bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
| reply to Mele20
Re: Kaspersky, You lost me at ISwift..
said by Mele20  :
edit: Blue Zannetti, I am not a stupid fool. You propose I should use a method conjured up by some volunteers here when no one knows for sure what will occur. My computer is not your computer. Microsoft has not blessed this procedure. I want a tool from Kaspersky so if anything goes wrong I can sue Kaspersky. Kaspersky understands perfectly and that is why we have no tool. You surprise me in your obtuseness.
I didn't state or imply anyone was a stupid fool, nor do I believe anyone who uses that command line invocation is stupid. I verified that it works fine on my own system. There's really a finite and readily assessed number of outcomes possible. It's not magic and it's not obtuse.
As for this casual jousting about lawsuits, get real. Sure, you can sue just about anyone for anything - you could sue me for posting on this site simply because you want to - just be prepared for a response if you don't really know what you're talking about and the subject of the lawsuit decides to take exception to it - it's referred to as a countersuit.
Regards,
Blue |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to Whizard
You simply don't get it. Kaspersky FOREVER ALTERED EVERY SINGLE FILE ON MY COMPUTER WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. I have an especially good case here for a lawsuit. I immediately turned OFF ISwift and ICheck believing that Kaspersky wouldn't lie and say it could be turned off when it couldn't and I NEVER ran a FULL scan of the computer. If Kaspersky had told the truth, I would NEVER have installed KAV 2006 in the first place.
What Spinrite would say is not relevant, besides I don't have $80 to spend on that. I live on a fixed income. If Kaspersky would like to offer me Spinrite at no cost I will run it but that won't alter the fact that my files are not my files anymore. They are tainted by Kaspersky and the unforgiveable thing here that seems to be something you and the fanboys can't grasp is that I can't get rid of the garbage Kaspersky attached to all my files. Kaspersky altered my files without my permission and when I found out about it what happened? The expected, logical thing would have been for the garbage to have been removed when I removed Kaspersky. The next best thing would have been a tool from Kaspersky to remove their garbage after the fact. Instead, Kaspersky arrogantly says I have to live permanently with their garbage strewn all over my computer causing chkdsk to not work properly and just making me sick from the stench. And there is nothing I can do short of a non-proven removal that has NOT been blessed by Microsoft.
If you want us to shut up, if Kaspersky wants no more talk about this, no lawsuits, then either Kaspersky produces a removal tool or gets Microsoft to bless the procedure discussed in this thread and Kaspersky takes full responsibility for any problems that occur when a user runs the removal procedure.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Whizard
join:2005-08-27
Canada | reply to StraitShoot
SpinRite has proven itself time after time and is written by someone who knows more about hard drives than both of us combined. |
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
2 edits | reply to Whizard
Steve Gibson is fine and makes decent tools. However I think you missed this Whizard:
"The Microsoft Corporation officially states that API means were not developed for the mechanism deployed in the iSwift technology."
That is the official outcome of all this and there is no "official fix". So umm we resent being told spend more money on more tools to fix a problem caused by "technology" about to be dropped. That is simply a reasonable customer stance no? |
|
Whizard
join:2005-08-27
Canada
1 edit | reply to StraitShoot
Well, you can at least figure out what caused the corruptions.
Also if you quote something quote the full paragraph:
"On the other hand no restrictions to use API means were mentioned in the API description" |
|
bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
| reply to Mele20
said by Mele20 :
You simply don't get it. Kaspersky FOREVER ALTERED EVERY SINGLE FILE ON MY COMPUTER WITHOUT MY PERMISSION.
Yes, I get it, but what I get is that the stream of over the top statements like this (which is technically wrong by the way) simply causes any potentially reasonable discussion to spiral down a rathole of ridiculousness.
As for Spinrite - it's simply not needed to address this situation.
Blue |
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
1 edit | reply to Whizard
"On the other hand no restrictions to use API means were mentioned in the API description"
With respect, that does not make it "fact" it was safe use of the API. Rather it is an "assumption" at the root of the problem.
And well I already did quote in full on page 26. Didn't I? Why do I need to repeat that? |
|
tmaertin
Crash Into Me
Premium
join:2002-04-03
North Tonawanda, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to bluezanetti
i believe the Kaspersky EULA, which can be found in appendix C of the user manual, exempts them from being sued for this. its on page 232.
for the version 7 manual, please see under Section 6 Limitation of Liability, subsection ii, parts i and j:
link to the manual, because i do not feel like typing all that legal garbage out:
»www.kaspersky.com/home_user_docs···06908532
--
Hike up your skirt a little more, and show your world to me. |
|
bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
| reply to Whizard
said by Whizard :
Also if you quote something quote the full paragraph:
"On the other hand no restrictions to use API means were mentioned in the API description"
Whizard,
That's an after the fact rationalization. One simply doesn't program with an ethic that says "anything not explicitly disallowed is fair game", one follows the design guidelines.
Like I said - whoever decided on the design of iSwift exhibited sophomoric amateurishness - and given a sufficient dose of hubris, even good workers can fall into that trap. They should really step back and think about how to best practice their craft.
Blue |
|
Whizard
join:2005-08-27
Canada | reply to StraitShoot
I understand. What I am simply suggesting is an alternative tool, which can look after your hard drive in a much advanced way than CHKDSK possibly can. |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| reply to tmaertin
said by tmaertin :i believe the Kaspersky EULA, which can be found in appendix C of the user manual, exempts them from being sued for this. As far as I know, there is no such thing as an exemption from being sued. You can be sued for anything, even if the EULA says you can't sue. The EULA may offer protection, and the grounds for a lawsuit can always be dismissed. Nevertheless, the EULA isn't a universal shield or else every company in every industry would simply say "User proceed at your own risk" and absolve themselves of responsibility. |
|
Whizard
join:2005-08-27
Canada | reply to StraitShoot
Do you honestly believe this issue has any legal leverage? |
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
1 edit | reply to Whizard
I agree its a good tool Whizard. But unfortunately in this case it will not help.
BTW this is not a "fight" .. the attitude that some have shown, that this "cant happen" because I don't observe it myself was disappointing from the start. The issue was very real and clear from the API documentation from day one.
The facts are now clear and confirmed for all who want to see.. so judge for yourselves. Its my belief that the vendor needs to do something better (as I would expect from any vendor) than simply drop the problem functionality from the next version. Why? That does nothing for those afflicted (Not everyone affected is technical enough to do those manual steps). The fact is to date there is no "vendor fix".
Because of the way NTFS works.. all those who think they are "fine" may indeed NOT be "fine". That is only a matter of time for you to find for yourselves.
Its reasonable to expect a fix. Hopefully it comes.
I am interested in "vendor fixes" and technical facts, not lawsuits. Some may be more mad than me though .. Time to fix that in software not a court. |
|
norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
 ·WestNet Broadband
| said by m0d :BTW this is not a "fight" .. the attitude that some have shown, that this "cant happen" because I don't observe it myself was disappointing from the start. Maybe you saw it that way, but in saying "I do not see it" does not mean it comes with a certain smugness or arrogance. Most active helping members try to reproduce issues to help those that have problems, I'd hardly call that smugness or arrogance or "can't happen"
I think too many people when they get worked up and mad, really do miss the facts, and in all this topic, there is only a dozen or so on facts regarding the topic. The rest should have been deleted.
No amount of public bashing is required. It was outlawed after the middle-ages, hopefully we are not regressing here.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| reply to Whizard
said by Whizard :Do you honestly believe this issue has any legal leverage? It doesn't matter what I think. The only thing that would matter is what a judge would think, interpreting the facts to determine legal merit.
Sometimes, though not always, a judge will hold a company responsible (for negligence, misleading consumers, to set an example, etc.) even in cases when the consumer is not above reproach. The very fact that Kaspersky stopped using this technology in their next release might be construed as an admission of guilt or awareness that there was a problem. A judge would simply ask them to explain why they implemented this technology and whey they then changed it. Facts and actions are always open to interpretation.
No, it's not a slam dunk, but it also isn't as far fetched as some suggest. We live in a litigious world. |
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
| reply to StraitShoot
norwegian,
I did get bashed.. flamed even on this very forum .. for simply referring people to NTFS API docs and questioning the API use al la iSwift. The only statement that matters now is the one from Microsoft/Kaspersky.
The attitude was more like "not possible" and well beyond "I don't see it" including threats to have Kaspersky sue me. Nice huh?
You are all potentially affected here.. I hope you realise that and if I were you I would be insisting on a "vendor fix" too.. now that it is an acknowledged issue.
So the next time you are worked up about something.. remember that you don't need to be once the vendor provides a fix.
I got bashed.. I will note your statements as my defence if it ever happens again.
Don't shoot the messenger who brings you facts. That is just not right now is it? |
|
bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
1 edit | reply to Blue2
quote:
said by Blue2 :
No, it's not a slam dunk, but it also isn't as far fetched as some suggest. We live in a litigious world.
Although, a quick read of the page mentioned above contains language that explicitly excludes some of the potential issues mentioned. That makes it a rather more difficult a path to walk, not to mention other pragmatic details, for example, precisely which jurisdiction would this lawsuit be filed in. IMHO, all the lawsuit talk is pure BS.
Blue |
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland | Agreed .. forget lawsuits and talk about "vendor fixes". |
|
bluezanetti
Premium
join:2003-10-04
| reply to m0d
said by m0d :
Its reasonable to expect a fix. Hopefully it comes.
Quite right. This is a very reasonable expection, and one that should be realized although I have no idea whether it would be in the works.
Hopefully, it would be much faster than the current command line approach.
Blue |
|
