 
MikeStammer
No prison can hold me
Premium
join:2002-12-26
Aurora, IL
1 edit | One giant slays another Giant Now that MS has/will gut Giant, what other app like it can replace it? Spysweeper? seems they are watering it down quite a bit! =( | |
|  | 
Crapware_Removal_Guy
@direcpc.com | Re: One giant slays another Giant Don't forget that Sunbelt Software also has rights to Giant antispyware technology and they offer their own version of Giant Anti-spyware called CounterSpy. They have a demo available..:D | |
| | | dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio | Re: Well in the beginning.. Why did the previous posting put a stupid advertising slogan on my screen when I read it?
It must be spyware ... | |
| joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
4 edits | This is asinine To put it bluntly - Since Microsoft never agreed to Claria's EULA, Microsoft can't violate it. And there is no law saying Microsoft (or anyone else) can't make a program to remove the adware/spyware.
Whether or not someone using the spyware removal application violates the EULA they agreed to with Claria (even assuming it is enforcable) is not Microsoft's concern. Did the guy who wrote this article ever read anything about contract law? | |
| | sabrex15
join:2002-09-12
Toney, AL | Re: This is asinine very well put. | |
| |
the W
@dslextreme.com
| That is true, but the person who agreed to install the "spyware" software in the first place would be violating the EULA by using Microsoft's removal software to rid themselves of the spyware. Of course we know that government agencies wont be busting down your door if you do so. | |
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: This is asinine said by the W:
That is true, but the person who agreed to install the "spyware" software in the first place would be violating the EULA by using Microsoft's removal software to rid themselves of the spyware. Of course we know that government agencies wont be busting down your door if you do so. Of course they would. What does that have to do with Microsoft? | |
| | | | underscore
join:2004-04-20
Fairfax, VA
| Re: This is asinine said by joebear29  : said by the W:
That is true, but the person who agreed to install the "spyware" software in the first place would be violating the EULA by using Microsoft's removal software to rid themselves of the spyware. Of course we know that government agencies wont be busting down your door if you do so. Of course they would. What does that have to do with Microsoft? How can I be violating an EULA that I never agreed to? Claria installs their software secretly. Using external software to remove another program just proves I never agreed to anything. | |
| | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: This is asinine said by underscore : said by joebear29 : said by the W:
That is true, but the person who agreed to install the "spyware" software in the first place would be violating the EULA by using Microsoft's removal software to rid themselves of the spyware. Of course we know that government agencies wont be busting down your door if you do so. Of course they would. What does that have to do with Microsoft? How can I be violating an EULA that I never agreed to? Claria installs their software secretly. Using external software to remove another program just proves I never agreed to anything. It is assumed (for the sake of this argument at least) that the agreement is enforceble and the user agreed to its terms. In the real world, both premises are likely false, but they are neccesary to even discuss whether Microsoft is violating the EULA. | |
| | | | | | 
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs: | Re: This is asinine What would happen if my hard drive's Master File Table "accidentally" lost the references to notGator's software?
--
/sbin/shutdown -h now | |
| | |
Anonymous Coward Cau
@cybergnostic.com
|  Yes the gov would bust down your door. The corp that used the EULA would cry and complaine while passing the cash to the DOJ, next thing you know, you have some special elite squad kicking your door in. Best way around it all? Buy a Mac. Duh. No spyware.. yet. | |
| | | 
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Claria's EULA isn't worth the paper its printed on. It would be like Ford telling me I can't take my car to a mechanic to work on the car they built and I agreed to buy. | |
| | | | 
3SGTE
ST215W
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
clubs:
| Re: This is asinine said by inteller :Claria's EULA isn't worth the paper its printed on. It would be like Ford telling me I can't take my car to a mechanic to work on the car they built and I agreed to buy. Acutally you don't own the car....
--
The preceeding post may contain dry humor. Insert intelligent text here. | |
| | | | | 
T_Hoffman
join:2002-11-10
Clovis, CA | Re: This is asinine heard of cash? pay with cash and you own everything down to the bolts that hold the wheels on | |
| | | | | |
3SGTE
ST215W
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
clubs: | Re: This is asinine Heard of sarcasm? | |
| | | | | | |
T_Hoffman
join:2002-11-10
Clovis, CA | Re: This is asinine evidently you haven't ROFL LMAO | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Foster notes that's Microsoft's stance:
quote:
Silly me - I should have guessed. Of course, Microsoft isn't violating anyone else's EULA. It's you, the Windows AntiSpyware customer, who is solely responsible for violating your solemn contractual agreement with Claria, DirectRevenue, or whomever. You have a solemn contractual agreement with Microsoft that says so.
Personally the EULA issue doesn't interest me.
What interests me is Microsoft facing a choice: Improve their security standing by sticking to their definitions of ad/spyware, or morphing those definitions like Aluria did at the behest of adware vendors, after being offered lucrative marketing deals..... | |
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: This is asinine said by Karl Bode :Foster notes that's Microsoft's stance: quote:
Silly me - I should have guessed. Of course, Microsoft isn't violating anyone else's EULA. It's you, the Windows AntiSpyware customer, who is solely responsible for violating your solemn contractual agreement with Claria, DirectRevenue, or whomever. You have a solemn contractual agreement with Microsoft that says so.
Personally the EULA issue doesn't interest me. What interests me is Microsoft facing a choice: Improve their security standing by sticking to their definitions of ad/spyware, or morphing those definitions like Aluria did at the behest of adware vendors, after being offered lucrative marketing deals..... Yeah, I read that bit. He still seems to think the only reason Microsoft is not violating Claria's EULA is because a sentence in Microsoft's EULA shifts that burden to the user, as opposed to the real reason, which is no one (not even Microsoft) can violate a contract they did not agree to.
But that silliness aside, I do agree the main issues is whether Microsoft can maintain the integrity of the spyware removal product. I agree with you, in that I doubt they can, even if they had the best intentions; Microsoft is simply too large and vulnerable to bad press and lawsuits that adware types can bring to bear if they feel their software is unfairly listed.
Spyware removal is a game for small businesses or non-profits, not corporate behemoths. | |
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: This is asinine They're Microsoft, they could do pretty much anything they like, but they won't.
Shame too, because it's a good shot for them to dig in their heels and establish themselves as serious about PC security.
Of course if they were serious about PC security they'd update non XP2 versions of IE, so I suppose that's a moot point.  | |
| | | 
GercekSeytan
Rockin' with Raki
Premium
join:2001-10-19
RoT
 ·TTNet
| Considering the size of Microsoft (financially or otherwise) and the relative pittance they might be offered by Claria, et al, versus the immediate and gleefully inflicted harm the company would receive from one and all, it seems highly unlikely they would cave in.
Much to lose, little to nothing to be gained.
--
"Be careful. Journalism is more addictive than crack cocaine. Your life can get out of balance." Dan Rather | |
| | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: This is asinine quote:
Considering the size of Microsoft (financially or otherwise) and the relative pittance they might be offered by Claria, et al, versus the immediate and gleefully inflicted harm the company would receive from one and all, it seems highly unlikely they would cave in.
I don't know, Claria, WhenU, 180Solutions and their ilk are getting very wealthy - and in turn very powerful, very quickly. Full support of the direct Marketing Association too, who knows this is a mega-monster profit source over the next decade. | |
| | | | |
GercekSeytan
Rockin' with Raki
Premium
join:2001-10-19
RoT
·TTNet
| Re: This is asinine I admit anything is possible. It just that I would think the folks at Redmond would realize that a significant part of what contributes to the MS bashing and keeps the folks in the Security Forum hopping is caused by these marketing-above-all lowlifes.
On the other hand, there's always hubris.
--
"Be careful. Journalism is more addictive than crack cocaine. Your life can get out of balance." Dan Rather | |
| | | 
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Charter Pipeline
| said by Karl Bode :Foster notes that's Microsoft's stance: quote:
Silly me - I should have guessed. Of course, Microsoft isn't violating anyone else's EULA. It's you, the Windows AntiSpyware customer, who is solely responsible for violating your solemn contractual agreement with Claria, DirectRevenue, or whomever. You have a solemn contractual agreement with Microsoft that says so.
Personally the EULA issue doesn't interest me. What interests me is Microsoft facing a choice: Improve their security standing by sticking to their definitions of ad/spyware, or morphing those definitions like Aluria did at the behest of adware vendors, after being offered lucrative marketing deals..... Personally, the whole program doesn't interest me! I'll stick with Adaware, Spybot and Spywareblaster for the reasonbly very short time frames I DO use IE even.
--
Spread Opera, fastest browser on earth or Cyberspace! | |
| | 
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| If you break an EULA that you agreed to, the other party to the agreement (the Vendor) can sue you for damages.
What damages do you think the courts would award Claria and require you to pay them?
If none, there is no penalty.
As far as MS goes, as noted, it didn't agree to the Claria install.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| | | JimmySask
join:2004-06-24
Regina, SK
| Re: This is asinine I haven't tried their new AS program, but along with MS not agreeing to a EULA, is there not an option to choose which of found spyware/adware files you wish to remove? If so, then it truly is not their problem if the customer chooses to remove the files. The only issue that remains is if they are taken to task by the *ware vendors for identifying the *ware programs as such. | |
| 
oroper
Patriots Rule
join:2004-06-01
Beverly, MA
1 edit |  The Fix-for all "questionable" apps
MS should then only provide a downloadable patch/tool that gets integrated into the main app.
This will remove (i hope) any friction between the companies, laying the decision on the user, wether or not they want to class (as an example=>weatherbug) as spyware.
Then, MS should just add/update the definitions on their servers as needed.
I wouldn't mind it the definitions take another 30 secs to dl/update.
Of course, it may take a little more leg work, but in the end, it should all work out........i hope:D
EDIT I claim copyright/patents on this idea 1.12.05 3:06pm ET | |
| | 
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: The Fix-for all "questionable" apps Actually, Ad Aware and Spybot Search & Destroy already
have an option to exclude or ignore 'questionable' adware
like Weatherbug, etc. And Microsoft's spyware remover
ought to have that same option (remove/quarantine or
ignore).
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors. | |
| | |
oroper
Patriots Rule
join:2004-06-01
Beverly, MA
| Re: The Fix-for all "questionable" apps said by Doctor Four :option to exclude or ignore 'questionable' adware When it comes to hitting the delete/remove button....I suddenly get a case of "tunnel vision" so all I care about/see is delete/remove:D:D:D | |
| |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| terminology is very confusing What is questionable is a matter of opinion.
My valued tool is someone else's just ad-ware.
The terminology is very confusing.
For example, ad-ware, software sponsored by or presenting advertising. This definition includes:
Adobe Acrobat Reader,
Opera (free),
RealPlayer (free),
Apple QuickTime
which are all good products.
I sometimes refer to "malicious adware". But is a search hijacker really malicious? Does it really reveal intense ill-will and hatred? Of does it really reveal greed?
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| | | 
Vvian Kalyss
join:2003-10-14
Stage 5.0
clubs:
| Re: terminology is very confusing Everything that ever installs on my computer should have a listing in the Uninstall section, and be removeable 100%, period -- no ifs ands or buts about it.
Why the feck are they so freaked out about removal of their crap -- it's MY computer they're trying to lay their goose eggs in, and it's MY cpu cycles they're using up. Microsoft should, like previous posters have suggested, simply put them in a (Y/N) section that users themselves choose whether to remove or not.
They have no grounds to complain -- after all, formatting the goddamned drive also destroys their precious software. 
--
Mikami Vvian, resident Girlfriend of Steel, care of the Tokyo-3 Middle Daughters Club | |
| raythompsontn
join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN
| Removing Spyware I doubt the EULA that says you cannot remove software from your computer would be enforceable in any court in the U.S.
And what is considered removal by other software? If I use FDISK to bare-metal my system is that considered removal by another program?
The Spyware companies have no legal standing to say what I put on my computer or how I remove what is on my computer. It is my computer and until the Spyware companies start buying my computers they have no legal standing.
Using Microsoft or any other Spyware removal tool is perfectly within the computer owners rights.
Ed Foster is just trying to be his usual quirky self. | |
| 
daljon
Ramirez500
Premium
join:2003-01-05
Kingwood, TX | Weatherbug Weatherbug is an intrusive piece of crap and should not have been let off the hook. I have to remove it from many many puters. to bad ms did not stick by its guns. | |
| 
KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
·Comcast
| Enough Already! EULAs, Spyware, Microsoft, Weatherbug. Enough already!
The world of PC computing seems to be getting more complicated every day. lol
I don't really give a damn about the EULAs of spyware companies' spyware.
Forget all this spyware and legal mumbo-jumbo having to do with licence agreements.
I think I'll just use linux.
said by from article:
"in fact they've already backed down after Weatherbug complained about how their software was categorized"
lol, that's taking a "hard line" on spyware removal. | |
| 
radmish
Hi
join:2000-04-15
Oakland, NJ |  d_d
--
Optimum online since April 14, 2001 | |
| Johnny Moon
join:2004-08-30
Northridge, CA
| Microsoft picked the wrong business! I think that instead of anti-spyware, Microsoft should have gotten into the SPYWARE business!
Um.... Some people claim MS is already in the spyware business. | |
| 
DOStradamus
MVM
join:2003-11-04
Santa Rosa, CA
| Let Me Buy Your Computer For "Just a Bit".... "Im sorry Sir, your computer is chock-full of all kinds of crapware. Look! You even have 10 icons for running programs in your system tray, two of those from Real Nuttworks. It's hopeless. Junk it!"
Client: "You want it?"
Me: "Give ya a buck. Fill out this bill of sale, and sign"
(5 minutes later)...
"Need a computer to replace that one you just sold me?"
"Yeah.."
"Yours for a Dollar!"
Time to write my anti-crapware app, and "put a dollar in every 'box' ", so that I can "purchase" the computer before my software runs...
And I'll tell the illegitemi: "Never took delivery of your (dung) when I bought the computer.. POUND SAND LOSERZ! | |
| | Mordhem
Love it, Hate it.
join:2003-07-10
Baltimore, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Let Me Buy Your Computer For "Just a Bit".... If Microsoft makes good on there word I would try it out but I have said this one a million times before but I think they should throw that in for free with windows or something or at least put it longhorn for free.
But I don't think I will buy it currently unless it has other stuff in it considering I can download one right now for free and its never done me wrong. | |
| 
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA
| A weird semantic, too... note... I've seen more than one use of the phrase, "malevolant spyware," in some of the recent discussions. he use of this "qualifier" disturbs me immensely. It seems there's some effort to suggest that there's "good" spyware and "bad" spyware, and that this offering is looking for "bad" spyware. Hell... I sort of agree, I guess... in this context:
GOOD (or at least neutral) spyware: Spyware you install manually on your system through a bona-fide installer app, that explains in detail exactly what it is, exactly what it does, exactly how it does it, exactly what information it will collect, and precisely to whom it's sending the data, and how; it will also have a complete and working uninstaller, or furnish detailed, specific manual uninstall instructions.
BAD spyware: Anything else. Anything that loads from any website, anywhere, through a misleading ActiveX control, anything that's bundled secretly or without explicit, easily seen and understood notice, anything that can't be fully uninstalled, anything that changes any of your system settings without first asking you, anything that tries to in any deliberate way mislead you, or conceal who made it, and who is using it, why, and how, what it did in your system, how that can all be undone ... ... in other words,
IF
NOT "A"
THEN
"B"
Period.
--
Semper Eadem
- ... his original destination's just another story that he loves to tell. | |
| |
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
2 edits | Giant's Criterion Here is a snap-shot of Giant's criterion taken today January 12, 2005.
I've added some bold face comments where I think the policy could use some improvement, depending on how the secret scoring criterion work.
I assume, since some of the items described are in legitimate software, sometimes are widespread in legitimate software, so they probably only add a few points, where as some other items would add enough points to blacklist the product. But Giant didn't reveal their scoring system.
In general, pretty much anything should be possible if the user clicks yes to an individual question asking for permission. So I think most questions (especially "behavioral") should include an exemption for explicit user permission.
Again, mostly these items look very good. I've bold faced those that seem shaky or are unclear.
quote:
The following criteria are part of a scoring system that determines whether a program is added for detection.
Criteria (in no specific scoring criteria):
Distribution/Installation/Removal Criteria
* Installs without user permission
* Installs without user interaction or an installation interface
* Bundles other known malicious software
* Installs hidden plug-ins in the Web browser that do not have a user interface
* Dos not include an uninstaller
* Automatically reinstalls itself after the user uninstalls it or part of it
* Requires the user to download an uninstaller from a Web site
* Does not include an uninstaller that is compatible with Add or Remove Programs
* Creates a procedure to automatically start when Windows starts This would include ZAF, all AV monitors, many anti-trojan products, RealPlayer, etc. This should only apply if the software does it without permission.
* Is installed by an ActiveX control More of a prejudice than anything meaningful.
* Exploits a security vulnerability in any way
* Installs even if the user clicks No or cancels the installation
* Is installed by third-party affiliates Lots of legitimate software is installed via Digital River, Tucows and Geeks.com, which are third party affiliates.
* Offers an affiliate program that pays a fee for distributing the software Lots of legitimate software is installed via Digital River, Tucows and Geeks.com, which are get a fee when they sell products that have no-zero purchase prices.
* Is affiliated with malicious or questionable portals, search engines, or hacking sites A just plain weak definition. Define questionable? Why is being affiliated with Google a problem?
Behavioral Criteria
* Modifies the hosts file
* Changes common settings, such as the home page or search page, without user permission
* Changes Web browser configuration Lots of legitmate software does this. For example, FireFox extensions, and media players.
* Uninstalls existing software without user consent
* Includes a process that cannot be manually terminated by the user
* Displays pop-up or pop-under windows outside of the application
* Displays pop-up or pop-under advertisements that cannot be closed by clicking a Close button
* Modifies Web site content, such as changing search results or substituting certain advertisements for other advertisements
* Displays pop-up advertisements when the Web browser is not running
* Automatically restarts itself if the user terminates its process
* Restores registry keys or file entries that are removed by the user
* Redirects or blocks searches, queries, user-entered URLs, and other sites without notification or user consent
Security Criteria
* Changes operating system security settings without user permission
* Changes software security settings, such as a Web browser security settings, without user permission
* Connects to the Internet without user permission
* Disables firewalls, antivirus software, or anti-spyware software
* Opens a port on the computer without user knowledge Quick, what ports does WMP use to play video? How many lay-people have any idea what ports any of their software opens? So this is absurd.
* Silently reinstalls components This would be good in security software, but not without user permission.
* Adds a new dial-up connection or other network connection Without user permission.
* Initiates a connection to the Internet or initiates a dial-up connection with user interaction Probably a typo, and should say "without user interaction"
* Prevents anti-spyware or antivirus software from removing the program
* Downloads and installs software without user permission Should be an exemption for updates, or should provide for global update permission, just so long as the user retains control of the option. Possibly updates should be logged.
* Runs in a mode that hides processes from the user or system tools
* Provides remote administration or file transfer capabilities A bad definition. Firefox falls into this catagory. So do MSIE, Acrobat Reader and RealPlayer. They all provide file transfer capabilities.
* Requires Internet access to uninstall
* Monitors sensitive items without explicit notice and consent, such as keystrokes, emails, instant messages screenshots, or the history or open programs and documents
* Runs malicious or questionable scripts
Privacy Criteria
* Does not contain a privacy policy There should be an exemption for products and sites that don't capture any private info.
* Does not contain a EULA (End User License Agreement)
* Installs a LSP (layered service provider) Some legitimate products need one.
* Silently tracks sites visited without user permission, such as by IP address, GUID, email address, name or other identifier Should be an exemption for tracking the user use of its own facilities. This has caused confusion in the past, where web based games have monitored their own performance, and people claimed that was spying.
* Tracks Web browsing behavior and transmits this information to a remote server
* Requires additional information to uninstall the software, such as email address
* tracks online activity and matches it to personally identifiable information without clear notice and consent, including but not limited to Web pages viewed or accessed, user selected content, keywords and search terms
* Collects personally identifiable information without express consent in statements other than the EULA or privacy policy
Again, mostly a good list, but it will need some refinement and clarification now that a major easy to sue near-monoploy company is using it.
The MS product has to not interfer with what ordinary customers with no special education want. It will be mainstream and conservative in what it prohibits.
Which guarantees that no matter how strong and vigorous the people on the MS/Giant product team want, MSAS won't be strong enough to satifisfy security enthusiasts. So we'll simply continue to run other products, probably in addition to MSAS.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| What is this world coming to? The only way to remove adware and spyware from your computer is to get permission from the adware/spware vendor? HOGWASH!!!!!
I'll remove the crap however I darn well please and will not ask permission from no one. If I break there so called EULA, let them try to sue me. I would like to see them explain to a judge why they won't allow someone to remove stuff from there own computer. Let When U and Claria explain to a judge how add/remove programs won't remove the whole program from your computer. Let them try to explain to judge how people get this crap on there computer without people even knowing it.
Let them tell the judge how they are evil in the worst sense. | |
| |
Packeteers
@verizon.n
| Re: What is this world coming to? I was so excited about the GIANT SpyNet MicroSoft deal, but these new Weatherbug developments sicken me. EVERYONE knows weatherbug is crapware that back-doors a lot of junk on to your machine that no user would actually want. For MicroSoft to exempt them from it's Signature list, or Anyone else for that matter, renders their purchase of GIANT's product worthless. Since users seldom know or are given a choice to install garbage like Weatherbug, they should at least be given a Choice to remove it. Microsoft should keep all crapware signatures in their removal tool, and if one of them doesn't like it, then Microsoft can make their software "warn" the end user before it's removal. That way the power goes back to the end user to keep the crapware or not, instead of giving that power back to the crapware maker. I'm desperate to find a solution to this problem as I have the daily headache to keeping over 100 PC's on my company LAN clean. I was hoping GIANT was going to do it for me, but I'll have to rethink that strategy now that I've discovered that MicroSoft can be so easily influenced by any crapware makers lawyer. | |
| | | |
|
|
Microsoft's Spyware Quandry
·
·
