how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
38708 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
| reply to eburger68
Re: Sunbelt Adjusts WhenU Detections Eric,
I don't question the color of your hat, and please realize that I do not consider myself enough of an authority to judge your judgements. I believe you and respect your position (which is quite articulate, I might add). I don't mean to be hot-headed or rancorous.
If criteria need be established in order to CYA in legal terms, then that obviously must be done- but as I said in my previous post, I worry that thousands of "Change of Rating" requests would have a tendency to overwhelm the resources of an Anti-Ad company and I foresee and hereby predict that logical end. It is far easier for me to believe these companies are building a "Bait and Switch" rather than to surmise they have "Seen the Light" and are now noble creatures suitable for edification as bronze busts on marble columns.
As I said in my previous post- It isn't so much whether or how you rate things that I care about, it is what you do with that rating, and therein lies the friction between "your side" and "mine". The ACTION taken by the software is where all the gripe is here.
I am a service tech (as I suppose many here are). I remember back to the days when adware was first coming out and the Anti-virus companies decided that ad trojans were somehow different than a viral trojan and declared "That is not my job" thus spawning the entire Anti-ad / anti-spy industry.
That "classification", that supposed "difference" was horror-highway to those of us that had to rip tons of nasties out by hand to get a user back to normal.
The classifications being made today make me jumpy for the same reason. I rely on Anti-v\s\a\t to prevent in the first case, or to clean things up adaquately and efficiently to keep my time down and reduce cost to my client.
Even in the midst of the greatest awareness of spyware ever, it is really not uncommon for a client to bring in a box that will not run due to 100 virus and 500 spy/ad running TSR in the machine.
I envision a time when 300 of those 500 spy\ad bots are rated to "ignore" and I have to laboriously wander down the entire list hitting the pulldown and changing the "ignore" to "remove" line by line...
Privacy issues aside, in answer to your question posed to StraightShooter, it isn't the one adware left behind that is terribly harmful to to the system, it is the aggregate. This is true of ad-sponsored and purchased softwares too. Shutting off all the TSRs in a box is already a problem. There is no sense making it worse.
So here are a couple proposals to pass on to your pals at Counterspy:
1. Give me a "Select ALL /remove" option
2. Give me a separate page in the scan results for "Ad-Sponsored" software.
Include YahooBar, AOLMess, etc. (Not picking on them, just examples).
Any on that page rated as a "Known Offender" would be automatically checked for removal.
Those not so rated would not be checked.
If a "Known Offender" cleans up his act and keeps it clean for a year delist him as a Known Offender.
Of course the user may uncheck a desired software and it will stay unchecked (until I show up).
A user may also CHECK an unchecked box and it will stay checked (which is what I will do when I show up).
This would give me the added bonus of having a handy place to rip out all the ad-sponsored annoyances currently not handled as a malware...
Bruce | |
| reply to DakAD
DakAD:
You asked:
said by DakAD:
Does the 'more info' button link to this (or a very similar) page by any chance? Yes. There's info within the scan results itself plus a link to more information like you found. See the attached screenshot for an idea of the kind of information presented in the scan results screen. (Btw, that screenshot is of a beta of CS 1.5, however, the scan results screen in the current release version 1.0.29 is very similar.)
said by DakAD:
If so, for what its worth, I think thats fine as it gives the user the info they need to make their own descision; although I suppose it could benifit from a really succinct summary at the top, and possibly a 'should you keep WhenU wizard' (as someone suggested) for the terminally computer-unsavvy, although that's crossing over from (hopefully constructive) critisism to nit-picking. Sunbelt is presently in the process of overhauling its database, which includes not only the boilerplate descriptions of things like threat levels, but also the more detailed summaries and descriptions for individual threats. This is a time consuming process, though.
said by DakAD:
Although having said that, it would open the possibility of a third reccomendation -- 'uncertain: check link'. Truth be told, I've never been a big fan of the "Ignore" label and have recommended changing it to something that more accurately reflects what Sunbelt is trying to do and say with that particular default action, which is:
"We've analyzed this program and assessed it as 'low risk,' so there's no dire need to remove this program if you want to keep it. You may want to remove it, however -- see the information we've provided about the program. If you want to remove it, we can do that, but you'll need to affirmatively elect to do so by changing the action to 'Remove' or 'Quarantine.'"
The trick, of course, is how to compress that "message" or "advice" into a one word label. Not easy.
said by DakAD:
this could be reserved for apps like WhenU, which are generally OK but have in the recent past been installed without the users permission, and still have trouble uninstalling/come in bundles etc. It could be used to draw to the users attention a potentially unwanted product and help the user descide wether to keep it without actually recomending wether they keep it or not, and reserving the status of 'ignoor' for apps which have almost completely cleaned up their act and are only objectable in a few very limited circumstances/are in a 'probationary' pieriod before being removed completely, etc.
I guess counterspy should probably review its current modus operandi reguarding the ignor/quarenteen recomendation, if only to avoid coming under fire like this again. See my discussion of the "Ignore" button just above -- looks like we're thinking along the same lines.
Best,
Eric L. Howes
--
Microsoft MVP
Sunbelt Software Consultant
Spyware Warrior | |
suziPremium
join:2004-05-01 | Eric wrote:
quote:
Truth be told, I've never been a big fan of the "Ignore" label and have recommended changing it to something that more accurately reflects what Sunbelt is trying to do and say with that particular default action, which is:
"We've analyzed this program and assessed it as 'low risk,' so there's no dire need to remove this program if you want to keep it. You may want to remove it, however -- see the information we've provided about the program. If you want to remove it, we can do that, but you'll need to affirmatively elect to do so by changing the action to 'Remove' or 'Quarantine.'"
The trick, of course, is how to compress that "message" or "advice" into a one word label. Not easy
That's my thinking, too. IMO a better option might be to have the recommended action say something like "user choice" or just "choice" and force the user to select one of the 3 options to remove, quarantine, or ignore. If the user wants more information, they can click on the link to the research center page.
--
aka Suzi, Spyware Warrior
Microsoft MVP Windows Security 2005
Sunbelt Software Consultant | |
 DakAD
@range81-156.btcentra | reply to eburger68
Truth be told, I've never been a big fan of the "Ignore" label and have recommended changing it to something that more accurately reflects what Sunbelt is trying to do and say with that particular default action ^E Howes
----------------------
I dunno... i think the ignore (oh, thats how its spelt  ) recomendation is useful, but should be for programs that are no longer a problem at all (but are still included incase anyone has an older, objectionable copy) or are on a 'probationary' period; I agree that ignore, as applied to dubiouse apps like WhenU, is a tad misrepresentative of what users should actually do (ie, assess the program themselves and chose wether to keep it or not).
I like suzi's idea of 'user choice'... just that one simple change from 'ignore' --> 'user choice' could do alot, by prompting users to actually check up on the program, rather than disreguard it.
I wonder wether that simple change would satisfy most of the people who have objected to counterspy's reccomendation to 'ignore' WhenU? | |
| reply to eburger68
I haven't read this entire thread, but I've read some pages and reading the last entries I have a question. I don't have CounterSpy, but if I installed it, I think I would have it delete anything it found regardless of if it said "ignore". Could doing that compromise your Windows system or cause other problems? | | |
|
 WildcatboyPremium,Mod
join:2000-10-30
Toronto, ON
kudos:2
Security Product V..
Security
1 edit | reply to eburger68
Why would you want to recommend anything in the first place? The software's job is to detect what's there. Who says the software's job to tell me what to do? Just detect the malware based on a certain guidelines and leave a link in front of each to a help file.
Once you stay away from the business of telling people what to do, then we won't have to go through similar situations.
--
You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him long. | |
 StraitShootWho Loves Ya Baby? - Theo KojakPremium
join:2003-02-08
Clinton, MA
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to mers2
Forget it... This is ridiclous. | |
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5
 ·Clearwire Wireless
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to DakAD
said by DakAD:
I wonder wether that simple change would satisfy most of the people who have objected to counterspy's reccomendation to 'ignore' WhenU?
I'd consider that change a change for the better.
It would also hamper the ability of a known Ad/SpyWare vendor to put out a few "clean" apps for the only purpose of creating argument & discourse among the AntiSpyWare Community. Divide & conquer is a time honored strategy. | |
| reply to roamer_1
Bruce:
You wrote:
said by roamer_1:If criteria need be established in order to CYA in legal terms, then that obviously must be done- but as I said in my previous post, I worry that thousands of "Change of Rating" requests would have a tendency to overwhelm the resources of an Anti-Ad company and I foresee and hereby predict that logical end. I worry about this as well -- not only with respect to anti-spyware companies but even more so with independent researchers and web sites, who don't have the financial resources to defend themselves legally.
One thing I've been urging the anti-spyware vendors that I talk to to do is to set up some kind of informal process or structure for sharing information about who's been approached or threatened by various adware companies. Anti-spyware companies need to cooperate more on a lot of things, but sharing information on challenges and threats would be most useful and could allow the anti-spyware industry to formulate a more coordinated and effective defense against legal challenges.
said by roamer_1:It is far easier for me to believe these companies are building a "Bait and Switch" rather than to surmise they have "Seen the Light" and are now noble creatures suitable for edification as bronze busts on marble columns. That's also a very legitimate worry, and most of the adware companies that I've seen have exhibited very little tendency or inclination to actually do the hard work of cleaning up their acts. At best, they're more interested in making cosmetic changes and then bullying anti-spyware companies into dropping their software from the detections.
In the rare case that we do encounter a company that appears to be making substantive changes, though, I find it hard to maintain that we should ignore such progress, where it can be verified.
said by roamer_1:As I said in my previous post- It isn't so much whether or how you rate things that I care about, it is what you do with that rating, and therein lies the friction between "your side" and "mine". The ACTION taken by the software is where all the gripe is here. As I've said in numerous posts here, I think that the actual behavior and functionality (the "action," as you put it) should be the primary (but not exclusive) focus, and that's exactly why I've been asking folks here over and over to tell me what specifically these three programs (WhenUSearch, ClockSync, Weathercast) do that warrants a risk rating of higher than "Low risk." So far, no one's been able to address this question square-on or back up their conclusions with evidence.
said by roamer_1:I envision a time when 300 of those 500 spy\ad bots are rated to "ignore" and I have to laboriously wander down the entire list hitting the pulldown and changing the "ignore" to "remove" line by line... That certainly would be an extreme annoyance. In fact, Lavasoft Ad-aware Personal already forces users to laboriously check every box in the scan results (one of the benefits to upgrading to the Plus or Pro versions is that you get a nice checkbox to automatically select all results in the scan results screen).
That said, I really don't think we'll get to the point where 300-500 adware/spyware programs are set to "Ignore." Here's why:
The nightmare scenario you lay out is based (I assume) on the fear that in downgrading or reclassifying one adware program, anti-spyware vendors open a Pandora's box which will quickly cause hundreds more to be downgraded. But that scenario happens only if anti-spyware vendors don't have a solid review process in place and haven't established standards of some sort to guide (but not completely determine) that review process.
It is quite possible to have a review process in place that allows for reclassifications and de-listings without giving away the store. I can vouch for this from personal experience. Not only do I maintain several well known block lists...
»netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/resource.htm
...but I administer the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware page:
»www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_ant···ware.htm
Both projects attract their fair share of complaints and even threats from companies of one sort or another. In both cases, though, I have occasionally reclassified or even removed domains or listed software from the block lists or the Rogue/Suspect page. Removals are very much the exception, not the norm. But I do have to provide a review process of some sort and give requests from companies due consideration. I end up rejecting far more removal requests from companies than I grant. In some cases, I've been rejecting the repeated requests from the same companies for a year or more because they haven't fundamentally changed their products or their web sites.
I must admit that when the first credible removal request hit my inbox, I was very worried that if I gave in to one, I'd effectively give away the whole store. That concern was misplaced, as it turns out. I've found it quite practical to grant removals in the rare instances where I think they are truly warranted while holding the rest of the problem actors at bay.
The bottom line is that there need be no Pandora's Box of adware de-listings, provided anti-spyware companies construct robust review processes. But it does require them to make tough calls that may not always be popular in some quarters.
said by roamer_1:Privacy issues aside, in answer to your question posed to StraightShooter, it isn't the one adware left behind that is terribly harmful to to the system, it is the aggregate. This is true of ad-sponsored and purchased softwares too. Shutting off all the TSRs in a box is already a problem. There is no sense making it worse. Well, I'll hand it to you -- that's the most credible answer I've heard yet to my question, though it still doesn't quite address the question or scenario square-on. It's also somewhat problematic, because the implied standard ("aggregate effect on the system if installed in volume") would be easily applicable to other types of completely legitimate software.
For example, I've seen boxes where the users were infatuated with cool screensavers, wallpapers, icons, custom cursors and so forth that were so completely junked up that using the system was difficult indeed. I've also seen boxes that were simply overwhelmed with the sheer number of programs installed by the OEM and running in the system tray (in fact, back in the Win9x days, tech support at OEMs used to routinely advise users to resolve their problems by disabling all the resident auto-run programs clogging the system tray).
Can anti-spyware programs start targeting all manner of programs that could bring the system to its knees? You could certainly build a cleanup and removal tool that would help users unclog their systems of all the (legitimate) garbage they or their kids installed, but that would resemble more one of the many system cleaning tools that are already on the market (and, yes, we have had proposals here at DSLR for anti-spyware vendors to revamp their programs into more general system cleaning tools).
said by roamer_1:1. Give me a "Select ALL /remove" option Good suggestion.
said by roamer_1:2. Give me a separate page in the scan results for "Ad-Sponsored" software. Include YahooBar, AOLMess, etc. (Not picking on them, just examples). Any on that page rated as a "Known Offender" would be automatically checked for removal. Those not so rated would not be checked. You're thinking along the same lines I do -- revamp the scan results in anti-spyware programs to provide more flexible, useful, and intelligible ways for presenting a wide range of potentially risky software (from the lowest of the low risk adware programs to out and out malware) to users for possible removal. Anti-spyware vendors are currently changing their scan results in just this way. See this page for a discussion of those changes with screenshots:
»www.spywarewarrior.com/asw-notes···ults.htm
Best,
Eric L. Howes
--
Microsoft MVP
Sunbelt Software Consultant
Spyware Warrior | |
WildcatboyPremium,Mod
join:2000-10-30
Toronto, ON
kudos:2 | reply to StraitShoot
Unless you have something more intelligent to say than Puh-lease, LOL and I'm baaaaack you may consider staying out.
--
You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him long. | |
| reply to eburger68
Re: Sunbelt Adjusts WhenU Detections Why would Anyone want ANY adware etc on their comps in the first place ! Surely they would want to get rid of it all @ the first available oppourtunity, Not choose to keep it ?
Even better is not to get it installed anyway by securing their PC's + Browsers properly, and not accepting too good to be true Apps etc, that they don't Really need.
Spanner
--
I Only Know What I Know But I'm Learning all The Time - Stay Safe - Spanner intheWorks/SpannerITWks | |
| reply to Wildcatboy
Wildcatboy:
You wrote:
said by Wildcatboy:Why would you want to recommend anything in the first place? The software's job is to detect what's there. Who says the software's job to tell me what to do? Just detect the malware based on a certain guidelines and leave a link in front each to a help file. Once you stay away from the business of telling people what to do, then we won't have to go through similar situations. You can't avoid making recommendations. The minute you selectively DETECT some programs but not others on the user's hard drive, you're already saying to the user: "These programs are somehow different or more problematic than the others we haven't detected, and you ought to remove them from your system."
Slap a label like "Spyware found" in the scan results screen, and you've effectively suggested to users that the programs presented below that label are "bad" and should be removed.
Throw up warning boxes with flashing red text (as some anti-spyware programs do) or sound alarm bells (as still others do) and the recommendation is even more pronounced.
My point is that you're making implied recommendations even when you don't use the words, "We recommend that you..."
And that is most certainly how users interpret those scan results: as advice, warnings, and recommendations. Take a look at threads here at DSLR where users breathlessly post screenshots of their anti-virus program or anti-spyware program detecting some file or program on their systems. They often say something like, "My AV program said this was a trojan and that I should remove it."
Implied recommendations are also what make false positives so alarming to non-tech-savvy users, who are confused and frightened that their anti-malware programs are apparently "telling" them that a program they thought was OK is now a "virus" that has to be removed.
No, you can't get around making recommendations as long as you're selectively presenting detected programs to users. The only option you have is to make the recommendations more appropriate, accurate, informative, useful, and intelligible to users.
Best,
Eric L. Howes
--
Microsoft MVP
Sunbelt Software Consultant
Spyware Warrior | |
 CajunTekInsane CajunPremium,MVM
join:2003-08-08
Arlington, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Eric,
I think the biggest problem here is that WhenU is still a bad company with many bad products.. and singling out some as not so bad is not a good thing..
The other bad thing is this, you have had to spend many hours of your very valuable time defending this action. I wish you could have spent it working on IE-spyad, or the helping Sunbelt develope fixes for more serious malware, or even researching other rogueware...
--
Lost in Texas | |
1 edit | reply to SpannerITWks
SpannerITWks:
You wrote:
said by SpannerITWks:Why would Anyone want ANY adware etc on their comps in the first place ! Surely they would want to get rid of it all @ the first available oppourtunity, Not choose to keep it ? Hard as it may be to believe, there are some folks who either want or are willing to put up with some of the *milder,* more *inncouous* forms of adware (I can't imagine anyone actually wanting EliteBar/SearchMiracle or Aurora, unless they were some wierd techno-masochist).
Want some heavy reading? Try this out:
Stopping Spyware at the Gate: A User Study of Privacy, Notice and Spyware
»www.sims.berkeley.edu/~jensg/res···tudy.pdf
That ethnographic study examines the way users actually make download and installation decisions, and their decision-making processes are more involved than you might think.
The study is not without its problems -- see here for my response:
Muddy Data, Vague Notice, & the Swamp of User Consent
»www.spywarewarrior.com/elh/muddy_data.htm
The point here is that there are *some* programs that users themselves are actually divided over -- we've seen examples right here in this thread. The challenge for anti-spyware vendors is to figure out how to accommodate the competing demands and expectations of these users.
Best,
Eric L. Howes
--
Microsoft MVP
Sunbelt Software Consultant
Spyware Warrior | |
alexeck
join:2004-12-20
Clearwater, FL | reply to eburger68
Against perhaps my better judgment, I'm going to wade into this soup again. I'm also currently out of town on vacation and haven't been able to follow this issue as closely as I would have liked too.
Every one of you who has expressed concern over the WhenU listing is, in fact, totally justified in doing so.
Antispyware vendors have a disgraceful history dealing with adware. There's even a vendor out there that actually did a financial transaction with WhenU, something that still makes my head whirl.
I have always felt that the problem in this business was one of trust and broken trust. You buy a product, and then your vendor gets weak in the face of a threat or a desist letter or whatever, and then betrays your trust by delisting a program.
I've stayed clear of petty snipes at some of competitors, because my opinion is so totally, obviously biased that it would be meaningless to say anything. However, I have privately fumed with our team as to how these vendors could do such things.
So there I sat at the Antispyware conference a few months back, watching all the adware vendors do their shtick as to how they had improved and gotten better. And a bunch of us got up, myself included, and offered conclusive proof as to why there wasn't the ring of truth to their claims. There were a lot of very, very pissed off Antispyware people there.
Then Bill Day from WhenU got up and talked, and a number of us listened. Because out of all the slick slimeballs there, this guy actually sounded sincere and had real actions to back his words. He is not an adware guy. He was the founder of About.com and is more of an adverting guy, brought in to clean up WhenU.
We went back to business after the conference and then, as can be expected, got a call from WhenU.
They wanted to get delisted.
I personally got on the conference call with their president, along with members of my research team and told them flat out: You will never, ever be delisted from a Sunbelt database. The only thing we would ever consider doing is changing their threat level.
We have a very carefully followed protocol when it comes to these things. We put any vendor complaint through an exhaustive, formal review process. It is based on objective and subjective criteria and takes some time.
We went through this process, and we were genuinely surprised.
WhenU had actually done a considerable amount to reform their actions.
This didn't mean, however, that their past actions weren't an issue. But there current state was 180 degrees different than just 12 months ago.
I was actually a bit worried. Could we have made a mistake? So I personally downloaded, on my work production system (not a Vmware), every single WhenU app I could find. I did the same as an innocent user might do.
Then I let the programs run. Now, I am a fairly experienced with spyware, having done my share of de-infestations of machines.
Well, WhenU Save was certainly still a problem, as the research team had found. But programs like WeatherCast simply didn't justify being in at their threat level.
So we determined, that in line with our listing criteria, they would be downgraded to Low Threat and a default action of Ignore. (Ignore is probably the wrong word, as it does not mean the program is not detected. It is detected and presented to the user, and the user then decides if he/she wants to keep it or not. I have blogged a lot on what Ignore means - you can read some of my thoughts on this matter at sunbeltblog.com.)
When it comes to antispyare databases, consistency is key. And we certainly feel that transparency is the key as well. So we posted our reasonings and announced it to the world. If you read the PDF, it clearly lays bare our thinking (what's incredible is that WhenU is now back at us arguing our decision -- something that I admit to being a bit irritated about myself).
So for those who are upset about this, good. Your voice is the conscience of this industry.
I pay some pretty big legal bills fighting spyware vendors. Being alone is tough sometimes, and having a strong voice out there to support people in our position is greatly valued.
The problem is that we need to fight the major problems. 180, DR, CWS, and all the others who need work.
We've done our due diligence on WhenU, as have many other antispyware vendors. Some other antispyware vendors just took WhenU off, which is patently wrong.
But WhenU is not worth the fight. They are absolutely in the database and will be detected on user systems, but believe it or not, the installations that are getting on people's machines are, for the most part, ACTUALLY WANTED.
(I can't understand why someone would want a program like WeatherCast, but some people actually like a little ticker that gives them weather alerts. So be it.)
We need help on the major issues, the ones that are taking down people's machines, the stealth installs, the poor or non-existent disclosures, and the idiotic lawsuits and cease and desist letters that are causing endless hassle to us Antispyware vendors.
I really do value this forum and the input. I don't post often, but I do a lot of reading. Many of you posting here are people I have a great respect for, having read other posts of yours. It means a lot that you care to take the time and make your points.
As always, you can always email me directly at alex(at)sunbelt-software.com
Keep up the good fight,
Alex Eckelberry
Presdient
Sunbelt Software | |
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5 | All well & good except I think Sunbelt Software took a turn south when it referred to WhenU as straight, decent internet citizens. | |
ghost16825Use security metricsPremium
join:2003-08-26 | reply to eburger68
said by eburger68:The minute you selectively DETECT some programs but not others on the user's hard drive, you're already saying to the user: "These programs are somehow different or more problematic than the others we haven't detected, and you ought to remove them from your system." My point is that you're making implied recommendations even when you don't use the words, "We recommend that you..." No, you can't get around making recommendations as long as you're selectively presenting detected programs to users. The only option you have is to make the recommendations more appropriate, accurate, informative, useful, and intelligible to users. Best, Eric L. Howes No, I for one strongly disagree with this. (See my previous post). You're saying that just by coming up with a scan result, you're already made a recommendation. As I alluded to earlier, this seems to be a problem due to not having a clear scope of detection to begin with and/or not clearly telling consumers what the scope of detection for your AS app is. Additionally, I would say it also comes down to user control. If the user has no or few options, than yes you have already made a recommendation for them.
--
Admin of the Kerio 2x-like open source project:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kerio/
http://kerio.sourceforge.net/
| |
| reply to CajunTek
MerlynTech:
said by CajunTek:I think the biggest problem here is that WhenU is still a bad company with many bad products.. and singling out some as not so bad is not a good thing.. Well, this is essentially the same "because-it's-WhenU" argument that numerous other people have alrady made in this thread and which I have already responded to at length several times. Rather than rehash my responses yet again, let me simply point you to those earlier responses.
said by CajunTek:The other bad thing is this, you have had to spend many hours of your very valuable time defending this action. I wish you could have spent it working on IE-spyad, or the helping Sunbelt develope fixes for more serious malware, or even researching other rogueware... I don't especially enjoy doing this, and I'm certainly no fan of WhenU. The decision was a tough one -- not pleasant or easy by any means. And, yes, I would much rather have spent my weekend doing something else. But the job had to be done, as unpleasant and frustrating as it might have been.
Also, if you look back through this thread and disregard the petty sniping and other such nonsense, you'll actually find a useful discussion between me and others (including critics) of some of the more substantive and knotty issues currently surrounding anti-spyware programs and how they detect and present potential threats to users. I do enjoy those kinds of discussions, as the topics and issues involved are my "bread-and-butter," so to be speak -- the kinds of problems I mull over endlessly.
So, I would hardly consider this thread a complete waste -- far from it.
Best,
Eric L. Howes
--
Microsoft MVP
Sunbelt Software Consultant
Spyware Warrior | |
alexeck
join:2004-12-20
Clearwater, FL | reply to ghost16825
SnoweOne:
I hear you. I hope it never comes across that I'm glowing over any adware vendor. I recognize the work they've done to clean up their channels, but we're certainly not happy play buddies.
Alex Eckelberry | |
|
