how-to block ads
|
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
1 edit | reply to eburger68
Re: ASW Vendors in La-La Land
Sunbelt Software SUMs it up nicely by calling all this stuff the very neutral sounding "Potentially Unwanted Installations (PUI)".
[Edit - Did you come up with that terminology, Eric? Noticed that Sunbelt gives you credit for your assistance.]
By eliminating 'negative opinion terminology' and sticking to performance based facts and descriptives, malware eliminator scanner authors can minimize their exposure to bullying legal actions initiated by Crapware (thanks KyeU) creators.
Thanks for the links, and the facts, Eric. | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
1 edit | reply to sivran
sivran:
You wrote:
said by sivran  :To tie a noose around the spyware vendor's necks, we'll leave the sticky issues of EULAs and "user consent" out of it, and call them irrelevant. Consent at noon does not mean consent at midnight, and EULAs are rarely understood in any case and thus should have no relevance to an app being detected or not. Actually, I think you need to go the opposite direction here. EULAs and "user consent" are the key, and if you don't nail that issue you'll never get to the rest of your criteria.
Almost any function-based criteria that you might draft are going to have to be tied to user-consent, because with almost any software function or quality you can define, I can find a legitimate app that incorporates that quality or function. What distinguishes the "legit" apps from the "illegit" ones is user consent.
User-consent is itself a knotty subject, but I don't think we'll be able to avoid tackling it.
Eric L. Howes | |
LilBambi
join:2004-08-16
USA | reply to SUMware
Now that's a cool name for it.
Puey, I want to get rid of these PUI.  | |
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21 | Phooey on PUI. | |
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to eburger68
quote:
Actually, I think you need to go the opposite direction here. EULAs and "user consent" are the key, and if you don't nail that issue you'll never get to the rest of your criteria.
I'm afraid then that we put ourselves in an extremely poor situation by default. How can one consent to what one doesn't understand (re: Gator's huge license)? What if the consent is obtained by trickery? Is it still consent?
Maybe, instead of an "OR" between "displays ads" and "tracks usage" there should be an "AND" -- this would then exclude Windows itself, Microsoft Office, and other applications which track your usage solely for the user's convenience. It would also, unfortunately, rule out any adware that did not track your usage but instead just indiscriminantly displayed ads.
No, I think the "OR" should remain, and I think consent and EULAs should remain non-issues. At the very least, the bare minimum should be what Hijack This displays to users: running processes, and processes set to start on boot, regardless of their desirability, license, or consent. It should go one step further, of course, and provide information about each item, ie: "ccApp.exe -- Symantec/Norton Common Client App for Anti-Virus and other functions; textgarble.exe -- Component of I-Spy, tracks internet usage and displays ads."
As I'm sure we all know it's far, far too easy to pervert the issues of user consent and EULA presentation into a way to weasel out of a malware classification. That's why they should be excluded from any targetting critera.
--
TCPA - Treacherous Computing
Kerio 2.1.5 - Best damn firewall
Home licensing should be just that. | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
1 edit | sivran:
You wrote:
said by sivran :I'm afraid then that we put ourselves in an extremely poor situation by default. How can one consent to what one doesn't understand (re: Gator's huge license)? What if the consent is obtained by trickery? Is it still consent? I say no. And, further, I say that we start insisting that those kinds of installation practices aren't good enough to secure meaningful, informed user consent. Finally, I say we start enshrining those judgments and positions in targeting criteria. Sticking a 10,000 word EULA in front of a user with a "Click here" button does not yield consent. And I think that's exactly what anti-spyware firms ought to be saying in their criteria.
said by sivran :Maybe, instead of an "OR" between "displays ads" and "tracks usage" there should be an "AND" -- this would then exclude Windows itself, Microsoft Office, and other applications which track your usage solely for the user's convenience. "User's convenience" sounds like code for "user's consent." If it's not, the question becomes how do we determine what's "convenient" for users? The only logical answer I can think of is to determine the question of consent.
said by sivran :No, I think the "OR" should remain, and I think consent and EULAs should remain non-issues. At the very least, the bare minimum should be what Hijack This displays to users: running processes, and processes set to start on boot, regardless of their desirability, license, or consent. It should go one step further, of course, and provide information about each item, ie: "ccApp.exe -- Symantec/Norton Common Client App for Anti-Virus and other functions; textgarble.exe -- Component of I-Spy, tracks internet usage and displays ads." HijackThis really isn't a good example for an anti-spyware app that would be offered to normal users. HJT assumes that users already know what's running on their systems, are familiar with the spyware/adware apps out there, and have a good understanding for the risks involved in removing various program components.
Even adding "neutral" descriptions doesn't get you very far, because at that point you're right back at the general uninstaller idea that was tossed around earlier. We already have apps like those, and they don't address the problem because users want you to present a list of just the "bad stuff." And once you start labeling certain programs as "bad stuff" you're right back with all the knotty issues we've discussed here before with targeting criteria.
said by sivran :MAs I'm sure we all know it's far, far too easy to pervert the issues of user consent and EULA presentation into a way to weasel out of a malware classification. That's why they should be excluded from any targetting critera. Adware and spyware vendors have been using and abusing the issue of user consent, but that doesn't mean we abandon it. It means we stop letting them use it and abuse it.
Going the pure functionality route is a dead end -- come up with any set of pure, function-based criteria and we can make a hash of it with examples of legit apps. Before long you'll be trying to sneak the issue of user consent in the back door via such things as "user's convenience."
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
antiserious
The Future ain't what it used to be
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Scranton, PA
| reply to eburger68
Can't a computer owner also develop a EULA-like document for his hardware ? ... to read something like:
1- You are not allowed to install anything on my system that does not specifically announce that it is being installed in advance, whether a stand-alone application or as part of a bundle with any other application; further, any and all items you attempt to install must be disclosed individually and specifically in advance of install, and not grouped in any way;
2- You are required to provide an uninstaller that will completely remove any and all items you install on my system, including but not limited to programs, registry values, plug-ins and additions to any existing programs or values;
3- You will declare, briefly and in plain language, exactly what your program's functions are;
4- You will announce in advance any and all intention to connect to the internet in any way, shape or form, and the nature and content of any internet activity you generate or report on;
5- You will provide for a guaranteed method of denying access to your program or software at any time - if that disables any other application you will announce it, briefly and in plain language;
6- If you bundle your software with any other application or software, you will function only in conjunction with said application or software, and will cease to function when said application or software is terminated;
7- You will not redirect any attempt at communication with any site, or address, or program without announcing said activity in plain language in advance; if redirection is denied you will not interfere in any way with said communication;
8- You will not alter my security settings in any way, shape or form - if this results in a lack of functionality for your application or software you will disclose this, briefly and in plain language;
9- This agreement supersedes any and all EULA disclosures that may have been made or agreed to, either directly or by implication - in event of a conflict of interests, my stipulations shall take precedence;
10- You shall be responsible for all costs related to removal of your product and any attendant items, should you violate any of these terms and conditions.
... just a thought ... very rough, but wouldn't that be be something if we could ...
--
... "Nobody's perfect - well, there was this one guy, but we killed Him" ... Christopher Moore, 'Lamb' ... | |
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
2 edits | reply to eburger68
First, in the interests of lightening things a bit, but very much on point:
»yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=···from=rss
Man Finds $1,000 Prize in EULA
It's funny. Laugh.
Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 23, @07:09PM
from the read-the-fine-print dept.
bhtooefr writes "When Doug Heckman was installing a PC Pitstop program, he actually read the EULA. In it, he found a clause stating that he could get financial compensation if he e-mailed PC Pitstop. The result: a $1,000 check, and proof that people don't read EULAs (3,000 people before him didn't notice it). The goal of this was to prove that one should read all EULAs, so that one can see if an app is spyware if it is buried in the EULA."
Back to the grind, Eric's talked a couple of times now about
said by eburger68 :the general uninstaller idea that was tossed around earlier. We already have apps like those, and they don't address the problem because users want you to present a list of just the "bad stuff." Except for one thing. We don't already have apps like those.
We DON'T (as far as I know) have applications that simultaneously display ordinary innocent application uninstallation information AND spyware/adware/malware uninstallation information in the SAME interface.
The worst spyware makes itself very difficult to uninstall. As far as I understand, antispyware providers have to go out of their way to effectively neuter a lot of this stuff.
And, as far as I know, more mainstream uninstallation programs DON'T bother to do that, to track malware that goes out of its way to mutate and hide.
So I don't think we should dismiss the "generic uninstaller" idea, because it really hasn't been tried.
Here's what I mean. Harry Homemaker sees popups and ad bars infesting his life. He says "what the heck is going on?". So he runs The Generic Uninstaller. He gets a list of programs. He notices that 3 or 4 of them are NOT on his Windows Add/Remove program list. With the simplest of information ("this program can display ads"), either embedded in The Generic Uninstaller or derived from a quick Googling, he can determine what he needs to uninstall.
And most importantly, he can trust that, unlike the Add/Remove control panel, The Generic Uninstaller knows how to REALLY remove that software after he's chosen to do so.
Is this as easy as running Ad-Aware or Spybot or MS Giant AntiSpyware? Actually, I think it's easier.
If there already is such an actively updated mutating-spyware-aware generic uninstallation program, then please excuse my ignorance and share it with us. Thanks...
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
Two Bits
@telus.net
| reply to eburger68
This just in..... A Micro Hic-up
A little off the rails but interesting non-the-less.
Show to go ya, its tough to be perfect in every way.
»www.computerworld.com/securityto···,00.html | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
2 edits | reply to B
B:
You wrote:
said by B :We DON'T (as far as I know) have applications that simultaneously display ordinary innocent application uninstallation information AND spyware/adware/malware uninstallation information in the SAME interface. The worst spyware makes itself very difficult to uninstall. As far as I understand, antispyware providers have to go out of their way to effectively neuter a lot of this stuff. And, as far as I know, more mainstream uninstallation programs DON'T bother to do that, to track malware that goes out of its way to mutate and hide. So I don't think we should dismiss the "generic uninstaller" idea, because it really hasn't been tried. We may not have a generic uninstaller that is quite that powerful but we've got apps that come close enough in various ways to know that this is not likely to be a productive approach for most users.
We've got generic uninstallers that probably would be able to track and uninstall a lot of these apps because many of the spyware/adware programs we encounter actually do use standard installers/uninstallers. Some of the very worst stuff doesn't (CWS comes to mind), but those are a minority.
And we also have experience with more powerful, specialized uninstallers that can detect the nastier stuff -- it's called HijackThis. And that, as I pointed out, is simply inappropriate for most users.
said by B :Here's what I mean. Harry Homemaker sees popups and ad bars infesting his life. He says "what the heck is going on?". So he runs The Generic Uninstaller. He gets a list of programs. He notices that 3 or 4 of them are NOT on his Windows Add/Remove program list. With the simplest of information ("this program can display ads"), either embedded in The Generic Uninstaller or derived from a quick Googling, he can determine what he needs to uninstall. Two points here:
1) Harry Homemaker isn't going to be Googling to find out info about these programs or comparing one add/remove list with another. If Harry Homemaker has to research these things himself, then he's not going to be interested in your app. He wants something quick and easy that will identify all the "bad stuff" and get rid of it.
2) The information you present to Harry is going to be critical, and if you're going to present useful information that actually lets Harry Homemaker make quick, easy decisions, the descriptions will have to be rather pointed. The more pointed you make them, the closer and closer you're getting to the same problems that afflict targeting criteria for anti-spyware applications right now.
Let's take your example: "this program can display ads." If you're going to use just that description in the most literal sense, then you're going to be applying that short description to the following programs:
* web browsers (yes, like IE -- they display ads)
* trial versions of shareware programs (yes, they display ads for themselves and even for other products from the same company)
* AOL Instant Messenger
* email programs (they display spam messages don't they?)
Harry Homemaker's not going to find that kind of list very useful.
"That's ridiculous," you'll say. "I mean only adware type programs" or "I mean only programs that display advertising of xyz nature in abc way." In other words, you want to narrow the list -- be selective.
And guess what? You've just written the first line of your targeting criteria. The minute you try to write descriptions that are actually useful and start highlighting or distinguishing the programs that Harry may actually want to uninstall and probably which he should uninstall, you're going to have to draft definitions for those descriptions to nail down the precise circumstances in which you affix those descriptions to certain applications.
That's what I pointed out several pages ago with the BHORemover example. If you just present any and all BHOs with no comment, you'll have few problems, provided your app works as advertised. Once you start classifying and sorting, then you're in the business of targeting certain apps. And for that you need definitions and criteria.
said by B :Is this as easy as running Ad-Aware or Spybot or MS Giant AntiSpyware? Actually, I think it's easier. The easier you make it, the closer you come to what anti-spyware apps are doing right now. Harry Homemaker doesn't want to be Googling for more information -- he wants you to tell him what's bad and what ought to be removed.
said by B :If there already is such an actively updated mutating-spyware-aware generic uninstallation program, then please excuse my ignorance and share it with us. Thanks... "Mutating-spyware-aware generic uninstallation program"? That's an oxymoron. Either you're making no useful distinctions whatsoever among the apps you present to Harry Homemaker for removal, in which case you've got a true generic uninstaller and Harry's not going to find that useful.
Or you've started to make useful distinctions for Harry with descriptions and labels, in which case you'd better have criteria to undergird the use of those descriptions and ensure that you're applying them consistently and fairly. And those descriptions better not be stepping on any toes in adware-land or you, too, can have your very own C&D.
In fact, that's what CastleCops did: they merely offered a list of BHOs, CLSIDs, and toolbars of *all* kinds, both "good" and "bad." You can find the Adobe Acrobat BHO on their lists as well as iSearch/iDownload's BHOs. The minute CastleCops started affixing labels and descriptions to separate out iDownload/iSearch's BHOs from Adobe's, however, that's when they got hit with the threat of a lawsuit. Just for affixing *descriptions* to certain elements of an otherwise generic list of BHOs.
Remember: the last thing these people want is to stand out from the pack in any way, shape, or form -- at least not in any way that might actually help Harry Homemaker identify their applications as potentially objectionable and get rid of them. The minute you help Harry Homemaker start making distinctions -- either with information such as CastleCops provides or with detection and removal tools such as anti-spyware makers provide -- they're not going to be happy.
I'm sorry, but you're not going to evade the job of drafting criteria and definitions of some sort -- not if you're really going to help Harry Homemaker instead of sending him to Google to figure it out for himself.
Eric L. Howes | |
Taranis
join:2001-12-06
Mount Vernon, WA
| reply to eburger68
I read some of Eric & B's comments earlier, and I understand the arguements from both.
Why not cut to the heart of the matter: Take the terms and definitions of "adware" "spyware" "malware", etc and find the most common denominator between all of them, then use that as a cornerstone of criteria for defining such software?
Most, if not all crapware/whatever that I've seen on users' computers is there to serve one purpose: Show advertisements. They may very well be hard to remove, monitor users' online activites, steal personal information, and worse, but they all in some way serve ads.
And if they don't? They're a virus. They can't be much else, can they?
Since the adware industry wants, and in fact is, trying to redefine the boundries between spyware and adware, let's call a duck a duck. Most of us participating in this thread don't want advertisement software - that's a given, regarless of the more serious potential consequences of installing it. So why not lump the whole lot of them together regardless of the the more irritating problems such software creates (lockups, difficulty uninstalling, system instability, privacy issues, etc)?
WhenU would certainly fall into this category, EULA or not. So would hundreds of others...
Personally, I think by eliminating the divisions between spyware, crapware, malware, etc, and calling them what they are - "adware" they will be easier to combat as a whole, instead of the "whack-a-mole" situation we're faced with as the future of such garbage is becoming.
This is at the heart of my beef with Ad-Aware, because a software's title literally defines it's purpose, in most cases...
Ad-Aware
The title tells me, as a novice user, that this software will make me "aware" of advertising software that's on my PC. And why would it make me aware of it, without giving me the option of removing it? That's just common sense for any upcomer wanting to make money...
Ad-Aware BROKE their mantra, if you will, by compromising everything their title speaks about. Ad-Aware is not "Ad-Sometimes-Aware". I can't recommend them to novice users, as something that's comprehensive and easy to use, that will do them any good. It's a tool. A tool to be used as part of a layered approach to the prevention and/or removal of the crap these companies shove upon us. I cannot expect novice computer users that I deal with day in and day out to understand complex layered security, when half of them don't understand how to use Ctrl+Alt+Del.
So why let the companies we're fighting redefine the terms of the battle? Adware is crapware is spyware is malware. Call it adware, call it a day, and give me a program to remove it. It serves ads = I don't want it = I'll remove it and block it any way I can. And I'll help others do the same...
Sue me, WhenU.
Just another .02.. | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
| reply to eburger68
Taranis17:
I happen to like the "advertising software" focus myself, as it seems to cover a lot of what these types of programs do.
Just out of curiosity, what would be your reaction to these two targeting criteria or definitions?
* displays third-party advertising in pop-ups and windows that the software opens on the users' desktops and which are not part of internet content that users directly choose to visit or view without first providing sufficient notice and choice to users and securing their full, meaningful, and informed consent, or without offering users a means for permanently removing or opting out of the advertising short of purchasing a "pro" version of the product and/or incurring a fee
* embeds third-party advertising banners or messages within other programs or within elements of the operating system itself without first providing sufficient notice and choice to users and securing their full, meaningful, and informed consent, or without offering users a means for permanently removing or opting out of the advertising short of purchasing a "pro" version of the product and/or incurring a fee.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| reply to eburger68
I see a very disturbing trend going on. First we have anti spyware/adware sites getting sued. Secondly we have anti spyware/adware companies not removing certain adware and spyware from a person computer. What is wrong with this picture?
Are we now living in a society where the deceivers, people who commit fraud and the criminals sue cause they can't do there evil deeds? Wonders who will start the next suit? The virus writer or a hacker? It may sound ridiculous sounding but the way things are going, it might happen.
Though these suits have no basis, the facts are perfectly clear. These malware writers fear people taking matters into there own hands. Fear that there money flow will be disrupted due from people being informed of there evil deeds.
However you want to call it, malware, crapware, it really doesn't matter. I will call it however I feel like and will let people know what garbage it really is. I will take it a step further and tell the people who make up this malware, When U, Claria, and IDownloads, about what I really think of them and there garbage.
Come sue me, I will be waiting for you. | |
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to eburger68
said by eburger68 :1) Harry Homemaker isn't going to be Googling to find out info about these programs or comparing one add/remove list with another. If Harry Homemaker has to research these things himself, then he's not going to be interested in your app. He wants something quick and easy that will identify all the "bad stuff" and get rid of it. Not true. HijackThis is one of the least understandable applications a novice can run, and yet thousands of people seek it out. Why? Because it's purported TO HELP! Harry damn well is going to be willing to Google, particularly if it's a click away in a link from The Generic Uninstaller. If people won't even do that much, then I don't particularly care, since the whole premise of "I know it when I see it" is that the users are in control.
Let's take your example: "this program can display ads." If you're going to use just that description in the most literal sense, then you're going to be applying that short description to the following programs:
* web browsers (yes, like IE -- they display ads)
* trial versions of shareware programs (yes, they display ads for themselves and even for other products from the same company)
* AOL Instant Messenger
* email programs (they display spam messages don't they?)
Harry Homemaker's not going to find that kind of list very useful. That's ridiculous. It's immediately clear to Harry that he uses (or doesn't use) AIM, or a particular web browser, or a particular piece of shareware, or a particular e-mail program, even though they display ads. But he may notice that "SooperShopNSaveBigCash", which ALSO "displays ads", is NOT a program he uses. So Harry will KNOW what he wants to keep and what he may not want to keep. The principle of "I know it when I see it" holds.
"That's ridiculous," you'll say. "I mean only adware type programs" or "I mean only programs that display advertising of xyz nature in abc way." In other words, you want to narrow the list -- be selective. No. I don't want to narrow the list. That's the point! (For The Generic Uninstaller scenario at any rate.)
The easier you make it, the closer you come to what anti-spyware apps are doing right now. Harry Homemaker doesn't want to be Googling for more information -- he wants you to tell him what's bad and what ought to be removed. And as noted above, I give Harry a little more credit than that, particularly since he's motivated to get rid of the crap and since he's learned he can't necessarily trust ANY of the antispyware vendors to do their jobs.
said by B :If there already is such an actively updated mutating-spyware-aware generic uninstallation program, then please excuse my ignorance and share it with us. Thanks... "Mutating-spyware-aware generic uninstallation program"? That's an oxymoron. Either you're making no useful distinctions whatsoever among the apps you present to Harry Homemaker for removal, in which case you've got a true generic uninstaller and Harry's not going to find that useful.
Remember: the last thing these people want is to stand out from the pack in any way, shape, or form -- at least not in any way that might actually help Harry Homemaker identify their applications as potentially objectionable and get rid of them. The minute you help Harry Homemaker start making distinctions -- either with information such as CastleCops provides or with detection and removal tools such as anti-spyware makers provide -- they're not going to be happy. I dunno -- I kinda think Harry should know what software he's chosen (or not chosen) to install, and to make an informed decision about what he wants to keep. I really don't think it's that hard for him. And I know a lot of Harrys.
More simply, if the majority of spyware includes uninstallers that CAN be trusted, then that information alone is quite valuable to me -- it certainly makes things easier. How can I know which ones to trust? Is that covered on one of your SpywareWarrior pages?
That's why even if all The Generic Uninstaller does is link to spyware-producer-supplied uninstallers that the TGU folks have determined actually uninstall properly, that's a big help right there. Please don't tell me that being selective in that context is problematic too! Will there be arguments over what "uninstall" means?
I'm sorry, but you're not going to evade the job of drafting criteria and definitions of some sort -- not if you're really going to help Harry Homemaker instead of sending him to Google to figure it out for himself.
If you mean sending him to Google in the context of The Generic Uninstaller, then I think that's a valid approach anyway, as noted.
If you mean sending him to Google INSTEAD of running The Generic Uninstaller, then that's not really fair, since without a scanner of some type, it would be difficult to properly identify the source of unlabeled or misleading popups and toolbars and whatnot, particularly if nothing shows up in Add/Remove.
Ah well, I'm already tired of this... which is why your unflagging persistence in this field is so admirable, whether or not I agree with you.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
1 edit | B:
You wrote:
said by B:
Not true. HijackThis is one of the least understandable applications a novice can run, and yet thousands of people seek it out. Why? Because it's purported TO HELP! Harry damn well is going to be willing to Google, particularly if it's a click away in a link from The Generic Uninstaller. If people won't even do that much, then I don't particularly care, since the whole premise of "I know it when I see it" is that the users are in control.
HJT gets thousands upon thousands of downloads a week. But there's a reason why so many anti-spyware forums have warnings about not using HJT unassisted and also have policies to stop unapproved "helpers" from posting advice to HJT threads -- because HJT is dangerous in the hands of the uninformed. And the people who really need help are the very people who can't use HJT unassisted and who don't want any more of their time wasted by being forced to research stuff on their computer.
I find this stuff fascinating to research, as I'm sure you do, too. My dad, on the other hand, doesn't. He's become more computer savvy over the years and has more patience than he used to, but really he just wants to get pictures of his grandchildren and stay in touch with his old Navy buddies. He doesn't want to spend time researching stuff on his computer online -- that's a frustrating, confusing waste of time for him. And there are plenty of others like that. In fact, I'd say the majority of users are like that. The folks you see here at DSLR -- even the more clueless ones -- are already a fairly select bunch. Certainly not representative of most Harry Homemakers.
When most Harry Homemakers get junk on their computers they turn to experts (their resident personal PC gurus) to help get it off -- there was a survey recently that confirmed this, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. Often it's the kid down the street who's really into computers. Maybe its the nerd at work or the super-smart nephew with that hot IT job. The point is they turn to experts for advice and guidance, and they need a lot of both.
Here's an eye-opening study that was done recently:
AOL/NCSA Online Safety Study (Oct. 2004)
»www.staysafeonline.info/news/saf···_v04.pdf (PDF)
Read the numbers and weep. Those are your Harry Homemakers. Those are the people like my dad.
said by B:
That's ridiculous. It's immediately clear to Harry that he uses (or doesn't use) AIM, or a particular web browser, or a particular piece of shareware, or a particular e-mail program, even though they display ads. But he may notice that "SooperShopNSaveBigCash", which ALSO "displays ads", is NOT a program he uses. So Harry will KNOW what he wants to keep and what he may not want to keep. The principle of "I know it when I see it" holds.
Would that they were all labeled "SooperShopNSaveBigCash" -- they'd effectively be doing our work for us. But they're not. They've got names like:
Search Assistant
Winstall
Browser Plugin
Free Game
Funny Icons
Now maybe you start matching up company names to those apps. But Harry Homemaker isn't going to know the difference between:
Soeperman Enterprises
C2 Media
IDM Computer Solutions
DirectRevenue
iSearch
iolo technologies
said by B:
No. I don't want to narrow the list. That's the point! (For The Generic Uninstaller scenario at any rate.)
You have to start distinguishing between applications for Harry -- that's what I mean by "narrow the list." You don't want to apply "the program can display ads" to a long list of programs because then Harry's got to wade through it all. You want to cut to the chase and tell Harry the programs that are likely to cause him trouble with annoying pop-up ads on his desktop.
said by B:
And as noted above, I give Harry a little more credit than that, particularly since he's motivated to get rid of the crap and since he's learned he can't necessarily trust ANY of the antispyware vendors to do their jobs.
Well, Harry's had a long day. He definitely wants the junk off, but he doesn't want to be Googling all night long for info on mysteriously named apps that he doesn't understand. See that AOL/NCSA survey above for the scary truth about just what people do and do not know about what's on their computers.
Side note: if Harry does go to Google, he's probably just going to type in "spyware," see all those sponsored links for sleazebag anti-spyware programs, and plop down his credit card for one that looks like it will take care of the problem in a jiffy -- all without knowing, of course, that what he's looking at are sponsored links. I know, because I get angry emails from Harry or his outraged wife Henrietta Homemaker every week. And for the sad truth on how clueless many are with search engines, see:
Search Engine Users: Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and trusting –
but they are also unaware and naïve
»www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/146/re···play.asp
said by B:
Perhaps you misunderstand me. There are no distinctions in how the applications are presented.
If there are no useful distinctions in how the programs are presented, then Harry's not going to find the uninstaller useful.
said by B:
I dunno -- I kinda think Harry should know what software he's chosen (or not chosen) to install, and to make an informed decision about what he wants to keep. I really don't think it's that hard for him. And I know a lot of Harrys.
It's tougher than you think, esp. when Harry's wife and kids are installing stuff, and the computer came from the OEM stuffed with programs to begin with.
said by B:
More simply, if the majority of spyware includes uninstallers that CAN be trusted, then that information alone is quite valuable to me -- it certainly makes things easier. How can I know which ones to trust? Is that covered on one of your SpywareWarrior pages?
That's why even if all The Generic Uninstaller does is link to spyware-producer-supplied uninstallers that the TGU folks have determined actually uninstall properly, that's a big help right there. Please don't tell me that being selective in that context is problematic too! Will there be arguments over what "uninstall" means?
Some can be trusted some, some can't. Some shut down if they detect that they've been launched by anything other than the Add/Remove Programs applet. Some require users to type in code to verify that the uninstall is actually being requested by the user. (This is one truly hilarious aspect of adware and spyware: many of these apps are more painstaking on the back end in gaining actual user consent than they are on the front end when the junk's actually being installed on users' PCs.)
As for a list of these vendor supplied uninstallers, I don't know of one. The volunteers who work HJT logs in the forums tend to be familiar with the ones that are usable and the ones that aren't.
said by B:
Ah well, I'm already tired of this... which is why your unflagging persistence in this field is so admirable, whether or not I agree with you.
Well, I appreciate your persistence in seeing this discussion through, because I think it's been a valuable one. I've been banging my head against these conundrums and issues for several years now. I don't see any easy answers, unfortunately. What we often wind up with are "least bad" solutions.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
Suchaknight
Premium
join:2002-10-06
Houbytown
| reply to eburger68
Well, I have read this entire thread, and have an idea/suggestion/comment regarding the difficulty in defining "spyware", and not getting into legal brouhahas with adware vendors for targetting their software.
What if someone came up with a new kind of software tool, call it EULA-Analyst for example, that gave the end-user a succinct, easy-to-understand explanation of a EULA, highlighting any "concerns" that might be associated with installing the application in question? With this knowledge, the end-user could then make an easy choice, and adware apps that look suspicious would not even get installed. I'm sure a database of EULA samples could be created and maintained similar to the way it's done with other malware fingerprints. With this approach, the end-user would know what he is getting, and could act accordingly. Could this work?
--
I'm suchaknight, and I approved this post. | |
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to eburger68
Ah, Eric, having no more answers, I must concede.
You are, after all, the expert here, and I am far from an expert on anything. I wish I shared your optimism that the sticky issue of user consent can be tackled sufficiently, but I just can't say that I do.
I do believe the two definitions you posted in response to Taranis17 are quite good. It's late, but at the moment I can't think of a way to sneak past them, though I'm sure given time to reflect you yourself probably could. 
Anyway, I'm bowing out now.
--
TCPA - Treacherous Computing
Kerio 2.1.5 - Best damn firewall
Home licensing should be just that. | |
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| reply to eburger68
Me I had Adaware SE and It would find a tracking cookie and nothing else, I'd have to update It over and over again. Then I installed Spy Bot S&D and guess what It found? It found 4 or 5 different pieces of spyware, Now there is none. Adaware never found anything but a Tracking Cookie or two, So I uninstalled It and deleted the install file.
--
»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
| reply to Suchaknight
suchaknight:
said by Suchaknight :What if someone came up with a new kind of software tool, call it EULA-Analyst for example, that gave the end-user a succinct, easy-to-understand explanation of a EULA, highlighting any "concerns" that might be associated with installing the application in question? With this knowledge, the end-user could then make an easy choice, and adware apps that look suspicious would not even get installed. I'm sure a database of EULA samples could be created and maintained similar to the way it's done with other malware fingerprints. With this approach, the end-user would know what he is getting, and could act accordingly. Could this work? That would be an interesting app for sure -- not a complete solution, but potentially useful. If you read a lot of these EULAs and Privacy Policies, you'll notice that they tend to use the same or similar clauses over and over. Once you get familiar with them, it's easy to spot what's new, unique, and different.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
| reply to sivran
sivran:
You wrote:
said by sivran :I do believe the two definitions you posted in response to Taranis17 are quite good. It's late, but at the moment I can't think of a way to sneak past them, though I'm sure given time to reflect you yourself probably could. When you're analyzing those kinds of criteria you've got to be thinking not only, "How could the bad guys slip past this clause?" but also, "What innocent applications might get caught by it?"
That's what makes these criteria and definitions tough to do right.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
|
