Slashdot Mirror
Review of Microsoft's Anti-Spyware Tools
happyslayer writes "Matthew Fordahl has written a review of Microsoft's anti-spyware tool and has declared it, in a word, 'ineffective.' Though the methodology isn't carried out completely (he uses another anti-virus program after trying MS's tool, but doesn't do the same with the anti-spyware tool), it's a fairly good anecdote on the MS product's usefulness."
But it's beta, and his methodology is just plain wrong. I'm not one to jump up and defend MS, but WTF?
From the end of the article:
Overall, I was more impressed with the antispyware program's protective measures and simple interface than with its ability to cleanse existing infections. Still, Microsoft seems to be on the right path to fixing the mess caused by the careless users, malicious programmers, unethical companies and vulnerable software.
Twenties Retirement
This is great news!
/. intentionally trolling?
Is someone at
I can tell you that I had to clean a machine today that had 56,000 instances of 'Claria' (GAIM aka Gator)
Ad-aware missed them on the first pass...so I used MSAS, and it caught them all. And removed them. Successfully. (whereas Ad-aware would have just quarantined them).
I know I'll get roasted for this obvious 'fanboi' ism, but remember, MSAS is actually still GIANT, who they brought it from. (check your process names while running it...you'll see)
What's up with all these "reviews" immediately condemning this new tool? As far as I can tell, it's an honest attempt on Microsoft's part to actively aid it's customers in removing crap from their computers. I've used it myself at work, and after running Spybot, Ad-Aware, SpySweeper, and HijackThis, Microsoft Antispyware still manages to flag and remove quite a few leftovers.
Granted, by itself it may not be the most effective thing in the world, but the same can be said for any antispyware/antivirus software. We need to run at least 3 antispyware programs at work, and at least 2 antivirus programs before we feel confident that a computer is clean enough to return to the customer.
Besides the fact that it's just a beta, it's worked out pretty well for what it is. The interface is easy enough to figure out and use, and it identifies software which comes bundled with adware/spyware. When was the last time Spybot or Ad-Aware flagged Kazaa or Imesh as adware bundlers, while the default action is "ignore," but removal and quarantine are obvious choices? I say enough of these reviews. I'll be "reviewing" it myself by using it for what it can do well. If the final version works as well as this does, or better, it'll stay on my list of removal tools for my customers.
1. Unix users are self-selecting; they tend to be technically competent and less likely to be infected than the general populace.
2. Unix systems use a wide range of email applications and web browsers, almost all of which have fewer holes than IE/OE. No Unix mail client will execute an attachment for you; you have to save it, enable the execution flag, and then run it yourself.
3. Unix desktops are not nearly as common as Windows desktops, so there're fewer incentives to hack them. They're also quite diverse; a binary for PPC MacOS isn't going to work under x86 OpenBSD, Sparc Solaris, or ARM Linux, which reduces the pool of target machines for a given virus.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
I sincerely hope they never do charge for this product.
MS selling anti-spyware is like Goodyear selling anti-defective-tire-glue-or-something.
1.Build defective product
2.Let customer get flooded with problems
3.Instead of fixing defective product, sell customer
some kind of half working fix you bought from someone else
4.profit!!!
We should have been
So much more by now
Too dead inside
To even know the guilt