dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
56
eburger68
Premium Member
join:2001-04-28

1 recommendation

eburger68 to rpeace

Premium Member

to rpeace

Re: Are these reputable anti- spy/virus ware vendo

Hi All:

Since we're comparing resources for evaluating the trustworthiness and safety of web sites and two of my "projects" have been invoked here, let me wade in -- first, with some clarifications, then with a few brief comments.

First, regarding IE-SPYAD and the sites/domains that have been mentioned here. Not a single domain mentioned or referenced in this thread is included in the default list of sites/domains added to the Restricted sites list by IE-SPYAD. Here's the list:
said by Eric Howes :
popupdestroy.com - not listed
onlyscripts.com - not listed
changedetect.com - not listed
marketingfind.com - not listed
tophosts.com - not listed
liveperson.net - optional (Not for Everyone)
noadwaresupport.com - not listed
noadware.net - optional (Not for Everyone)
spywareremoversreview.com - not listed
As you can see, two of the sites are included in the "Not for Everyone" section of IE-SPYAD, which means that users who want to Restrict those domains must deliberately enable those entries in order to load them into the Restricted sites zone. They will not be loaded by default, though.

It's important to keep in mind that IE-SPYAD has never been an anti-spyware list that targeted spyware/adware/badware sites exclusively. IE-SPYAD and its cousin, AGNIS, broadly target all manner of sites related to marketing and advertising, including spyware and adware. For the IE-SPYAD/AGNIS targeting policy, see:

»netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes ··· licy.htm

Second, the SpywareRemoversReview page is listed on the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware page precisely because it promotes anti-spyware products that I consider "rogue/suspect." Three of the products promoted on that site are currently listed on the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware page:

»www.spywarewarrior.com/r ··· ware.htm

They're listed for a variety of reasons, including: aggressive, deceptive advertising, browser hijacking, and extremely poor performance in testing. Two of the products promoted on the SpywareRemoversReview page are not currently listed on the Rogue/Suspect page, but once were (they've since been de-listed because of changes made by the vendors).

So, what makes a product "rogue/suspect"? A couple things are guaranteed to get a program listed as "rogue/suspect":

1. Installing adware, spyware, or malware, or hijacking users' browsers & desktops

2. Being installed by adware, spyware, or malware

3. Being advertised through adware or spyware

4. Being aggressively or stealthily installed without users' full, knowing consent

5. Being pushed through aggressive, deceptive, or misleading advertising

6. Being offered by a known adware/spyware vendor or being strongly associated with a site known to install malware

I also evaluate such things as:

1. Accuracy and comprehensiveness of the scan (including false positives and the working of the scan detection scheme)

2. Nature and accuracy of the scan reporting

3. Information about company and program available online

4. User reports of experiences with program

5. Currency of definitions

Not all programs will exhibit all of the problems listed above, and in many cases my decision to list a program as "rogue/suspect" is a judgment call based on my extensive knowledge of and experience with anti-spyware scanners.

Third, some comments. I took the trouble to expand a bit on the criteria for inclusion in IE-SPYAD and the Rogue/Suspect page in order to make a point about what I call "trust tools" -- tools that are designed to help users evaluate the trsutworthiness of sites, products, and services online. In order to use these tools effectively, you should have a good understanding of what they target and how they work. That's as true of the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware page as it is of site advisor.

site advisor is an incredible resource, and when Ben first described the program to me, I was agog. Even SiteAdvisor, though, has its limitations -- so far as I know it does not evaluate the quality, trustworthiness, and effectiveness of anti-spyware programs. That's not a mark against it; it's simply a known parameter.

One final comment: users (esp. self-described power users, geeks, and security experts) are going to have to get a lot more savvy about "trust tools," because we've seen an explosion of these things in the past 6-9 months. I discussed these tools and the potential problems they pose for users back in March:

»Building Tools for Trust

Since then the number of "trust tools" being offered to users and consumers online has only increased, with SiteAdvisor being among the better ones. "Trust tools" can themselves cause problems when not designed effectively -- witness the fiasco with Netscape 8's "trust rating" system:

»www.benedelman.org/spyware/ns8/

And if not used carefully, the value of these "trust tools" declines markedly. A first step towards using these tools effectively is to dispense with simplistic tendencies to classify things as either "good" or "bad" and then to expect a "trust tool" like site advisor to tell you definitively whether a site or service or product is "good" or "bad." The world is a bit more complex than that, and the information site advisor provides (and doesn't provide) about sites and services simply cannot be reduced to "good"/"bad."

site advisor helps users make informed decisions about the sites and services they encounter online, but in order to make informed decisions users must have at least a rudimentary understanding of the tool itself and its limitations.

Apologies for the long-ish post, but there were several important issues raised in this thread.

Best,

Eric L. Howes