Slashdot Mirror
Sneak Peek At Microsoft Anti-Spyware
Ant writes "Broadband Reports mentions Neowin's sneak peek of Microsoft's upcoming anti-spyware software recently acquired community favorite Giant spyware; Microsoft has code-named their re-hashed version of that software 'Atlanta.' It is currently in an internal beta test. There are screenshots of the application in action."
...but there's already plenty of free alternatives out there. Also, just stop using Internet Explorer. That move right there will cut down at least 90% of all spyware/adware.
Posted AC of course:
c kered/atlanta/install1.PNG c kered/atlanta/setup1.PNG c kered/atlanta/main.PNG c kered/atlanta/scan.PNG c kered/atlanta/realtime.PNG c kered/atlanta/advanced.PNG c kered/atlanta/settings.PNG c kered/atlanta/popup.PNG c kered/atlanta/systemsummary.PNG c kered/atlanta/messengerplus.PNG
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
http://www.neowin.net.nyud.net:8090/staff/creamha
ill have to disagree with this. im pretty sure most spyware is installed manually. of course people dont know its in the installer they are using. but its not due to any holes in windows, its a regular manual install..
If you look at the images, it shows an example of trapping Messenger Plus.
It gives a description of what the problem is, explains that its not the actual Messenger plus program that has the problem, but the spyware installed around it, there is the option of ignoring it (selected on screenshot).
I cannot tell from the screenshots whether it comes up on ignore by default, but its at least giving more information than previously.
On a slightly different note, in the neowin forum, some folks are saying "i haven't got any adaware hits now I'm using Firefox, but couldn't part of that be Adaware ONLY looking at the IE cache, and not the firefox one?
After all, 90% of the crap Adaware ever moans about is data mining cookies.
liqbase
Actually, one of the things I noticed about this Giant-Antispyware is the number of false positives. On some systems it found a half dozen of them (things like VNC and such). Also the slowest, high memory usage, and last I tried, cancelling a scan doesn't let you delete what was found on the partial scan.
Most likely they'll charge for this product, whereas it's completely unnecessary if you use firefox and IE and don't install apps like Gator and such.
///<sig
I don't think they know about the security flaws or possible worms - it's not a big conspiracy at MS. They're programmers like the rest of us, fighting fires as they come up.
While this is true to an extent, they provided the fuel for said fires. They also have the best programmers in the world working for them...and lots of them. Rest assured they have a stack of paper sitting there with nothing but bugs yet to be discovered by the public. Fixing them and rolling out a patch may be impractical, but at the very least they can offer some sort of interim damage control by this spyware program.
Sherman own Kazaa :P
close, but no cigar
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Yeah, NAV2004 added a couple new "anti-virus" categories for "hacker tools" like keygens.
Also, it's hard to keep people from clicking "yes".
You don't have to click YES or ACCEPT to get spyware in IE. All you have to do is visit a specific website... or a website that's been hacked... or a website that shows ads from a network that's been hacked... and it will auto-install it for you through one of IE's lovely unpatched exploits.
I just cleaned 12 off my sister's Win98 laptop and then promptly installed Firefox and Thunderbird.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Even so, please tell me which pieces of spyware exploit legitimate security holes? The "security hole" they exploit is that users run as admin.
It may not be a legitimate security hole, but I know that in Win2k at least, it's a pain in the ass to run in anything but administrator mode. Installing software is "supposed" to be possible to do as long as you have the admin password, but several programs still won't install for one reason or another. So, installing some software requires logging out, logging back in as admin, installing, logging out again, and logging back in as a regular user...then discovering that you neglected to choose "install for all users", and going through the whole process again. I know it's not supposed to work that way, but I've had the experience at least a couple of times.
That, and the non-admin mode isn't exactly secure anyway...anybody here never been to a university computer lab and have AIM pop up as soon as you log in? Windows' handling of multiple users is crap when compared to Linux or OS X.
Of course, my comments are based on Windows 2000...I've never really used Windows XP, with the exception of checking my email or something on someone else's computer...
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
When Microsoft purchased VirtualPC for Mac, they released a 'major' update that did nothing more than rebrand the product to Microsoft. No improvements, no fixes, just the window dressing. So while these people are certainly bashing Microsoft, there is a kernel of truth in their sarcasm.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
That's rubbish. Mozilla implements the standards, all they need to do is follow the standards and Mozilla will support it. No moving target there.
You don't seem to be getting it. Yes, Mozilla adheres to the standards, but there are lots of websites out there that don't. And they all don't necessarily break adherence in the same way.
The problem is not the website creators blaming Mozilla, it's the end user who can't get into the site they want. THEY blame Mozilla.
Mozilla is saying they won't try to implement fixes for the non-adherent websites because they are the moving target, and that adding the fixes adds bloat to the program.
The moving target is the non-adherent methods used by websites, not the standard that Mozilla follows.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If I had any mod points, I mod down the parent, and mod up the sibling post. Windows Update is hardly the thing that needs improving. Although it's not perfect, and the parent's intentions were good, he should have mentioned the notorious security thing elsewhere. If you weren't invited to participate in a Microsoft focus group (like most of us), you should still let them know what you think of Windows. With all the Microsoft criticism that occurs on Slashdot, I don't know why you don't go straight to the source. Maybe, if enough of us actually spend time and effort, we can write enough clear and thoughful replies to Microsoft to get them to change. A little bonus: while searching for a contact form on Microsoft's website, I found this little nugget: Microsoft Usability Labs. It's essentially a focus group, and registration is open. (If you participate in the surveys [usually an hour or two long, according to the site], you can get something from the gratuity list.) *waits for obligatory, pessimistic child post: "Microsoft is a huge corporation...they don't care about what a bunch of silly Slashdot geeks...they don't know what's best for the average consumer...it would cost Microsoft thousands to fix all their problems...*