| reply to eburger68
Re: Pest Patrol: Claria Temporarily Removed Hi All:
Two quick updates to this story.
First, as Karl Bode noted in his news story, CA has now corrected the link to the uninstall info:
»www3.ca.com/content/default.aspx?CID=67999
Second, CA's vendor appeals process is explained in more detail on this page:
eTrust PestPatrol Vendor Appeal Process
»www3.ca.com/Content/default.aspx?CID=67986
Best,
Eric L. Howes |
|
 mers2Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
kudos:8
1 edit | The fact that they willingly remove a product from detection before verifying that the product is no longer spyware is just plain wrong. Even if it is only for two weeks while they review it. If it still meets the CA spyware criteria the vendor can re-apply in 90 days and the whole process begins again. I would never trust a product with this set up in place.
--
God put me on this Earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I am so far behind I will never die.
|
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5
1 edit | On the positive side, it should give them something to do.
It's not like they were spending their time weeding out the false positives in their definitions.  |
|
canuk1
join:2005-03-03
Windsor, ON | I find it quite telling that the same outrage that went on and on here toward Lavasoft/AdAware is not showing over this.
I have to wonder, is there a double standard at work? |
|
mers2Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
kudos:8 | said by canuk1:I find it quite telling that the same outrage that went on and on here toward Lavasoft/AdAware is not showing over this. I have to wonder, is there a double standard at work? I don't think it's a double standard. I think it's a matter of Ad-Aware having a much larger customer base then Pest Patrol. Regardless of whether one has the program or not, the outrage should be there and the community needs to let the anti-spyware comapanies know that giving in to the malware companies will not be tolerated if they want to stay in business.
--
God put me on this Earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I am so far behind I will never die. |
|
| reply to Snowy
said by Snowy:On the positive side, it should give them something to do. It's not like they were spending their time weeding out the false positives in their definitions. ;)
LOL so true.. so true |
|
 fatdcukPremium
join:2005-02-20
England | reply to canuk1
quote:
Re: Pest Patrol: Claria Temporarily Removed
I find it quite telling that the same outrage that went on and on here toward Lavasoft/AdAware is not showing over this.
I have to wonder, is there a double standard at work?
1) they've told their customer's upfront in an open and honest manner unlike Lavasoft+WhenU
however
i hope they get the same treatment as Lavasoft and are shamed into changing their policy as with Lavasoft for the benefit of all their paying customer's. |
|
fatdcukPremium
join:2005-02-20
England | reply to eburger68
quote:
reply to eburger68
Hi All:
Two quick updates to this story.
First, as Karl Bode noted in his news story, CA has now corrected the link to the uninstall info:
»www3.ca.com/content/default.aspx?CID=6..
Second, CA's vendor appeals process is explained in more detail on this page:
eTrust PestPatrol Vendor Appeal Process
»www3.ca.com/Content/default.aspx?CID=6..
Best,
Eric L. Howes
since its obvious to all that the vendor appeal will now render the tool pest patrol ineffectual for periods of time,since it is open to exploitation by any vendor of ****ware dose this tool still merit the label of 'trusted application' by your goodself ? |
|
|
|
 spy1Welcome to AmerikaPremium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC | reply to canuk1
said by canuk1:I find it quite telling that the same outrage that went on and on here toward Lavasoft/AdAware is not showing over this. I have to wonder, is there a double standard at work? I agree with mers2 - it's more a matter of the customer-base size than a double-standard of any kind - also, we're only two or three days into this since it was first posted here.
You also have to realize that a lot of people turned their backs on PestPatrol a long time ago due to the agonizingly frequent F/P issues, the closing of their forums (so people couldn't complain publicly in a centralized place about the many real issues with the program).
IOW, I'd have never recommended PP to my worst enemy to start with, so I'm certainly not going to get upset if they erode whatever their remaining customer-base is now through shooting themselves in the foot like this.
It's just another example of stupidity and short-sightedness on the company level. They could have announced openly (in a place on the website where you didn't have to hunt for it) that they were going to review their stance on - whatever - detection first before pulling the detections.
That would have given everyone time to present their views, additional information as to why it should remain on the list (if any), etc. If they would simply have done that, they'd have given themselves the chance to see what kind of backlash they were going to suffer from the Internet community and their customers - plus they'd have had a chance to (a) show that they were giving - whatever - company a fair shake (useful litigation-wise) before making their decision and (b) they'd have been showing that they cared what their customers (you know - the ones who are PAYING FOR THEIR FRIGGING PROGRAM TO START WITH) think!.
Returning to the "I'm not upset about this." mindset (  ) - it's all really probably a moot issue anyway - I notice that Netfixer posted a notice that CA was putting out a " new version offers significant enhancements to help protect your PC from unauthorized access, information theft and diminished system performance." and that "support for older versions will be discontinued in the future."
That should pretty much kill the program all by itself, so why get upset about dropped detections due to cowardice in the meantime? Pete
--
Compaq Presario 7110US, 1.3GHz ThunderBird, 1GB RAM, 160GB HD, WinXP Pro w/SP2, TDS-3, WormGuard, Port Explorer v2.000, Process Guard v.3.150, The Cleaner Pro v.4.1 b.4252, TrojanHunter v.4.1 Build 903, NOD32, XP ICF, ALL javacool programs, SBS&D, SPYCOP |
|
approval from:
dadkins 
| Hey Pete
You are displaying an opinion..:D:D:p:p:o
You know, the sort of thing that you don't have to have about everything (as per the famous (??) post on the LS forums a while ago.)
You'll be upsetting somebody.. |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | Nothing wrong with having an opinion, That post was a joke! My "opinion" is that I have the right to an opinion... we *ALL* do!
DHAO My A**!
 |
|
 NancymcaSecurity Goddess, retired.Premium
join:2001-09-30
Voorheesville, NY | reply to mers2
It's also an issue of how creative they are willing to be (or *not*, so far....). We had a similar problem several years back when the author of Netbus sold it to a company that wanted to market it as a remote networking tool. We compromised with their wishes (legit) and the reality of the millions of copies out in the wild. There still is an option in BOClean to "NOT detect the Netbus trojan". Check the configuration screen on your BOClean, or the website:
»www.nsclean.com/supboc.html
So, I see no reason why any anti-trojan/spyware/malware company sees fit to not cover known malware, especially when compromises such as we made cover the users who wish to use such as tools. In 4 years of covering spyware we haven't deleted one of them from the database.
--
Anticookie software invented here.
Antitrojan software perfected here.
www.nsclean.com |
|
