 da217
@dsl.irvnca.pacbell.n | reply to NanDog
Re: HJT sir search is the pest that wont die This is how I got rid of Sir Search. Found it on another board:
go to start, than run, than type regedit, than OK. go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. Than go to software. Than microsoft. Than internet explorer. Than go to toolbar. It will have reg keys for all ur tool bars. do not delete the default one. i did not know which reg key it was but i guessed and it didnt do any harm to me when i deleted some that werent it. to see if it was the right one. delete it than open a NEW internet explorer and if it doesnt work repeat the steps again. Remember not to delete the default one. Hope this helps!
Adois! |
|
| i have tried this and it does not work for me.these above instructions do not work for me b/c i am not trying to rid myself of a "toolbar" so to speak. my problem is that if i type a url in the address bar such as "google.com" or "yahoo.com" rather than "www.google.com" or "www.yahoo.com" it redirects me to a stupid sir search page. if i put the w's in there, then i will be taken to the appropriate page. fact of the matter is, i know that on any other computer, it is not necessary to add the "www" and i find this quite irritating.
i'm not an expert, but i consider myself much more knowledgeable than the average joe when it comes to computers. i have done everythign i can in the registry, msconfig and with adware/spyware removal programs, but i can still not rid myself of this horrid issue. my "log" is clean and i have no viruses. i have even gone so far as to chew out someone at an email address i found on Sir Search's home page.  i would appreciate any assistance. |
|
 siggyxSiggyPremium
join:2003-12-10
Cambridge | reply to irisheyes921
LOL crashnburn. Yeah like he does not know what hes talking about in regards to rogue apps. Please ..... Pest Patrol is one of the worst legit apps for false positives and that "newbie" you refer to probably has forgotten more than you know about spyware apps. So please if your selling the product or a representative of that product please say so as it will make things clearer, as I assume you are as you are willing to give away free copies of a app that you state yourself is not free.
Condsiering that that link is one of the most respected in the anti spyware world for comparative/rogue product review I will stick with the experts.
--
The next best thing to being smart is being able to quote someone who is. |
|
2 edits | I think you need to see for yourself for the test above newbie: And you can forget pointing me to the "what happen when you are hijack" site or that spywarewarrior site by some guy who probably did not even test out 50% of those products before he made false claims. These shots are tested in the following order: Adaware, spybot, pestpatrol, and scanspyware. Look at what Adaware missed that pestpatrol detects, and look at what scanspyware detect that all the others missed. Please test these apps before you make any comments. That's how you learn instead from reading crap from what other people say. Last thing, you are humoring me with your comments. |
|
1 edit | reply to siggyx
point out what are false positive in all those detection especially on pestpatrol? And why the hell would I try to sell a product to anyone...obviously your job is not much help to this board by feeding people with useless or should I say wrong info. It's good to let people know what's good out there and I only give out the app to people who are skeptical like you. But too bad dude, it looks like you don't need it because you think you are too good. NOT! |
|
 CajunTekInsane CajunPremium,MVM
join:2003-08-08
Arlington, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I didn't want to hijack this thread with extra comments about this software (scanspyware) or about my or crashandburns comments about it.. But I believe you need to work your way through this site before you even begin to criticize Mr Howes.. One of the most respected (and thorough) individuals in the anti malware community...
»netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/main.htm
--
Lost in Texas |
|
4 edits | reply to crashnburn
crashnburn:
You wrote:
said by crashnburn:
I think you need to see for yourself for the test above newbie: And you can forget pointing me to the "what happen when you are hijack" site or that spywarewarrior site by some guy who probably did not even test out 50% of those products before he made false claims. These shots are tested in the following order: Adaware, spybot, pestpatrol, and scanspyware. Look at what Adaware missed that pestpatrol detects, and look at what scanspyware detect that all the others missed. Please test these apps before you make any comments. That's how you learn instead from reading crap from what other people say. Last thing, you are humoring me with your comments.
A few points here:
1) It is a trivial exercise to run anti-spyware applications in a certain order and demonstrate that one will detect files and Registry keys that another doesn't. I do this kind of thing all the time, and my experience tells me that no matter the combination of applications and the order of their execution, the last in the chain will almost always detect something that the others didn't.
This kind of test demonstrates very little if you aren't also reporting on and analyzing just what was left by previous anti-spyware applications and how "critical" those leftovers really are.
For example, at least two of the detections from that ScanSpyware test you've posted are for the file bbchk.exe, which is absolutely trivial -- it's just a renamed version of a Microsoft digital signature verification program originally named CHKTRUST.EXE. That the other apps would have left that behind is not a cause for worry, yet "Scan Spyware" misleadingly labels it as "Critical," as if that file could do real damage to the user's system.
Why don't you post the actual scan log from that ScanSpyware test so that we can see precisely what the other applications failed to detect?
2) The real test of an anti-spyware application is how well it performs removals -- i.e., whether it successfully kills processes before removing the associated files, whether it removes the auto-start entries, whether it correctly uninstalls BHOs, whether it correctly unloads and de-registers DLLs, whether it successfully removes LSP hijackers without breaking the PC's network connections, etc. I've run into a number of junk anti-spyware programs that perform semi-adequately with detections, but utterly fail with removals, leaving truly critical executables running or ready to restart with the next boot. A good example of that is SpyHunter, which in my testing did simply failed to remove critical components -- see:
»spywarewarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=5015
...for my report. As I noted:
said by Eric L. Howes:
One recurring problem was that SpyHunter would attempt to remove and quarantine files, only to be thwarted because it had failed to kill the associated running processes or unload the associated .DLLs from memory. In such cases, the spyware/adware installations remained substantially intact, waiting for the next network connection to update and/or re-download.
And that is where the standard applications like Spybot S&D, Ad-aware, and Spy Sweeper excel. They may leave behind some inconsequential junk, but the spyware/adware applications are much more likely to be effectively "decapitated" and rendered non-functional.
3) If you're going to make a lot of noise, give the forum regulars here an attitude, and bad-mouth people at will for not doing their homework, you ought to at least do some minimal fact-checking yourself. Accusing someone (namely me) of not testing 50% of the products on that page without offering even the least bit of evidence simply doesn't cut it, esp. when the pages themselves should have told you otherwise.
If you had bothered to read, you would have noticed that the page states:
said by ROgue/Suspect Anti-Spyware page:
Testing was performed with most of the apps listed below, though not all of them. The notes section below contains definitions and descriptions of some of the key terms used in the comments for the applications listed. Be sure to consult the Anti-Spyware Family Resemblances and Orphans & Outcasts companion pages for more information on the applications listed.
And if you had bothered to click the links in that paragraph instead of making irresponsible charges that you couldn't back up, you would have found not only that I take the time to list the applications that I haven't been able to test, but that I supply screenshots for those that I have -- see for example:
»www.spywarewarrior.com/family_re···es.htm#7
...for screenshots from my test with ScanSpyware.
Almost all of the detections in the scan results screenshot, by the way, are false positives, and some are damning. Not only did it flag a completely innocent cookie from netfiles.uiuc.edu (my University's web server) as Lop.com (b/c of the string tfil, which matches the domain tfil.com, a known lop.com server) but it flagged a number of other Registry keys and files based on string matches -- see for example, the Reg32.exe file it flagged as CWS.
All anti-malware applications will generate false positives at some point, but when an anti-spyware application is generating a whole host of false positives because of dumb string scan matches, that's a good indication the detection scheme used by the application is relatively unsophisticated and prone to false positives. And that's why the entry for ScanSpyware report "false positives work as goad to purchase."
Before you presume to lecture anyone here again, I would strongly suggest that you do a minimal amount of fact checking, which just might save you in the future from making the kinds of irresponsible and self-indicting claims that you've made so far.
Edit: my apologies for tacking this post on to an on-going HJT log analysis. If the mods would prefer to move the ScanSpyware posts to a new thread, that would be perfectly fine with me.
Eric L. Howes |
|
 MusicscomPremium
join:2004-08-24
Washington, DC | reply to irisheyes921
What a good fight! Which gang of security analyists won?
What's the score here?
When all else fails, try using a modicum of decorum. |
|
|
|
| reply to CajunTek
where is your individuality and where do you stand as in thinking? do you listen to everything people say and do what they tell you to do? And who the hell is this Mr Howes? Some professor or an individual like you and I? Given his PHd level because he pass his exams doesn't mean he is "always" right. And my job is not here to earn people respect. I only give people other options and not to take everything from someone point of view. And for those that do not think the software I mentioned are good then I could care less. It's your loss...adn you guys can end the thread here because it's all matter of opinion at this point. I have mine and you guys have yours, based on "Mr. Howes". Funny but not surprised how you respect some guy's work when you haven't actually test it out for yourself. And again, there are tons of programs out there and why the heck do I recommend only a handful? Simply because it actually work. |
|
 Allyn_PPremium
join:2002-10-29
Cashiers, NC | Well, that was certainly entertaining.
Nothing like watching someone "crash and burn." 
Since I also have a computer with a rogue tool button, I'd like to see irisheyes921's problem resolved. And johnpd was working hard on that. I think you guys can come back, now. |
|
| to remove sir search,while i found out you get directed through.. www.zoombar.net then sir search!!!!! so if you wanna be able to type in google.com so it will take you there instead of sir search heres the answer!! http//download.centralserver.net/adware/unsetup.exe write back if this works,if the link doesn't work tell me also!! |
|
| »www.zoombar.net/remove.html I mean Just enter this site and you'll see how to remove it trust me sorry |
|
