4 edits | CA Reloads, Goes Gator Huntin' Hi All:
As reported earlier this week, CA Pest Patrol temporarily removed all of Claria's products from its detections pending a vendor appeals process initiated at Claria's request:
»Pest Patrol: Claria Temporarily Removed
Today CA announced that it had restored all of Claria's products to its detections -- see:
»www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pest···?q=67945
said by CA Pest Patrol:
April 1, 2005:
RESTORED: Gator/GAIN/Claria: After failing the eTrust PestPatrol scorecard, all products removed on March 25, 2005, were restored to the database under the names Claria or Gator/GAIN/Claria and new products were added to the database under the name Claria.
But there's more here than might first meet the eye. It appears that during the vendor appeal process, not only did CA decide that five previously known and detected Claria products clearly met its criteria ("scorecard") for targeting programs, but CA discovered three NEW Claria products that it added for the first time into its detections database.
Still worse for Claria, in a number of cases the products that CA already knew about have received updated classifications that are more damning than they were before.
Here's a summary of the updates, changes, and additions to the Claria products included in CA Pest Patrol's definitions:
* Dashbar
was: Adware
now: Spyware/Toolbar/BHO
* Date Manager
was: Adware
now: Adware & Spyware
* PrecisionTime:
was: Adware
now: Adware & Spyware
* Weatherscope
was: Adware/Home Page Hijacker/Search Hijacker
now: Adware & Spyware
* WebSecureAlert
was: Adware
now: Adware & Spyware
* Claria/Gator/GAIN
was: Adware/Search Hijacker
now: Adware & Spyware
* GotSmiley (new)
was: n/a
now: Adware & Spyware
* Screenscenes (new)
was: n/a
now: Adware & Spyware
* eWallet (new)
was: n/a
now: Adware & Spyware new
You can check out all of the Claria products now detected by CA Pest Patrol here:
»research.pestpatrol.com/search/search.aspx
Search on the term "Claria."
You can find CA's "scorecard" for evaluating programs here:
»www3.ca.com/Content/default.aspx?CID=67989
Related criteria here:
»research.pestpatrol.com/WhitePap···eria.asp
CA's Vendor Appeals Process is explained here:
»www3.ca.com/Content/default.aspx?CID=67986
The moral of this story is, although Claria got a temporary one week reprieve by pressuring CA to review its products, it ultimately ended up losing big time. Not only were its products added back into CA's detections, but they were added back in with more severe classifications in some cases. Moreover, CA rubbed salt in the wound by adding three new Claria products to its detections.
Although I'm still not completely satisfied with the state of CA's vendor appeals process and the way that process is reported to customers and users, I must confess to being most pleased with the outcome of this particular vendor appeals process. Perhaps other adware firms will think twice before approaching CA with what, on the evidence we can see, must have been a frivolous appeal.
Best,
Eric L. Howes |
|
 mers2Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
kudos:8 | Thanks for the update Eric. This case shows why CA should never remove definitions prior to review. They left their customers open during the time the definitions were not in their database. Not something I'd want in a product I purchased for protection.
--
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 | reply to eburger68
The other moral is "Be careful what you wish for" |
|
TeMerc
join:2004-01-22
Phoenix, AZ | reply to eburger68
WhooHooo, score one for the good guys??
Thanks Eric. I'll update all the other threads I have posted in this regard tonite. My sites already updated tho. 
--
Remember............You can NEVER be OVERPROTECTED!!»temerc.com/ |
|
 SpyPremium
join:2001-09-22
NE | reply to eburger68
Beautiful.  |
|
 ahulettLife Without WallsPremium,VIP
join:2003-02-02
Bellevue, WA
kudos:2 | reply to mers2
"This case shows why CA should never remove definitions prior to review. They left their customers open during the time the definitions were not in their database."
You're right, things should remain during the investigation. But look at the bright side: at least they told ya they took 'em out.
Aaron
--
Aaron Hulett | Trojan Analyst | Mischel Internet Security |
|
|
|
 hpguruCurb Your DogmaPremium
join:2002-04-12 | reply to eburger68
That is great news! |
|
 CajunTekInsane CajunPremium,MVM
join:2003-08-08
Arlington, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to eburger68
I'm not a PP user but it is still great news.. I hate to see the bad guys win any battles and I was concerned that Claria/gator was gonna win this one..
And as usual, thanks to Eric for his continued excellent research and all of his good work..
--
Lost in Texas |
|
 NanDogThe Pup Was Female, I'M NotPremium
join:2003-12-28 | reply to eburger68
Major props, Eric. Thanks for the info!  |
|
 Ben CiscoEmbrace IntellectPremium
join:2001-12-13
Wormhole | reply to eburger68
Yo Claria/GATOR:
HA HA! |
|
 justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7 | reply to eburger68
I read the guys behind cool web search gross over $300 million a year off the back of their insidious spyware. Gator (claria) is not far behind, at over 50 million bucks. |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18
1 edit | said by justin:I read the guys behind cool web search gross over $300 million a year off the back of their insidious spyware. Gator (claria) is not far behind, at over 50 million bucks. Isn't that sad? Some people actually click on that crap... 
That and alot don't even realize this BS is on their computers. |
|
SpyPremium
join:2001-09-22
NE | reply to justin
Not to bad. Heil Internet. |
|
 fatdcukPremium
join:2005-02-20
England | reply to eburger68
this is good news indeed and how long has this all taken to sort itself out....under 7 days,wow;) |
|
 Khaine
join:2003-03-03
Australia | reply to ahulett
said by ahulett:"This case shows why CA should never remove definitions prior to review. They left their customers open during the time the definitions were not in their database." You're right, things should remain during the investigation. But look at the bright side: at least they told ya they took 'em out. Aaron Not only that, they reincluded them, and some
I said in the previous thread that I welcomed the honesty and integrity in what CA did by disclosing the review, although I was disapointed in the way the review was conducted (removing the defs), I am very happy with the outcome
|
|
 MattUKPremium
join:2003-03-23
UK | reply to eburger68
Good result! As others, I am concerned at the procedure though... |
|
 mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | reply to eburger68
Much quicker than *cough* Lavasoft.. |
|
 salzanExperienced OptimistPremium
join:2004-01-08
WA State | reply to eburger68
Good news for the CA users. Nice to see one of these threads come to a quick, positive conclusion. |
|
TeMerc
join:2004-01-22
Phoenix, AZ | reply to mrchris
Lets hope Lavasoft has watched and learned a thing or two about quick response.
--
Remember............You can NEVER be OVERPROTECTED!!»temerc.com/ |
|
 WFOPremium
join:2001-08-27
San Ramon, CA | reply to eburger68
Hopefully the end result will result in fewer frivolous appeals. I can't understand why things are removed from detection during the appeal. That should only occur after the appeal shows they have changed their spots.:p |
|
