canuk1
join:2005-03-03
Windsor, ON | reply to SnowyOne
Re: Pest Patrol: Claria Temporarily Removed
I find it quite telling that the same outrage that went on and on here toward Lavasoft/AdAware is not showing over this.
I have to wonder, is there a double standard at work? |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by canuk1  :I find it quite telling that the same outrage that went on and on here toward Lavasoft/AdAware is not showing over this. I have to wonder, is there a double standard at work? I don't think it's a double standard. I think it's a matter of Ad-Aware having a much larger customer base then Pest Patrol. Regardless of whether one has the program or not, the outrage should be there and the community needs to let the anti-spyware comapanies know that giving in to the malware companies will not be tolerated if they want to stay in business.
--
God put me on this Earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I am so far behind I will never die. |
|
captnhook
join:2001-02-20
NY
| reply to SnowyOne
said by SnowyOne :On the positive side, it should give them something to do. It's not like they were spending their time weeding out the false positives in their definitions.  ;)
LOL so true.. so true |
|
fatdcuk
Premium
join:2005-02-20
England
|  reply to canuk1
quote:
Re: Pest Patrol: Claria Temporarily Removed
I find it quite telling that the same outrage that went on and on here toward Lavasoft/AdAware is not showing over this.
I have to wonder, is there a double standard at work?
1) they've told their customer's upfront in an open and honest manner unlike Lavasoft+WhenU
however
i hope they get the same treatment as Lavasoft and are shamed into changing their policy as with Lavasoft for the benefit of all their paying customer's. |
|
TeMerc
join:2004-01-22
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to eburger68
The good thing I see, as opposed to the Lavasoft WhenU debacle is they are making an effort to disclose to the users. Not a great effort, mind you, but an effort.
If I were a paying customer, or an IT professional I would want something, like say a mass email to let me know what they were contemplating to give me a heads up.
That aside, I completely disagree with the idea of pulling the defs out while they are 'reevaluated' or whatever it is they want to call it.
The primary problem being Claria has foisted its crap upon millions and millions of users, and most, by this survey here:
»pcpitstop.com/gator/Survey.asp
said they didn't want it. So what if they submit a 'clean version' of their newly improved load of crap?
At the very least, an extended waiting period of time should be implemented, to assure they have actually abided by their claim, with monitoring done by the users, and the feedback given to PP\CA, and until then, keep them in the defs.
--
Remember............You can NEVER be OVERPROTECTED!!»temerc.com/ |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
| If I may add to TeMerc's post... Leave the current definitions of the older crap and if found clean, not detect/remove the new BS. That older crap will be around for a while, and even if Gator/Claria does cleanup the "new and improved" version, that old s*** will still infect people's systems. |
|
salzan
Experienced Optimist
Premium
join:2004-01-08
WA State
| reply to eburger68
Even if they do decide Claria is OK now, what about all the versions that are in the wild and will continue to be in the wild for an unknown time? This was also mentioned repeatedly in the Ad-Aware/WhenU debacle. If Claria has truly "cleaned up their act", why don't they just rename their new product and the files and folders it might/would install? Wouldn't that avoid detection?
Personally, I don't use this product, but I find this trend very disturbing and removing a formerly known threat while it's being reviewed only serves to expose thousands of Pest Patrol users to Claria's software. Maybe that's all they really want?
Seems like more smoke and mirrors to me.  |
|
fatdcuk
Premium
join:2005-02-20
England
| reply to eburger68
quote:
reply to eburger68
Hi All:
Two quick updates to this story.
First, as Karl Bode noted in his news story, CA has now corrected the link to the uninstall info:
»www3.ca.com/content/default.aspx?CID=6..
Second, CA's vendor appeals process is explained in more detail on this page:
eTrust PestPatrol Vendor Appeal Process
»www3.ca.com/Content/default.aspx?CID=6..
Best,
Eric L. Howes
since its obvious to all that the vendor appeal will now render the tool pest patrol ineffectual for periods of time,since it is open to exploitation by any vendor of ****ware dose this tool still merit the label of 'trusted application' by your goodself ? |
|
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| reply to canuk1
said by canuk1 :I find it quite telling that the same outrage that went on and on here toward Lavasoft/AdAware is not showing over this. I have to wonder, is there a double standard at work? I agree with mers2 - it's more a matter of the customer-base size than a double-standard of any kind - also, we're only two or three days into this since it was first posted here.
You also have to realize that a lot of people turned their backs on PestPatrol a long time ago due to the agonizingly frequent F/P issues, the closing of their forums (so people couldn't complain publicly in a centralized place about the many real issues with the program).
IOW, I'd have never recommended PP to my worst enemy to start with, so I'm certainly not going to get upset if they erode whatever their remaining customer-base is now through shooting themselves in the foot like this.
It's just another example of stupidity and short-sightedness on the company level. They could have announced openly (in a place on the website where you didn't have to hunt for it) that they were going to review their stance on - whatever - detection first before pulling the detections.
That would have given everyone time to present their views, additional information as to why it should remain on the list (if any), etc. If they would simply have done that, they'd have given themselves the chance to see what kind of backlash they were going to suffer from the Internet community and their customers - plus they'd have had a chance to (a) show that they were giving - whatever - company a fair shake (useful litigation-wise) before making their decision and (b) they'd have been showing that they cared what their customers (you know - the ones who are PAYING FOR THEIR FRIGGING PROGRAM TO START WITH) think!.
Returning to the "I'm not upset about this." mindset (  ) - it's all really probably a moot issue anyway - I notice that Netfixer posted a notice that CA was putting out a " new version offers significant enhancements to help protect your PC from unauthorized access, information theft and diminished system performance." and that "support for older versions will be discontinued in the future."
That should pretty much kill the program all by itself, so why get upset about dropped detections due to cowardice in the meantime? Pete
--
Compaq Presario 7110US, 1.3GHz ThunderBird, 1GB RAM, 160GB HD, WinXP Pro w/SP2, TDS-3, WormGuard, Port Explorer v2.000, Process Guard v.3.150, The Cleaner Pro v.4.1 b.4252, TrojanHunter v.4.1 Build 903, NOD32, XP ICF, ALL javacool programs, SBS&D, SPYCOP |
|
stessylt
@co.u
 from:
dadkins
| Hey Pete
You are displaying an opinion..:D:D:p:p:o
You know, the sort of thing that you don't have to have about everything (as per the famous (??) post on the LS forums a while ago.)
You'll be upsetting somebody.. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
1 edit | Nothing wrong with having an opinion, That post was a joke! My "opinion" is that I have the right to an opinion... we *ALL* do!
DHAO My A**!
 |
|
BSofDeath
join:2004-08-27
Canada
| reply to eburger68
...and the users get the shaft again. I'm getting tired of this ongoing spyware battle. Anyone else?
Hmm... more like the front-line techies like us who are getting the shaft.
We can't MAKE users NOT use their computers (and thus get spyware), but it's up to us to fix them or provide the TOOLS to fix them (which is hard enough since no one spyware removal program works 100%). Couple that with a user base who "...don't give a #$%& about this computer $&$%", and ya wonder why techies/admins get fed up.
Then the tools themselves get sabotaged? Ugh. Who do you trust? It's clear that past performance can't justify trust anymore, if spyware removal authors can turn about-face, take some cash from the 'baddies', and betray us whenever they want.
BlueScreenOfDeath
I think I'm becoming a casualty of the war. |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| It almost sounds like an over dependence on automated scanners. At the professional level I'd think any exorcism would include a manual check of the registry run values etc.. which would show what's running, starting, where & when etc...
Shorter version, they should make cleaning faster, but they shouldn't replace or be a substitute for a tech's skill. |
|
BSofDeath
join:2004-08-27
Canada
| reply to eburger68
You're right, there. That'd be ideal. But with there being hundreds of spyware programs trying to infect machines, and more and more people getting computers (what, with prices falling in both hardware and broadband), there aren't enough techies around to do everything manually. We HAVE to depend on automated scanners. Else it'd take 10x the time to fix one machine, since Windows has so many vectors for intrusion.
And have you tried to educate users? They'll do whatever they "damn well please" anyway (quote from one of my users).
But tomorrow's another day. |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI | As a hobbyist, I'll always appreciate the Pro's view. |
|
R2
R Not
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-18
Long Beach, CA
clubs:
| reply to eburger68
Hmmm... Interesting.
What should a company do that previously made a "malware" or "spyware" ridden piece of software, but now wants to come clean? It is enough to simply clean up their act and then petition the AS vendors to remove them from their lists?
I would have to say that that is BS -- complete and total. If you previously made a "bad" program and you now want to change your image, you need to change the program as well. That means changing the file names, changing the registered Class ID numbers, changing all the registry entries. You can keep the name similar -- "Gator2" for example -- but you are going to have to change the name if you want to change your image.
Therefore, if the company was serious about revamping itself, the "clean" program would NOT be detected by AS programs -- because those programs rely on finding specific files or specific registry entries. If the company did not bother to modify these aspects of the program, then the company is NOT serious!
They realize that even if the NEW, improved version is clean, the older versions still exist in the wild. And these older programs still have malware on them.
There should NEVER be a program that is known to contain spyware to be REMOVED from a definition list. If the company is serious about cleaning themselves up they would have NO problem modifying file names and Class ID number.
There should be no reason for Pest Patrol -- or any other vendor -- to change their mind about a program that is know to be bad. |
|
Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon Online DSL
|  said by R2 : If you previously made a "bad" program and you now want to change your image, you need to change the program as well. That means changing the file names, changing the registered Class ID numbers, changing all the registry entries. You can keep the name similar -- "Gator2" for example -- but you are going to have to change the name if you want to change your image. I agree 100%! The malware companies fouled their own nests... wrecked the reputation of their named software by the nasty behavior they designed in. If these outfits get a sudden burst of integrity, great! But the burden is, and should remain, totally on THEM to make the necessary name changes - exactly as R2 writes. The anti-malware houses should only have an obligation to test the "new", renamed versions to see if they really are cleaned up... but they should keep on removing the old garbage. The malware outfits need to understand that it's all really part of a process called "natural consequences" or "assuming responsibility for what you've done".
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see... |
|
twig49
join:2004-10-28
Plainview, TX | reply to eburger68
Wait a sec... Has Ad-Aware fallen to this as well? Should I remove it? If so, what do you guys recommend as an alternative? |
|
fatdcuk
Premium
join:2005-02-20
England
|  no don't remove ad aware,its still one of the better software's about even thou lavasoft have been caught humping the hound recently as well but there's no reason to remove their software.
are you only using the one anti-spyware software ?
if you are,i suggest reading the following article
»windowssecrets.com/050127/#story1
HTH:)
back on topic,totally agreed with R2,someone need's to spell this out in plain english to the bot killer vendor's;) |
|
TheJoker
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2001-04-26
Alexandria, VA
| reply to R2
said by R2 :What should a company do that previously made a "malware" or "spyware" ridden piece of software, but now wants to come clean? It is enough to simply clean up their act and then petition the AS vendors to remove them from their lists? I would have to say that that is BS -- complete and total. If you previously made a "bad" program and you now want to change your image, you need to change the program as well. That means changing the file names, changing the registered Class ID numbers, changing all the registry entries. You can keep the name similar -- "Gator2" for example -- but you are going to have to change the name if you want to change your image. Absolutely. Changing how a program is installed (possibly without consent), or what it does, doesn't automatically eliminate all the copies that are already out there. If you pull the definitions from spyware/adware scanners, or no longer remove it manually because it is no longer deemed "bad", that potentially leaves an installed base out there from when it was considered malware.
--
TheJoker |
|
