dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
676

siljaline
I'm lovin' that double wide
Premium Member
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

siljaline

Premium Member

Adware: A new approach

From MS MMPC -
quote:
Here at the Microsoft Malware Protection Center (MMPC) we understand advertising is part of the modern computing experience. However, we want to give our customers choice and control regarding what happens with their computers. To that end we have recently undergone some changes to both the criteria we use to classify a program as adware and how we remediate it when we find it. This blog will help explain the new criteria and how it affects some programs.
»blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc ··· ach.aspx
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

1 recommendation

Mele20

Premium Member

That was an interesting blog. Thanks. I think these revisions will be helpful to the average user.

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

TamaraB to siljaline

Premium Member

to siljaline
quote:
Here at the Microsoft Malware Protection Center (MMPC) we understand advertising is part of the modern computing experience.
It MAY be for some, not for others. I personally see no ads.

Why would anyone voluntarily install maleware/adware on their computers in the first place? More disturbing, is MMPC deciding which maleware is good and which is not, instead of killing all the maleware. Does this make any sense to anyone?
quote:
However, we want to give our customers choice and control regarding what happens with their computers.
Don't they already have that control? Nobody is forced to install maleware, it gets installed by stealth, trickery, or deception. Why should any of it be exempt from nuking by a "protection center"?

I can't imagine anyone being happy with ads haphazardly popping up on their screens; and I can't imagine any competent maleware protection service allowing some maleware to remain while removing others unless there is a financial connection between MMPC and the maleware purveyors. What's next? bad viruses and trojans versus "good" ones?

Sounds like snake-oil sales speak to me! But then, all advertising, including this MMPC piece, is filled with half-truths, lies, and double-speak, none of which should be believed.
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

2 recommendations

Mele20

Premium Member

I think you and I read two different articles.

I read Microsoft saying that Windows Defender will remove (not warn and quarantine) malicious adware immediately and silently upon first encounter. I don't take kindly to that much paternalism except Microsoft went on to outline exactly what the adware folks must do to avoid this immediate, silent removal. Not everyone hates ads or hates adware crap like the Ask toolbar. Lots of Avira users just sucked it up and continued to use not only free Avira but PAID Avira with that utter crap installed. I too never see ads....not since 2000 when I installed Ad Subtract on 98SE. It is was in beta at the time. Later I got its parent the Proxomitron. If I had to look at ads I wouldn't bother getting a computer and paying $50 a month to my ISP. But a lot of users WANT to see ads...so, I like what Microsoft is doing.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

3 recommendations

dave to TamaraB

Premium Member

to TamaraB
quote:
Why would anyone voluntarily install maleware/adware on their computers in the first place? More disturbing, is MMPC deciding which maleware is good and which is not, instead of killing all the maleware. Does this make any sense to anyone?
Makes sense to me. You seem to have missed the point, which is determining what is malware and what is not. Malware typically does not come with a label saying "malware".

So, this is about the criteria for determining whether some software is malware or not.

You may classify all software that displays adverts as 'malware' but that is your own definition. The Microsoft definitions seem reasonable: it's only malware if it does certain bad things, like not having a way to get rid of it nor telling you which program is producing the adverts.

In short: as long as the customer can make an informed choice to stay with the advert-driven program, they may do so. If the elements of 'informed' or 'choice' are removed it is automatically classed as malware.

You might not like it, but it is considered legitimate for a program to fund itself by displaying adverts. I wouldn't care for that myself(*), and would either not install it in the first place (assuming up-front notification of intent) or would quickly uninstall it. This latter is what makes the new MS criteria good: now I can be sure of being able to uninstall it, else it would be already gone.

(*) If the choice is paid-by-adverts or paid-by-end-user, I usually prefer the latter, in most areas of life, not just computer programs. But some people go for the former to avoid spending money, and I suppose they should be allowed to.

siljaline
I'm lovin' that double wide
Premium Member
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

siljaline to Mele20

Premium Member

to Mele20
If MS is being proactive against online ads -- this is a good thing.

DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium Member
join:2001-07-23
Bristol, CT

DrStrange to Mele20

Premium Member

to Mele20
I'd go a bit further. Maybe I'd include it as an added level of protection, but it would be nice if the AV/antimalware targeted adware and 'foistware' [Chrome, McAfee Security Scan, [various] toolbars etc.] and popped up a dialog box:

"You have XXX installed. This may have been installed inadvertently. Do you wish to uninstall it?"

Then Microsoft could tell the advertisers what they needed to do to avoid that type of detection: Stop pre-checking boxes for add-on software accompanying free software and software updates.

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

TamaraB to dave

Premium Member

to dave
said by dave:

... You seem to have missed the point, which is determining what is malware and what is not. Malware typically does not come with a label saying "malware".

So, this is about the criteria for determining whether some software is malware or not.

You may classify all software that displays adverts as 'malware' but that is your own definition.

Not only my definition, it's been the generally accepted definition for years. It looks like MS is the one changing the definition.

I have never been offered legitimate software which claimed to be paid for by ads. I have always thought software which did something other than what it claims, to be rogue maleware.

Malware

Malware includes computer viruses, ransomware, worms, trojan horses, rootkits, keyloggers, dialers, spyware, adware, malicious BHOs, rogue security software, and other malicious programs ...

The blog post goes on about how the ads are to be displayed, how there must be an [X] to extinguish them, how it needs to be identified ...... but it does not say what else the adware must not do. Like track you, identify you, profile you, send you spam ..... all the other "benefits" maleware generally offers.

I guess what I find most disturbing is that MS is changing what was once known to be bad, into something acceptable and good. Not a good trend in my opinion.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave

Premium Member

said by TamaraB:

I have never been offered legitimate software which claimed to be paid for by ads. I have always thought software which did something other than what it claims, to be rogue maleware.

You're conflating two different things:

1. Software paid for by adverts and is known to the customer to display adverts. Wikipedia seems to be aware that such a thing exists.

2. Software that does something other than what it claims.

I see no reason why #1 cannot exist even if I don't want it. As long as I know beforehand what I'm getting, or can easily back out of having it installed, fine by me. Let a thousand weeds bloom.

In the case of #2, well, in the context of this discussion I suppose it means software that claims to be a 'useful' toolbar, doesn't mention adverts prominently, and yet spams you to death. Sure, that's malware, and you, I, and Microsoft agree on that.

I guess what I find most disturbing is that MS is changing what was once known to be bad, into something acceptable and good. Not a good trend in my opinion.

I think you have that backwards. Before, all of it was just 'potentially unwanted' and at best was quarantined. Now, the subpart that does not fit the 'transparency' criteria is automatically gone, no questions. And the subpart that does fit the criteria is guaranteed to be easily removable.

So, they're tightening up the definitions, not loosening them, as far as I can see from the article. You will have less advert spam, not more.


TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Verizon FiOS
Ubiquiti NSM5
Synology RT2600ac
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)

1 recommendation

TamaraB

Premium Member

I guess it's a new world. I dislike a whole lot of what is going on these days. Especially the constant attempts to invade my privacy and bombard me with mind-numbing ads.

I view systems like Facebook as rogue spammers as well (legitimate adware). They entice their users to allow access to their address books, then spam all those folks with messages like "Do you know so-and-so?" ...... Send a "friend" an email, and invariably you end up on some so-called legitimate mailing list. This practice seems to have become generally accepted as Ok these days, and is not even considered rude. How many of these "good" adware programs do the same I wonder?

I do understand what you are saying, but my concern is that it may not only affect the person installing this adware, but also those of us not wanting to see the garbage. If Facebook can grep someone's address book and send UCE without any repercussions, and with no way to opt-out, who's to say adware can't or won't do the same?

I feel that classifying this stuff as legitimate is a step backwards. But, that's me, a child of the ARPANET, and not thrilled at what, in some ways, it has devolved into.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

2 recommendations

dave

Premium Member

Sure, I'm old enough to remember when I could post my email address in a usenet group and not have anything bad happen as a result. The rot set in when we let non-computer people use the net. (On the other side, now I can afford as many computers as I like... they cost around $500 in 2014 dollars rather than $4500 in 1993 dollars... and I'm not limited to affording only a 28Kbps pipe).

Your comparison of Facebook with adware is a good one, I think. As with commercial television, the product is you.

DownTheShore
Pray for Ukraine
Premium Member
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ

1 recommendation

DownTheShore to TamaraB

Premium Member

to TamaraB
That is, of course, assuming that you're registered on sites using your real name to begin with....

I, for example, have my Facebook account virtually locked down, but if I didn't and I had a contacts list for FB to access, people would only get a "Do you know "blankety-blank"" (for example) instead of "Do you know (my real name)". So they can sent my alias to whoever they want and it doesn't matter because it's not revealing me.

Sportsfan
join:2012-03-26

1 recommendation

Sportsfan to siljaline

Member

to siljaline
As I understand the article, MS is *expanding* its definition of malicious adware to include currently undetected PUP's like the Conduit toolbar. MS doesn't currently detect adware that a user supposedly "chooses" to install, as can be seen by the volume of complaints at the MSE help forum.

The new definition of bad adware will include any program that displays ads outside of its own application (e.g., browser hijacking) and which cannot be uninstalled in a normal manner. This will bring MSE up to the same standard as other AV's like Avast which allow for PUP detection.

siljaline
I'm lovin' that double wide
Premium Member
join:2002-10-12
Montreal, QC

1 recommendation

siljaline

Premium Member

I would have to agree with you that the article has met some skepticism as to what MMPC really mean.

In the end -- less ads is better for all. In this case, the definitions of what they are targeting is a slippery slope.
siljaline

siljaline to Mele20

Premium Member

to Mele20
said by Mele20:

That was an interesting blog. Thanks. I think these revisions will be helpful to the average user.

You're most welcome.