage you in an exchange that you don't seem to be interested in having.
Regards,
Eric L. Howes | |
| reply to eburger68
Well, it seems that "B" is just a fan of arguing just for the sake of it and that kind of fanaticism is the mother of intolerance in all of its forms.
To me it is very clear, after reading SunBelt´s wp and Eric´s post asking for well informed opinions on why some software should be or NOT be classified one way or another, that to be entitled to launch a criticism, one have to have a great deal of previous work in order to be informed enough to question a guy like Eric who has spent countless hours testing nasty software.
Good for Eric and for Sunbelt and Alex my great compliments for being so transparent to the final user.
Once again, I congratulate myself because of buying Counterspy
Diazruanova
Diazruanova | |
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 |
Uh, right. If you say so. No constructive, clarifying suggestions from me. I'm not "entitled" to speak here. Gotcha.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function
| |
| reply to eburger68
I have to side with B on this issue.
* WhenU's main advertising application, Save!/SaveNow, will remain classified as "Adware" with a Threat Level of "Moderate" and a Recommended Action of "Quarantine."
As long as even one of their products is recommended to be quarantined they clearly can't be trusted and all of their products should be classified the same until they clean up their act. | |
| reply to Diazruanova
said by Diazruanova:Well, it seems that "B" is just a fan of arguing just for the sake of it and that kind of fanaticism is the mother of intolerance in all of its forms. No I think B is making his point clear.
I think (and correct me if I am wrong B) what he saying is that WhenU has been a very "evil" company. They have profited from that. And even if they now are trying to change their methods, they are still profiting from their previous exploits.
Therefor, if WhenU wants to make a simple weather program that is not spyware related - fine. But then drop ALL other items. Shut the company down. Close it, whatever. Then release your program as other people release programs. At that point - perhaps it will be ok.
The same argument was argued heavily by many about Gator and MS. MS said that they changed the default because that aspect of the company had changed. McAfee and other did likewise. But many feel that given Gator's decades long attack against the industry as a whole, thru their relentless spyware that they NEVER can be de-listed or defaults changed.
I can respect that position.
I can also understand that if a company makes changes, then legally, a program may need to change it's profile of said company.
Guess I see both sides here. 
I, like CJ, have to go remove the stuff and cannot debate this in circles, and will continue to use all the tools available. Like Eric said:
said by Eric L. Howes:
Despite the manifest problems we've seen with Lavasoft's policies and procedures over the past week or so, Ad-aware remains an excellent anti-spyware application. The scanning engine is mature and robust, and the research that goes into the definitions is among the best in the industry. We need more applications like this, not fewer of them. That's why Lavasoft's Ad-aware will continue to be included on my "short list" of recommended anti-spyware applications (see »spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm#rec ).
Amen. We need more fighters - eventually perhaps they will all change their ways. | |
| reply to B
said by B:...I'm not "entitled" to speak here. You are certainly entitled to speak here provided you agree with the party line - whichever it is at a given moment -.
These are confusing times where those clear definitions we once had seem to blur and compromises are being made in the name of political or economic correctness. Long gone are the antispyware radicals but, hey! let us all welcome the new breed of AS dilettantes who are already thinking more on dodging legal bullets than on doing their job.
But then again, there is no such thing as spyware but a business opportunity, so who cares? really?
--
From the GSV "Ethics Gradient" | |
3 edits | Martin:
If you've got specific reasons and good evidence to treat WhenUSearch, Weathercast, and ClockSync as "Moderate risk" "Adware" (or worse) with a Recommended Action of "Quarantine" or "Remove," then let's hear it.
If you can provide good reasons and evidence to support those classifications, then great. My guess, though, is that you've resorted to cheap insults because you don't have anything else to offer.
Despite that, I'm all "ears." Really I am, so please do tell us where we can find your own detailed analysis of WhenU's applications, or at least an on-point response to Sunbelt's own. I'd be happy to give it a thorough read and careful consideration.
Eric L. Howes | |
4 edits | said by eburger68:My guess, though, is that you've resorted to cheap insults... Well, I don't consider them cheap at all.
said by eburger68:Despite that, I'm all "ears." Really I am, so please do tell us where we can find your own detailed analysis of WhenU's applications... Sorry, but I can't provide you with my "own detailed analysis" of anthrax either. That might be a clear indication that, after all, it's just a "Low Risk" annoyance.
Edit: Eric, I liked you more when you were a radical, merciless dissecting and exposing faux AS apps with passion and without compromise but I know, me liking you more or less doesn't help with the mortgage. Of course, I still respect you for your work.
--
From the GSV "Ethics Gradient" | |
| reply to eburger68
I respect Sunbelt's attempt to somehow classify functionality of programs user's might find on their computers. I fear however that by defining the guidelines, it provides the intruders what they need to side step rules and still intrude where they're not wanted.
A lot of companies that have spent years using the system to take advantage of users and cash in on their lack of expertise. While most of them claim a new more respectable approach, none of made amends for their previous behavior and I'm hard press to trust anything they offer.
"Adjusting" the classification can be dangerous and given the possibility of changes and/or embedded time bombs within software it's tough to determine the real threat of any unwanted software.
As they say, if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck and walks like a duck it's probably a duck.
Bill | |
 StraitShootWho Loves Ya Baby? - Theo KojakPremium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
kudos:1 | reply to eburger68
said by eburger68:A few points: 1) As I emphasized earlier, my biggest problem with the Ad-aware de-listing was that it was done behind users' backs and with no notification. Moreover, it was a DE-LISTING of all WhenU's products including the Save/SaveNow pop-up ad program, so users wouldn't necessarily know that WhenU wasn't being detected -- it simply wouldn't show up in scan results. That's not the case here. Also, as emphasized earlier, I stated back in February that I thought WhenU was making substantial progress in cleaning up its installation practices.
Eric,
I think you're a great guy, and this post or any post isn't personal, I want you to know that.. However, there are two points...
1. Okay, so Sunbelt is "Notifying" us users? We as users are notifying Sunbelt our opinion is that Sunbelt is wrong, and we do not think Sunbelt should classify WhenU as lowrisk...
2. It looks like no matter what, Sunblet should have left everything the way they were, now I, along with others, it seems, lost a little of that "trust" I previously had.. I trialed CounterSpy for two weeks, and I was close to buying it.. Now, I think I'll wait it out...
Jim | |
 hpguruCurb Your DogmaPremium
join:2002-04-12 | reply to eburger68
Thanks for everything you do Eric and keep up the good work.  | | |
|
| reply to StraitShoot
Jim:
You wrote:
said by StraitShoot: 1. Okay, so Sunbelt is "Notifying" us users? We as users are notifying Sunbelt our opinion is that Sunbelt is wrong, and we do not think Sunbelt should classify WhenU as lowrisk... Why? I've been asking this question all day now, and neither you nor anyone else has come up with a solid reason to continue classifying WhenUSearch, Weathercast, and ClockSync as something higher than "Low risk."
Also, would you please report Sunbelt's decisions accurately? Sunbelt did not "classify WhenU as low risk" -- it classified three specific programs as "Low risk," while leaving WhenU's main adware application as "Moderate risk."
said by StraitShoot:2. It looks like no matter what, Sunblet should have left everything the way they were, now I, along with others, it seems, lost a little of that "trust" I previously had.. I trialed CounterSpy for two weeks, and I was close to buying it.. Now, I think I'll wait it out... Again, WHY? Simply repeating ad nauseam that you don't like the decisions isn't going to be convincing, if you can't provide good reasons and solid evidence to believe you're right.
Have you read the Sunbelt analysis, Jim? Can you tell us point by point where that analysis is flawed or what evidence we've overlooked?
Eric L. Howes | |
 John2gQui Tacet ConsentitPremium
join:2001-08-10
England | reply to eburger68
I have never installed CounterSpy, so I doon't know exactly how it works.
However, from reading this thread, it doesn't seem all the difficult to change the setting (once it is detected) from ignore to remove. It is not exactly rocket science.
--
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. | |
StraitShootWho Loves Ya Baby? - Theo KojakPremium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
kudos:1
1 edit | said by John2g:I have never installed CounterSpy, so I doon't know exactly how it works. However, from reading this thread, it doesn't seem all the difficult to change the setting (once it is detected) from ignore to remove. It is not exactly rocket science. Eric, you're playing "solid evidence", where is the analysis flawed, or have you read the analysis...games now, eh?
Say what you wannna say, man, but a lot of people don't know better, and won't move it from "ignore" to remove... Wheras, by having it in "remove" Sunbelt was more protecting of the average user (not us exalted DSLR members, LOL) now that level of protection is not as strong.. If I have the brains to install WhenU, then in detection, I can choose to remove... or ignore...
B, I'm totally with you on this one.. | |
 ctripIslam is a Religion of PeacePremium
join:2002-07-16
New Cumberland, PA
 ·Comcast
| reply to eburger68
Personally, this reclassification doesn't really bother me. The program still detects the stuff, right? So I can just change their recommended "ignore" to remove. No biggie.
This is the same attitude I had about 3 weeks ago when I first saw the thread started by the Sunbelt shill about Microsoft Antispyware "downgrading" Claria recommendations.
»MS Downgrades Claria Detections
I thought the same thing then. It still gets detected I just change their "ignore" to remove...No biggie.
But what I do find entertaining, is that during the course of that 8 page thread all the outrage directed at MS and all the praise heaped on Counterspy who would never do such a rotten and evil thing.
--
Spread Internet Explorer! - The browser you can trust to not have those annoying Firefox twits pushing it! | |
|
