eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
| WhenU Enters the Anti-Spyware Market
Hi All:
You might have heard about the recent arrangement between Aluria (makers of Spyware Eliminator, a version of which is bundled with AOL 9.0) and WhenU, one of the more well-known distributors of adware. See here for the press release:
»www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori···62&EDATE
Aluria agreed to de-list WhenU from the defintions it uses for Spyware Eliminator. Suzi at Spyware Warrior has blogged about this:
»www.netrn.net/spywareblog/
And there's a news story on the same subject here at DSLR/BBR:
»It's Adware, Not Spyware!
But I just discovered that the situation is much worse than I originally thought. What we have here is more than a case of a little mutual back scratching with cross-promotion and links. See:
»www.whenu.com/whenu_solution.html
From that page:
said by WhenU:
WhenU is committed to protecting consumers' privacy and consumer PCs against dangerous spyware. This is why WhenU has teamed up with Aluria Software, a leading provider of anti-spyware tools, to provide WhenU consumers with UControl.
UControl is the first product in the online advertising industry that provides a comprehensive scan of your computer and removes unwanted spyware programs, while continuing to provide the deals, offers and value consumers have come to expect from WhenU contextual products.
See also:
Anti-Spyware Portal »www.whenu.com/take_control.html
Free Scan »www.whenu.com/scan_pc.html
In other words, WhenU is now in the anti-spyware business now with Aluria. And a major anti-spyware vendor has now agreed to de-list an adware vendor and start working the same vendor to market its anti-spyware product.
I am stunned and amazed.
Eric L. Howes |
|
jaykaykay
4 Ever Young
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
Scottsdale, AZ
 ·Speakeasy
| Yuck. Mutual back scratching is right. So many that use AOL no nothing about the outside world and wouldn't understand all of this, which is a shame. Otherwise, it might be just the thing to convince my friends to stop using it. No such luck with them and so many others. AOL just seems to do what is good for them, and so many of their users who know nothing about so much just go on trusting them. What a shame...or is that sham.:( |
|
dmethvin
join:2004-04-20
Columbia, MD
| reply to eburger68
By the way, it's not the first time that one of these "adware" companies has tried a ballsy move like this. Claria makes WebSecureAlert that protects you from unauthorized changes to your system configuration and cleans up your tracks:
»www.gainpublishing.com/global/so···ureAlert
This does seem like the first time that an anti-spyware company has been persuaded to ignore a product based on a licensing deal though. Could just be a coincidence...
I still want to see WhenU explain why 80% of their "users" can't recall installing their applications. Maybe WhenU software causes memory loss.
»www.pcpitstop.com/spycheck/whenu.asp |
|
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
| reply to eburger68
Hi All:
Back with more. Some have noted that one problem with the partnership between Aluria and WhenU is the potential for conflict and controversy over the detections used by anti-spyware vendors. WhenU now has leverage to charge that other anti-spyware vendors are completely out of line in detecting WhenU's products, because WhenU was "certified" clean by Aluria, and that the only motivation for continuing to detect WhenU would be to scare customers and drum up sales.
While that is true, Aluria has now created an even bigger problem for other anti-spyware vendors than just confusion and controversy over detections. See:
»www.whenu.com/optimize.html
It now appears that the Aluria scanner is actually bundled or integrated into the WhenUSearch Toolbar. In other words, by removing the WhenUSearch toolbar, other anti-spyware vendors will effectively be removing a competing anti-spyware product. Still worse, WhenU itself is now a competitor to other anti-spyware vendors.
Aluria must have foreseen the potential conflicts here. Aluria, it should be noted, is a charter member of COAST (the Coalition Of Anti-Spyware Technology vendors):
»www.coast-info.org/pr_launch.htm
Earlier this year COAST admitted to its membership NoAdware...
»www.coast-info.org/members.htm
...New.net...
»www.coast-info.org/newdotnetpr.htm
and WeatherBug
»www.coast-info.org/awspr.htm
Eric L. Howes |
|
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
2 edits | reply to eburger68
Hi All:
Still more interesting information about the new UControl anti-spyware scanner from WhenU and Aluria.
I downloaded the free scanner from WhenU's site and tested it. It flagged six items on my box as "suspect" (see screenshots 1 & 2 above). Four of the six are false positives (the DyFuca items are actually InstallShield setup keys; the WinFavorites.Bridge item is a CLSID for a Microsoft file, ATL.DLL; the ClearSearch item is an innocent CLSID for "Microsoft Url Search Hook").
The two FlashGet items are especially interesting. FlashGet is a download manager that comes in two versions ( »www.amazesoft.com/ ):
1) adware supported -- the "free" version of FlashGet displays ads in the FlashGet GUI, somewhat like the free version of Eurdora. The advertising is disclosed in the EULA during installation. Moreover, users can remove the inline banner by purchasing and registering FlashGet (see screenshots 3 & 4, which were taken after uninstalling the registered version of FlashGet and installing the latest ad-supported version).
2) full version -- the full, registered version of FlashGet displays no ads whatsoever.
The UControl anti-spyware application flagged FlashGet, which is installed on my computer. The problem is that it flagged the full, registered version as "suspect," not distinguishing between the ad-supported version and the full, registered version.
What does this mean? It means that WhenU's anti-spyware scanner is flagging a competing adware product -- a product that uses a similar advertising model as WhenU's own products and that competes with WhenU for advertising dollars. Unfair competitition?
Still worse, WhenU's scanner is flagging an adware application that is arguably MORE CONSUMER FRIENDLY than WhenU's own applications because FlashGet allows users to remove the advertising permanently.
What we have here is a case of utter hypocrisy -- an adware vendor who effectively bought protection from an anti-spyware vendor by partnering with that anti-spyware vendor is now distributing an anti-spyware product that flags the non-ad supported version of a product from a competing adware company that is arguably more consumer friendly than WhenU itself. And Aluria is distributing its spyware application through an adware company that is arguably less consumer friendly than the adware its own anti-spyware product flags and removes.
The makers of FlashGet would be quite justified in being a little miffed at the treatment they're getting from the competition.
Best,
Eric L. Howes |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to eburger68
Spywareinfo has delisted Aluria Spyware Eliminator from it's recommneded software with an explanation of Aluria's alliance with WhenU. Hopefully the word will spread the resulting loss of income/reputation for Aluria will serve as an example when integrity is thrown out for sake of profit. I personally find Aluria's actions unconscienable. I expected no different from a slime company like WhenU. Thanks Eric for posting this here.
--
Kerry/Edwards 2004 |
|
mens rea
Premium
join:2002-01-31
Canada
 ·Shaw
| reply to eburger68
Its nice to know that WhenU has been given the all clear by Aluria, and is only something relatively benign like Adware, and only makes use of your cpu cycles. I can now bask in the comfort of knowing that all my online gambling, betting and bingo needs will be well taken care of by WhenU, and should I find myself in an awkward financial position as a result of the former, WhenU has insured that I have access to quick cash, refinancing or even a "payday loan": Advertisers Using WhenU  |
|
LoPhatPhuud
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-01-06
Albuquerque, NM
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
| reply to eburger68
Sad. This will be the beginning of the end of Aluria as a reputable manufacturer. After this type of alliance I don't believe there is any way to ever get their "reputation" back.
Would you be willing to trust them again?
--
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."----- Mark Twain |
|
muf
Captain of the axe
Premium
join:2003-01-04
uk | reply to eburger68
This is an early April fool, right? Please say it is because if it's true then Aluria's reputation has just nosedived straight down the plughole.
muf
--
We want... a shrubbery! |
|
siggyx
Siggy
Premium
join:2003-12-10
Cambridge
1 edit | reply to eburger68
This is a stunning development against the Anti-Spyware movement.
Aluria has joined with WhenU supposedly to market a spyware scanner....
»www.whenu.com/whenu_solution.html
"WhenU is committed to protecting consumers' privacy and consumer PCs against dangerous spyware. This is why WhenU has teamed up with Aluria Software, a leading provider of anti-spyware tools, to provide WhenU consumers with UControl.
UControl is the first product in the online advertising industry that provides a comprehensive scan of your computer and removes unwanted spyware programs, while continuing to provide the deals, offers and value consumers have come to expect from WhenU contextual products.
Using Aluria's technology, WhenU's UControl Spyware Scanner:
Rids your computer of dangerous spyware
Protects privacy and personal information
Prevents credit card theft
Increases system performance
Ends browser hijacking
Enables consumers to continue to receive relevant contextual advertising, special deals and offers
Innovation is the key to the survival of any industry, and WhenU looks forward to playing a pivotal role in this evolving field of consumer protection.
This product will be ready for download on November 1, 2004."
Due to this development, Aluria is no longer a part of ASAP
Posted at TC
--
The next best thing to being smart is being able to quote someone who is. |
|
eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
4 edits | reply to eburger68
Hi All:
I want to offer some observations about certain aspects of this newly announced relationship between Aluria and WhenU -- observations that I think it important to bear in mind when considering the many issues at stake.
First, it's important to recognize that Aluria made not one but two decisions regarding WhenU. The first decision was to stop targeting WhenU in its definitions for Aluria Spyware Eliminator. This decision alone is controversial, but I think we can all recognize that it is appropriate for anti-spyware vendors to review the practices of the applications they target and, when appropriate, de-list applications that no longer merit targeting and removal. We can disagree about what applications ought to be de-targeted and the criteria to be used, and indeed similar decisions by other anti-spyware vendors like Lavasoft have caused controversy. Had Aluria decided only to de-target WhenU, we would no doubt be having a raucous discussion, but that discussion would concern the narrow issue of whether WhenU should be targeted by anti-spyware applications. But Aluria did something more than perform a routine review of an adware application and decide to de-target it.
The second decision that Aluria made takes us far beyond the narrow question of whether to de-target an adware application. It actually decided to partner with that same adware company and start distributing versions of its software through that adware vendor's advertising channels. And the minute Aluria did this, it immediately and irrevocably compromised the integrity of its first decision, for no longer can we regard the first decision as simply the kind of tough call that anti-spyware vendors have to make every day. Now we have to consider whether that first decision was made in the light of the potential financial benefits to Aluria. The second decision taints the first. And that brings me to my next observation.
Second, in making these decisions Aluria has done its customers, and indeed the entire anti-spyware industry, a grave disservice, because it has put itself into a completely untenable position. At bottom the conflicts of interest here are so serious that Aluria's trustworthiness as an anti-spyware vendor is completely and utterly compromised. And that has implications for Aluria's customers as well as the other anti-spyware vendors who continue to target Aluria's new business partner, WhenU.
There are several angles to look at when considering conflict of interest.
1) Aluria does regard adware applications as legitimate targets, as we've already seen in its detection of FlashGet on my own PC. This, by the way, puts Aluria into some kind of tension with its new business partner, WhenU, which told us at the FTC's Spyware Workshop this past April that there is a vast difference between adware, which is presumptively consumer friendly and legitimate, and spyware, which is not consumer friendly and therefore illegitimate (see WhenU's own summary of that position here: »www.whenu.com/pc_role_hearings.html ). WhenU appears to back away from that absolute distinction on another of its new pages, when it grudgingly admits that there are in fact illegitimate, non-consumer friendly adware applications (see »www.whenu.com/pc_adware_spyware.html ).
2) Given Aluria's willingness to partner with WhenU and use the adware model to distribute its anti-spyware application, we must now regard every adware application on the Net as a *potential* (note the emphasis here) partner of Aluria. And once adware applications become potential partners for Aluria, its definitions simply cannot be trusted.
At the very least, every decision by Aluria to de-target an application, as it did with WhenU, becomes immediately suspect, because we have to wonder about Aluria's financial interest in de-targeting that application.
By turns, every decision to continue to target an adware application is also suspect, because we have to wonder whether Aluria isn't simply protecting the market position of its business partner, WhenU, which competes for advertising and desktop space with the adware applications that Aluria targets.
Still worse, even if we do decide that Aluria is trustworthy enough to keep its financial interests out of the decision-making process about what to target and what to certify, Aluria has exposed itself to charges of unfair competition from other adware vendors. If Aluria, for example, were to suddenly announce that it was de-targeting Claria/Gator or Look2Me, could you really trust that such a decision had been made on the merits alone and not in response to threatened legal action by Claria based on Aluria's relationship with Claria's competitor WhenU? I think not.
No customer of an anti-spyware application should be put in the position of having to wonder about the integrity of the definitions used by that application, yet this is just where Aluria has put its customers.
Third, but the harm extends beyond Aluria's own customers. Aluria has effectively ripped the rug out from under the entire anti-spyware industry. Now every other anti-spyware vendor will have to worry that it will be exposed to charges of unfair competition based on those vendors' continued detection of WhenU, the business partner of a competing anti-spyware product. Aluria has effectively handed WhenU a powerful weapon to use against other anti-spyware vendors.
Other anti-spyware vendors could also be harmed indirectly, though. So tainted could anti-spyware vendors become in the eyes of consumers as a result of Aluria's actions that similar decisions made by other anti-spyware vendors to de-target adware applications might well be regarded by customers as equally suspect. In compromising itself, Aluria risks compromising the reputations of everyone else in the industry.
Indeed, Aluria's decision to cross over and partner with the very kind of company that anti-spyware vendors usually target has the potential to create a hornet's nest of suspicion, charges, and counter-charges within the industry. The primary victims of that kind of poisoned environment would, of course, be consumers -- the very victims of adware and spyware who are perpetually in need of trustworthy anti-spyware applications. (And I'd prefer not to even think about the possibility that this action might ignite an "arms race" of sorts among unscrupulous anti-spyware vendors to push their products through competing advertising channels.)
My apologies for the long-ish post, but the potential ramifications of Aluria's decisions need to be spelled out very clearly.
Best,
Eric L. Howes |
|
Spy
Premium
join:2001-09-22
NE
| said by eburger68  :Indeed, Aluria's decision to cross-over and partner with the very kind of company that anti-spyware vendors usually target has the potential to create a hornet's nest of suspicion, charges, and counter-charges within the industry. The primary victims of that kind of poisoned environment would, of course, be consumers -- the very victims of adware and spyware who are perpetually in need of trustworthy anti-spyware applications. It's disgusting. It seems like something that Ashley from Privacy Tools would be doing. Here's a quote from that anti-spyware vendor to bring back memories.
Ashley said:
"And to be honest i'm even thinking of having some programmers write me some spyware. Yep, actual spyware to infect ppls machines. Why? Cus you all suck. I'm trying to work with you but you couldnt give a sh1t. So why try and work with the anti-spyware community when there only against you? You guys are against me so much that i'm going to start distributing spyware myself, its not hard. UNDETECTABLE stuff too To be honest theres probably more money in this then the actual spyware removal" |
|
BillPStudios
Premium
join:2004-04-16
Scotia, NY
| reply to eburger68
In the last year or so I'll admit I've been slightly miffed that WinPatrol wasn't included in many of the Anti-Spyware program comparisons including Eric's.
WinPatrol works a little differently and so it's hard to compare apples to oranges with traditional Anti-Spyware scanners.
I just kept telling myself it was because WinPatrol was a utility that provides so much more then just protection from Spyware. 
Now, between all the trash that shows up on Eric's Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware list and situations like this I'm thinking I am glad we're not classified as Anti-Spyware.
Bill Pytlovany
BillP Studios |
|
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| reply to eburger68
Aluria probably feels regular consumers want to differentiate between safe adware and unsafe adware.
At one end of the spectrum are adware products like Yahoo Messenger, Opera Free, RealPlayer, QuickTime, and Acrobat Reader. Probably even these products are too spyware-ish for some purists, but I run them all except Opera. Other people may not even think of these products as Ad-ware, but the free versions do deliver paid advertising so they are adware.
And I run some other free software too. Ad-awareSE and Spybot S&D. They aren't adware, but I did download Ad-aware from an advertising sponsored website (which is what CNet and MajorGeeks are).
At the other end of the privacy spectrum is spyware that facilitates identity theft, where when you get it you need to change your credit card numbers, put a watch on your credit rating, file a police report, and re-format your hard drive.
I think consumers want this information -- to be able to tell one hazard from the other without doing a 90 minute search on google. To know what is safe to install, but also to know for sure what they have to do after an infection.
I can see where Aluria thinks it has a market if it can accurately differentiate between adware products that maintain and fail to maintain privacy.
Could someone else do a better job than Aluria? Sure. But it would take funding to get off the ground. Probably the anti-virus vendors will get in on the act.
I am pretty sure this is a service regular consumers want.
Setting the categories and accurately fitting the adware into them will be the real challenge.
They'll need ratings that keep privacy fanatics happy, that keep parents happy, and that keep regular regular folks with hobby computers happy. So they'll definitely need a rating system more complex than "safe" or "unsafe".
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) |
|
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
1 edit | If Aluria goes to far off-base in its conflicts of interest, they'll loose their AOL contract.
Aluria could probably get away with a bit, but if AOL were to start getting numerous on-going credible complaints from customers, and articles start appearing on how product X is spyware and Aluria says it isn't ... it probably won't be good for Aluria's marketing rep at AOL contract renewal time. (Assuming AOL doesn't own them.) |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to keith2468
What are you talking about re: Acrobat Reader? The only "advertising" it shows is a brief upgrade solicitation on the startup screen. It's not even a "nag" screen.
That's really stretching the definition of Adware far too wide, in my view.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to keith2468
said by keith2468 :If Aluria goes to far off-base in its conflicts of interest, they'll loose their AOL contract. Aluria could probably get away with a bit, but if AOL were to start getting numerous on-going credible complaints from customers, and articles start appearing on how product X is spyware and Aluria says it isn't ... it probably won't be good for Aluria's marketing rep at AOL contract renewal time. (Assuming AOL doesn't own them.) Aluria already has gone too far with it's partnership with WhenU, as Eric's post clearly demonstrated.
--
Please vote on Nov 2 |
|
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| reply to B
B,
If your point is that Acrobat Reader has ads that are straightfoward and unobtrusive, and that the value of the product to you outweighs the minor inconvenience of the tiny ads, I totally agree. It is good adware. It is a good deal for most users. Probably most people don't even notice the ad.
It is at one end of the adware spectrum.
Then comes things like QuickTime, WindowsMediaPlayer, and RealPlayer. The ads are more intrusive, but not hard to mostly suppress (so you only see them at update time). And all these adware products only install with permission, don't install rogue applications without consent, no longer steal file extension associations (not with the expert install anyway), are obvious when they are running, are easy to uninstall, and give you a way to turn off your tracking number (QT maybe doesn't even have a tracking number).
So they are also at the good end of the adware spectrum.
Then there is a continum of progressively more intrusive and then dangerous adware and spyware, at the end of which you have things that facilitate identity theft.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
|
I just think Acrobat Reader's not adware at all. It can be classified as nagware, but that's it. All I see is the screenshot above, for 1/2 second on startup -- if my machine were faster than 500 Mhz I wouldn't see it at all.
As you say, terms and definitions are important, and I happen to think Acrobat Reader (at least, my version) doesn't fall under "adware" at all.
Otherwise, products like ZoneAlarm Free (which has far more annoying nags) would be "adware" too!
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
suzi
Premium
join:2004-05-01
| reply to keith2468
Since we are discussing definitions and example, perhaps it would be helpful to look at COAST's own definitions of spyware and adware, keeping in mind that Aluria is one of the founding members of COAST.
»www.coast-info.org/glossary.htm
Partial definition of spyware:
quote:
While some spyware is installed with the user’s knowledge (although the user may not understand exactly what s/he has done), much of the time it is installed surreptitiously as part of another program installation. Even if the bundling of software and information tracking practices are disclosed to the consumer through the End User License Agreement, such disclosures are rarely noticed by users or give them any real understanding of what information will be collected by the spyware and how the collecting party will use it.
Emphasis mine.
Partial definition of adware:
quote:
Often used as a term for spyware, it is preferred and used by makers of software that include ad-serving mechanisms. Adware is advertising-supported software that displays pop-up advertisements whenever the program is running.
The "more info"link says this (partial quote):
quote:
The majority of programs that use ad-serving software disclose its existence during the installation process. In many cases, the software will not function without the adware component. Some adware can install itself on your computer even if you decline the installation.
Excuse me, but that says "The *majority* of programs.... disclose its existence during the installation process."
So then if some programs "DO NOT disclose their existence", wouldn't that make them very close to spyware by COAST's own definition?
And this:
quote:
Although seemingly harmless (aside from the intrusiveness and annoyance of pop-up ads), adware can install components onto your computer that track personal information (including your age, gender, location, buying preferences, surfing habits, etc.).
(emphasis mine)
I don't see much difference in spyware and adware based on those definitions.
--
aka Suzi, Spyware Warrior |
|
