Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Denies Claria got Spyware Exception

daria42 writes "Microsoft has denied its AntiSpyware application has given adware-maker Claria special treatment. The denial has been issued amid reports MS is looking to buy Claria, and is in response to security researchers' reports stating AntiSpyware had downgraded the threat level posed by Claria's adware products. The downgrade in threat level merely represented an effort to be "fair and consistent with how Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) handles similar software from other vendors," according to a statement published by Microsoft." As reader jfengel writes, though, "they neglected to mention what software that might be, nor did they publish the analysis."

79 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. More info and analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's some really excellent analysis on this by Ed Bott.

    Compare and contrast to the lies and misdirection spread (as is normal), by Microsoft's resident spin doctor Robert Scoble. See his Ballmer interview, aka, The Idiots Guide to Brownnosing, to see his true colors.

    Lots of Gator-bashing is rightly occurring all over the MSDNosphere, see here for a funny example. Remember, even Microsoft employees (commenting anonymously, of course) hate this idea.

    I'm guessing that Microsoft will somehow integrate Claria's obnoxious 'personal marketing' tactics into Internet Explorer 7 or the new RSS functions to get a chunk of the targeted intarweb ad market which Adsense has completely sewn up for normal web pages. We should go and tell them what we think about Claria and Gator, not to mention their general business ethics. Don't let Scoble's lies deceive you, and don't hold back.

    1. Re:More info and analysis by bigman2003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a relatively big fan of many Microsoft products...(hey, it's how I make a living!)

      Any attempt to incorporate software like Gator into Windows, or an attempt to allow software like Gator greater control...will mean I am no longer a card-carrying member of the fan club.

      Seriously, I have spent way too much time cleaning that junk off of my daughter's computer. The MS anti-spyware program works well now, but if they disable it for their 'partners' it will royally suck.

      And then I'll have to eat crow for quite a while.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    2. Re:More info and analysis by cygnusx · · Score: 4, Informative

      Scoble did link to Ed Bott's take. If you think the Scobleizer is an echo chamber you've a lot to learn.

      And oh, it's really funny to see an anonymous coward carp at Scoble, who consistently has shown that his opinions are his own, whether it be about MSN/China or Microsoft/Gay Rights. Yes he works for Microsoft. Yes he blogs. If you can't deal with that, don't read him. But stop calling _him_ a brown-noser when we know nothing about you or your biases.

    3. Re:More info and analysis by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We should go and tell them what we think about Claria and Gator, not to mention their general business ethics.

      On the contrary, we should encourage them to integrate obnoxious adware into every aspect of the browser and OS. If that doesn't persuade the world to switch, nothing will.

    4. Re:More info and analysis by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny

      And then I'll have to eat crow for quite a while.

      Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Welcome.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:More info and analysis by overshoot · · Score: 4, Funny
      Seriously, I have spent way too much time cleaning that junk off of my daughter's computer.

      They're solving that. Once MS buys Gator, they'll fix the bugs that make it removable.

      "Integrated into the operating system," like IE, Media, etc. The script should be familiar by now.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    6. Re:More info and analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      OK, you're just a go along get along kind of guy, a little bit thoughtful, but more interested in leading a full life than fighting the good fight, that's all fine, I don't want to change your way or your choices.

      But please, don't fall into the fallacy that if Microsoft didn't exist, that you would have no way of earning a living, or any of the other variations along the continuum.

      The Microsoft monopoly hurt the computer industry including everybody in it from consumer to worker to investor to competitor. Monopolies charge prices that are too high and that depresses economic activity and that hurts people. It's that simple. That is the beef, and you are free to hold all the other opinions you have.

    7. Re:More info and analysis by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Interesting
      cygnusx wrote:

      But stop calling [Scoble] a brown-noser when we know nothing about you or your biases.


      Some of his questions in the Ballmer interview:

      * Why does Microsoft care about developers?

      * Microsoft is a leader in transparency and blogging. Why did you allow blogging?

      * Coming up with tough questions for you is hard. If you were in my position what tough questions would you ask Microsoft's CEO?

      I'm sorry. That's a man brown-nosing just as hard as he can.

      Chris Mattern
    8. Re:More info and analysis by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about

      "If you want to be taken seriously, shouldn't you give interviews to people you don't have the ability to fire?"

  2. Spy Sweeper too by professorhojo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know if you guys know this, but Webroot's Spy Sweeper is also delisting obvious spyware. Microsoft is not alone in this! I personally think this is going to become a real problem with most spyware scanners unless laws are brought on to fight spyware more aggressively and some kind of standard list is defined like there is for viruses.

    1. Re:Spy Sweeper too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Evidence please. We use their corporate product and would be very irritated were this true.

    2. Re:Spy Sweeper too by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For me, I am interested in open source spyware removal. I would like a product designed by people with a mindset like mine (anti all spyware). One of the issues is that anti-spyware/virus companies are getting sued by adware companies for slander etc. for calling the adware, well, adware.
      That is part of why a program that installs itself, logs your keystokes, saves your credit card info, and turns on your webcam while you are in the shower is a "petentially unwanted program" As long as anti-adware companies are suable entities, we are going to have these issues in addition to absolutely egregious issues like MS buying a spyware company.
      Next thing you know Cancer will have to be called "potentially unwated cells."
      And let us not be of the mindset, if people can't figure out how to keep spyware off their computer, they deserve it. A lot of those people are our parents and grandparents.
      Can you imagine spyware clippy- It looks like you are writing a letter to a bankruptcy attorney. Would you like me to set you up with my rich exiled Nigerian uncle?

      --
      And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    3. Re:Spy Sweeper too by OglinTatas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      anti-spy software ignoring certain results will only be a problem if they also intentionally (or "unintentionally," or "incidentally" or whatever they call it when they are discovered) disable competitors' anti-spy software. I run lavasoft and spybot regularly, I have reasonable confidence in the integrity of both programs' developers. I run both because some find spyware that the others don't. If a company intentionally missed spyware, it would be underhanded, but the effect would be no different than if a company just didn't update its definition file yet. That's why you run 2 or more scanners.

      Now antivirus software, that is dangerous, because in some cases they really do interfere with each other, and therefore you have to rely on a single product to catch everything.

    4. Re:Spy Sweeper too by garcia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know if you guys know this, but Webroot's Spy Sweeper is also delisting obvious spyware.

      This is why people should not be supporting commercial entities that are selling spyware detection/removal software.

      This should all be free, open source, software that includes a community updated database of spyware junk. That way money and corruption stay out of the mix.

    5. Re:Spy Sweeper too by GlassUser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For me, I am interested in open source spyware removal. I would like a product designed by people with a mindset like mine (anti all spyware). One of the issues is that anti-spyware/virus companies are getting sued by adware companies for slander etc. for calling the adware, well, adware.

      The needed mechanism is already in windows. All we need to do is find and distribute hashes of known spyware (software permissions policy, or something like that, it works by hash, filename, certificate, and maybe location). Windows will then simply refuse to execute (if it's an executable, or load it if it's a library or control).

    6. Re:Spy Sweeper too by Pollardito · · Score: 5, Funny
      That is part of why a program that installs itself, logs your keystokes, saves your credit card info, and turns on your webcam while you are in the shower is a "petentially unwanted program"
      where exactly do you keep your computer?
    7. Re:Spy Sweeper too by 1800maxim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there is such a problem with lawsuits over labels, simply change the labelling system. INstead of calling it "adware" or "spyware", use description off the vendor's site. For example, Gator says

      The GAIN Network has a unique permission-based relationship with tens of millions of users. The GAIN Network enables consumers to download and use some of the Web's most popular software applications -- for free. In return, consumers agree to receive targeted promotions/ads from GAIN Network advertisers


      Instead of ad-ware removal tool, call it permissions-based Universal Uninstaller of Various Advertisment Delivery Applications.

    8. Re:Spy Sweeper too by tolkienfan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Personally, I think that the law should stay firmly out of this arena - it's just too hard to draw a distinction that won't harm us or the technology at some point.

      About the only law I imagine I could stomach would be along the lines of full disclosure. In other words, whether the software did something out of the users control and without his/her consent.
      Unfortunately, you'd have to do some work around what is always allowed and/or implied. If you download a browser, are you implicitly allowing access to websites? What about sending info back to websites you didn't explicitly select? For instance when images are loaded from another site, with cookies and/or query data (doubleclick, anyone?)
      Would that be the fault of the browser?

      Such things are extremely hard to define for the general case.

      Seriously, the law needs to stay out until a clearly defined problem has enough impact that legislation is appropriate.

      Otherwise, we'd be hampered more than helped...

    9. Re:Spy Sweeper too by jc42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That question is not as relevant as the question of WHY the webcam can be turned on by unknown entities in the first place.

      Well, a few years ago I worked in a lab that was developing video conferencing software. One of the guys had a cool tool that he liked to demo. He's ask you if your machine had a camera, and if so, what's the hostname or IP address. He'd type it into his program's "host" widget, and if it was a Windows machine, a few seconds later the view from the camera would appear on his screen. It didn't matter whether the camera was on or off; his program remotely turned it on. It also turned on the microphone, if there was one.

      You can probably imagine the effect this had on a lot of users.

      One fun thing was the people who would ask if there's anything that can be done about it. He would basically say "Well, I know how to remotely turn the camera off, if that's what you mean. But that doesn't do you a lot of good, because someone else can come along and just turn it back on, if they know what I know." He'd also say that his code only works with Windows machines; no other system that he knew of had the glaring security holes that allowed such remote access.

      All this came out of a few guys' research into what it took to get their conferencing software running on Windows.

      Dunno if it still works, though. It's been a few years.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    10. Re:Spy Sweeper too by jp10558 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First I do think it's important to keep the definitions clear. What you describe is spyware - it tracks users without their permission, and steals information.

      AdWare is very different IMHO - it displays ads in the program in lieu of you paying for it.

      Now, I think adware can work as a business model - it works for most websites for instance, no reason it can't work for some software - like Opera for instance.

      Spyware should be flat out illegial - anything that installs as part of another program, or like GAIN pops up windows to display ads is just wrong. It's one thing to have an ad that is clearly part of the program chrome, and you know what program it's associated with as well as presumebly why it's there and another to cause more pop-ups on the web.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  3. A question of trust by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative
    From TFA:
    "Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) continues to notify our users when Claria software is found on a computer, and it offers our users the option to remove the software if they desire."
    The issue here is not whether or not Windows Antispyware still detects Claria products...the issue is Microsoft's recommendation on said products. While it is true that users still have the option to remove Claria products if they so choose, the fact is that users had the option to keep Claria products on their system back when Microsoft was recommending removal. The insinuation that this change offers users more choice than previously available is tacitly false.

    The real issue here is Microsoft abusing their position of trust within the general computer user community. No, I'm not talking about people like us here...I'm talking about Ma and Pa Computer User...the ones who see a virus or spyware warning and panic. Many of these people rely upon the recommendations offered by the spyware detection/removal applications to decide on how best to manage their systems. By artificially upgrading Claria products from 'remove' to 'ignore', Microsoft is taking unfair advantage of these users' trust.

    Also from TFA:
    "All software is reviewed under the same objective criteria, detection policies, and analysis process," Microsoft claimed. "Absolutely no exceptions were made for Claria."
    As far as I'm aware, no other spyware removal application has promoted Claria products in this fashion. Until Microsoft publishes these 'objective criteria', and shows how Claria products managed to get upgraded from 'remove' to 'ignore' under them, we will have no choice but to assume more ulterior motives.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:A question of trust by keraneuology · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The issue here is not whether or not Windows Antispyware still detects Claria products...the issue is Microsoft's recommendation on said products. While it is true that users still have the option to remove Claria products if they so choose, the fact is that users had the option to keep Claria products on their system back when Microsoft was recommending removal. The insinuation that this change offers users more choice than previously available is tacitly false. The real issue here is Microsoft abusing their position of trust within the general computer user community. No, I'm not talking about people like us here...I'm talking about Ma and Pa Computer User...the ones who see a virus or spyware warning and panic. Many of these people rely upon the recommendations offered by the spyware detection/removal applications to decide on how best to manage their systems. By artificially upgrading Claria products from 'remove' to 'ignore', Microsoft is taking unfair advantage of these users' trust.

      The real issue is "where does Microsoft want to go tomorrow"? Today they downgrade the recommendation on what to do with Claria. Microsoft revolves around the long-term strategy and to believe that this is one of the few times when one of their decisions isn't a stepping stone towards something else is to take the bet on the horse with the longest odds on the field.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
  4. Funny qote from TFA by Underholdning · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We firmly believe that people should have complete control over what runs on their computers," Microsoft added."

    Well, 10 million compromised windowsboxes seems to contradict that belief.

    1. Re:Funny qote from TFA by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny


      Not at all...they firmly believe that everyone should have complete control over what runs on your computer... ^_^

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  5. Microsoft was always a kidder by oddheart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the bottom of that ZDNet article:
    "'We firmly believe that people should have complete control over what runs on their computers,' Microsoft added."
    Anyone else find that funny?

  6. Let's hear it for conspiracies... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Please take off your tin foil hats, guys!

    One might say that Microsoft is primarily responsible for the entire spyware issue (although I suspect Firefox's track record would be worse, albeit better than IE, if it were as popular). But MS AntiSpyware is a fine piece of software, however. It's easy to use and does its work better than many of its competitors.

    1. Re:Let's hear it for conspiracies... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a bird...it's a plane...it's AstroTurfMan!

      Microsoft's AntiSpyware worked well because Microsoft didn't write it...Giant did. Back before Microsoft got their hooks into it, it was a fine piece of sofware...past tense.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Let's hear it for conspiracies... by kahei · · Score: 5, Interesting


      It's not a fine piece of software. It _was_ one and it has been intentionally made otherwise.

      I'm keeping my tinfoil hat firmly on. Imagine if Ford bought the company that checks for defects in cars, and the next week all Ford defects were considered as desirable behavior. Imagine if Monsanto bought the company that decides whether Bovine Growth Hormone is bad for you, and the next week it was announced that BGH is just fine... actually, you don't really have to imagine that.

      This is a tiny attempt to extend to the software industry what is already standard in the 'traditional' industries; the use of quality and safety regulating entities to discourage competition rather than to protect the consumer.

      I _will_ say that I don't expect MS to be as evil about it as Monsanto et al for a good many years yet.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    3. Re:Let's hear it for conspiracies... by Alien+Being · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Please take off your tin foil hats, guys!

      Please take your head out of the sand.

      "One might say that Microsoft is primarily responsible for the entire spyware issue..."

      No, thousands of knowledgeable people *do* say it.

      "I suspect Firefox's track record would be worse, albeit better than IE, if it were as popular"

      That's a moot point.

      "MS AntiSpyware is a fine piece of software..."

      Penicillin is a fine medicine, but its makers don't go around spreading syphilis.

  7. Re:Ad-Aware by Mad-Mage1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Excpet for the fact that Ad-Aware already had A HUGE problem recently w/ delisting of products, specifically When-U. I know many who no longer use it as the first tool against spyware, merely for thoroughness.

    --
    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
  8. bah by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have 2modpoints left, and I'm in bad mood. So I wanted to mod insightful a comment like: "microsoft sucks!" but there was no comment like that. What's up with you guys?

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
    1. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Antispyware isn't even on update; you have to actively search for it. It does not come up on Windows Update; its still in beta!

    2. Re:Bah by kinzillah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, and firefox has bundled thunderbird with firefox because there is a link to it on their website.

      --
      Douglas P. Price
    3. Re:Bah by djmurdoch · · Score: 2, Informative

      The anti-spyware tool is different from the malicious software removal tool. The latter is run on every windows update. It targets viruses, worms, etc. rather than adware.

    4. Re:bah by joe83 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Microsoft sucks huge green donkey boners, Bill Gates is an asshole, anyone who uses windows is an imbecile How's that? :P

  9. YRO? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MS's anti-spyware tool isn't the only one available, it isn't bundled with the OS, it doesn't attempt to prevent the user from installing other anti-spyware tools - in short, it is one option of many and you are free to install others as well or instead of MS's one.

    Why is this in YRO? What right is being infringed or threatened? If you don't like MS's anti-spyware tool, don't use it!

    1. Re:YRO? by rpozz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What right is being infringed or threatened?

      The right to privacy. This is a tool created by the same people who make Windows, and shows that Microsoft may well start favouring certain spyware companies.

  10. "Microsoft has denied" by cablepokerface · · Score: 3, Funny

    *chuckles*

    this is /. NOone believes it. doesn't matter what it's about.

    [evil demonic laugh]MWHAHAHAHA ![/evil demonic laugh]

  11. What else did they change? by farker+haiku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    fair and consistent with how Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) handles similar software from other vendors,"

    So, um, what other program has had it's threat level changed?

    --
    Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
  12. What really annoys me by binkzz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    is that they're also using AntiSpyware for motivating people to remove competing products. For instance, MSN Plus and RealVNC will come up in a search, and although I don't particularly like MSN Plus myself, I don't think it's really fair.

    The small print says they may not be actual spyware, but potentially dangerous items, most unknowledgable people will just remove them anyway, because it's the default option.

    --
    'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    1. Re:What really annoys me by chrisnewbie · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well you can add dameware and pc anywhere to your list because they are distant remote control software and some spyware will threat them as dangerous.
      Why doesnt remote desktop show as a possible threat?
      It's easier to connect to a remote host with that software!
      OH yeah right,,,it's a ms product!

    2. Re:What really annoys me by Tezkah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      MSNger Plus! is a great program, but it asks you to install an adware IE toolbar when you install it. The last time I ran MS Antispyware it recommended that you keep it.

      At least MSNger Plus! doesn't automatically check the "Yes, install this" box for the adware, you'd have to ignore the warnings, then click "YES, INSTALL THIS" to get it. I use MSNger Plus! and don't have any spyware at all.

  13. Master Plan by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 2, Funny

    1. Microsoft Buys anti-spyware, 2. Microsoft buys up all spyware company's 3. Microsft delcares the war on spyware is won & emails 7 billion email addresses announcing that the WinXp SP 15 will be "Spyware Free"

  14. Multiple programs.... by wpiman · · Score: 5, Informative
    This simply reaffirms my belief in the running of multiple anti-spyware programs. If MS won't remove a certain piece of Spyware because of business/political reasons- adaware will get it- or Spybot will.

    PS. M$ sucks.

    1. Re:Multiple programs.... by VagaStorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much preformance loss would having multiple in-memory agents create?

      Less than GATOR......

  15. OSS spyware detection by FidelCatsro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does anyone know of any OSS that is dedicated to the removal of ad-ware and spyware.
    I manage a number of windows machines at the office and wit he recent declassification's without good explanation that has occurred in the sector i have lost all faith in most of the products .
    An OSS solution would be wonderful (hell i would rather switch the machines to linux , but that is not an option right now due to certain programs that are required by the company) .
    Commercial solutions always to me seem rather susceptible to legal action for the classification and or bribery.

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:OSS spyware detection by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not FOSS, but as far as I'm aware of (which admittedly isn't that far), there is no big company behind SpyBot S&D, at least. It also offers an option to immunise IE by blocking known bad webpages, which I think is an important option even when you don't run IE as your default browser - there are many apps that embed it. Generally, the problem of unjustified whitelisting of spyware can be solved by running more than one tool. It's a crutch, of course, but it works; what one vendor was bribed to gloss over, another vendor will pick up.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  16. Re:Ad-Aware by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I prefer to use three products in combination. Microsoft Antispyware on a daily basis, and periodical runs of AdAware and SpyBot S&D seem to do the trick for now.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  17. Anyway you get spywares because you decide it by Arthur+B. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MS antispyware should rather show the threat level the user represents to the computer by analyzing the number of unused files squirreled on the desktop, viruses & spywares on the system, time spent on configuration panel, number of time a double click is performed when a single click is expected etc.

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
  18. I get it! by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MS is going to buy off all businesses that have anything to do with delivering any kind of unwanted software to users' computers. This maybe part of their plan for security on MS platform :)

    1. Re:I get it! by malikvlc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Scarier thought: How long have people tried to make a sure-fire money-generating internet ad system? Once MS buys up all the adware and spyware code, they will have instant access to the Windows desktops. Streaming ads 24x7, a new "feature", without which XP won't install.

      And no, I don't think the Antispyware Formerly Known as GIANT will object to MS adware - do you?

      --
      Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. ~Yoda
  19. Re:Wonderful by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So MS denies something they clearly did wrong, what's new?

    You, sir, are entirely unfair!

    Microsoft clearly said The downgrade in threat level merely represented an effort to be "fair and consistent with how Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) handles similar software from other vendors,"

    It's entirely consistent. Microsoft has consistently held their software offerings to, ahem, an improved standard.

    I mean, have you ever looked at how Microsoft's C++ compilers, um, pioneered their own standard, entirely different -- and, so long as you don't like correct exception handling, consistent RTTI, or the availability of a Standard library, entirely better -- from the ANSI/ISO standard. Or look at the, um, improvements to JavaScript and the browser DOM.

    Or just look at the XML for Word docs. Ok, well absent a non-disclosure agreement you can't actually look at it, but trust Microsoft it's entirely consistently inconsistent with anything else out there.

    How anyone can say Microsoft isn't being consistent in its approach I just don't understand at all.

  20. Suuuuuuure, Bill by CaptainZapp · · Score: 4, Funny
    "fair and consistent with how Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) handles similar software from other vendors,"

    Hmm, I'm sure they wouldn't lie and I shall read the statement as soon my flying pig is back.

    It's on a mission, surveying the earth in order to prove that it's flat.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  21. So what they're really saying by dtfinch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is that Claria isn't the only malware to get this exception?

  22. A very simple explanation. by doublem · · Score: 5, Funny

    This all makes sense when you realize one key, critical piece of information.

    First, a quote:

    Has Microsoft given in to vendors' threats? Or forgotten how badly "adware" damages the Windows experience (ultimately encouraging users to switch to other platforms)?

    Now, the key, critical piece of information.

    Microsoft's anti-spy ware devision is headed by a MAC user! You see, MAC zealots have infiltrated the Microsoft hierarchy, and are plotting it's downfall from within.

    As a matter of fact, this is a pervasive presence, weaving into all levels of the company.

    Think about it. Doesn't Clippy make much more sense as MAC sabotage than as an actual feature? No doubt someone floated a mock up with the note, "Looks just like something I saw at the last MAC expo."

    Architecture changes that mean the XBOX II won't be able to run XBOX games, the endless delays in Longhorn, the XP default theme, the differences between XP Home and XP Pro, these are all contributed by MAC users who are gradually whittling away Microsoft from within.

    And because Microsoft has been shamelessly copying the MAC for so long, all they have to do is float the rumor that MAC is going to do something, and Microsoft programmers and management throw themselves into trying to replicate it, or at least toss together a half asses rip-off of the feature / technology.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:A very simple explanation. by doublem · · Score: 2, Interesting
      FUD???

      Dude, I have sources. It's not FUD, it's what Microsoft has been announcing all along. There are major architecture changes taking place (Video card and processor for example), and they won't be able to either emulate or embed the original XBOX hardware on the new XBOX.

      To quote the article linked above:

      The problem, it says, is down to hardware incompatibility - since the current Xbox uses an Intel processor, but the 360 will use IBM's PowerPC architecture, while NVIDIA's graphics solution is being replaced with an ATI one.


      On the flip side:

      Sony and Nintendo have already confirmed that their next-gen consoles - the PS3 and Revolution - will play all the games in their respective back catalogues, offering consumers a huge choice of titles at launch.


      Here's the deal, MS will be recompiling a lot of games to run on the new hardware. Why they expect this to work without any problems I don't know. They're switching processors for crying out loud. How do they plan to get these recompiled games out to customers without charging them for a new copy, they haven't said. They've made a lot of promises about things just "working" but the fact that at the very least a recompile is necessary means at the moment they're spewing a lot of vapor and marketing but not any substance.
      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  23. confusing the user by nealfunkbass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is good that the Claria stuff is still being detected, and maybe it is not necessarily bad that the default recommendation has changed, if one were to assume that all similar products were treated in the same way.

    However, with some programs having the "ignore" recommendation, and others having "quarantine", it will probably give users the impression that Claria is at least somewhat ok, or something like that, which it is not (at least in my opinion).

    Actually, what kind of impression does that give someone who doesn't know any better?

    Something is detected by the spyware scanner, but the default recommendation is to leave it there.

    "Hey, this one is ok because it only spies me or invades my privacy a little bit."

    --
    - Donny was a good bowler, and a good man.
  24. Not funny, really. by lheal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's actually the principle cause of all their problems. They don't have an adequate trust model for modern computing, being stuck in the single-user era.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  25. Yeah... by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Informative

    When Spybot Search and Destroy did a much more thorough job on the machines I've worked on cleaning up (I don't generally use Windows, so I don't typically need S-A-D...)- I kinda quit using AdAware altogether. It just doesn't do the job the same way as other solutions.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  26. Don't let this put you off the product by astrashe · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'll probably burn some karma here, but I'm a big fan of the MS anti-spyware product.

    There are really two issues. The first is the catalogue of what's spyware and what isn't. I don't know if MS's program is good at that, and the stories we're reading are sort of disturbing. I buy all of that.

    But the second issue concerns the product's ability to remove nasty stuff on your machine. And their anti-spyware app is very good at that.

    It's much better than spybot or ad-aware, in fact -- especially with the stuff that scatters hundreds of files and registry entries around your system and reinstalls itself after you try to clean it with another program.

    There's nothing that will prevent you from running another program to clear off the stuff that MS's product doesn't get rid of. So don't let this situation prevent you from running this software to get rid of other stuff. It's good at it, and it's free.

    1. Re:Don't let this put you off the product by Khyber · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let me give you something to test, you'll most likely enjoy this.

      If you've got a spare machine that can handle a 2k/XP install, install either of those OS on the computer. Grab MS Anti-Spyware, Grab Ad-Aware, and Spybot S&D. Install all of them.

      Let MS-AS be your default scanner/detector of on the fly spyware threat detection instead of Spybot. Now go find a webpage (or deliberately install thru some other program) the ISTsvc (Internet Search Toolbar) spyware. Now, run either ad-aware, or spybot, and try to remove it. Worked, right? Ooops, notice how MS just trusted a change to your computer? Okay, that's detcting spyware being removed. You should get another notification immediately afterwards showing that another change has been allowed within windows. Go to MS-AS security section, look up all the alerts you've gotten. Scroll down that list. Notice a trusted change by MS-AS allowing ISTsvc to reinstall itself on your computer?

      Now, I admit I may not be totally correct. I have yet to do a vice-versa and allow Spybot S&D to be the on the fly detection program. But from what I've noticed, companies providing anti-spyware solutions seem to have incentive to sneakily allow some unwanted stuff on your computer; they eventually want you to pay for their full version of the program, which you'll hope will do the job even more thoroughly. They've set out a mousetrap in order to try to make more money off of you.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Don't let this put you off the product by astrashe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd like to try that because it would be interesting, but I'm sure that what you say is correct.

      I don't dispute that they're letting some things through, and that the decisions they make about what gets through aren't always in the end user's best interest.

      I don't have a lot of experience with spyware, because I mostly run linux, and on windows I find that it's not too hard to avoid it in the first place. I'm not an expert. But the other day I had to clean off someone else's machine that was infect with the IBIS toolbar.

      I couldn't get rid of it with spybot or ad-aware. They'd find a bunch of junk and clean it off, but you'd reboot and it would come back.

      When I ran the MS tool, it found more than 500 files and registry entries for it, and it cleaned them off. When I rebooted, it didn't boot cleanly (missing files were being referenced in the registry), and I thought "oh no, here we go". Then I started to get pop up windows about things trying to make changes. It told me to rerun the scanner. I did, rebooted again, and it was clean.

      This is speculative on my part, and I could be wrong -- so people, please don't yell at me too much if I am, I'm aware I'm on shaky ground here -- but I had the impression that the MS tool was tagging things as spyware *because* they were trying to change registry entries and hijack the browser.

      In other words, they weren't just using a file name, or a signature of a file to tag something as spyware, they were looking at the behavior of the thing. If a process tries to do something nasty, they follow it back to the source, and nuke it.

      If that's what it's doing (and again, I think, but don't know, that it is), it's a big innovation. It's a good way you to fight spyware that generates lots of random files with randomized data and random names to reinstall itself.

      MS, for all of their flaws (and they have plenty, I don't want to be an apologist) has vast resources and a lot of smart people. Their tool lets people report back on infestations automatically. They can throw people at the problem and code for new problems almost as soon as they arise.

      They understand the OS better than anyone, obviously, and can use that knowledge to track down the source of reinstalls more effectively than comparatively small outsider shops.

      That doesn't take away from the negativity of their deals with the devil. That sucks, they shouldn't do it, and they're really shooting themselves in the foot over the long run by making those deals, because no one has a bigger stake in making windows solid and trustworthy than MS, and this crap really undermines that effort.

      But if you have IBIS, and you need to get rid of it, their tool is terrific. If you have that problem, don't let the fact that they've decided to be deliberate bad at ISTsvc removal prevent you from using it for IBIS. That's really all that I'm saying.

      Don't stop running spybot or ad-aware. But add the MS tool to your arsenal. It does a lot of good stuff.

      I will try to run your expiriment so I can learn more about this... thanks for posting about it.

    3. Re:Don't let this put you off the product by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's much better than spybot or ad-aware, in fact"

      Not from what I've read from numerous people who have tried it, here and on Usenet.

      It finds some stuff the others miss, it protects against some stuff the others miss - but so do they in relation to it.

      Adding the MS product to your bag of tricks is reasonable, but dumping any other antispyware product would be a mistake, as you said.

      But saying it's MUCH better than Ad-Aware or Spybot I think is incorrect.

      And finally, the point of the article is: you can't trust it anymore. That simple.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  27. In related news, Microsoft makes bicycle advances: by J+Barnes · · Score: 3, Funny

    In related news:

    Microsoft has made a stunning leap forward in the field of bicycle locomotion technology, developing a system of operation that allows for the appearance of forward progress whilst routinely backpedaling.

  28. another brilliant marketing strategy? by Scorpius-nl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft is only a Marketing Company, I hear that alot, and it makes sense.

    When microsoft bought Giant their antispyware program was one of the best. When microsoft re-launched it under Microsoft AntiSpyware (and marketed as a new product), it got raving reviews.

    The effects are that people will start to trust MS antispyware, and will be starting to ditch their other antispyware programs. As soon as the majority of the people are used to the program, microsoft can dictate their own terms to what is spyware and what is not. Ofcourse microsoft will never go too far, but the changes will be "subtle", not enough to get angry about and still have solid bunch of supporters defending the program for microsoft.

  29. Claria = Windows Installer Service version 4? by JasonBee · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think this is going to MS's way of getting "patch management" into the mainstream.

    Think about it...delivering A/V and system updates via clickable Ads - brilliant!

    Oooohhhh...and so so profitable.

    JB

  30. Re:Ad-Aware by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, how long will this continue?

    Before around '98 you needed only 'antivirus' software mainly. Then with the broadband spreading came the 'personal firewall'. In the last few years came Ad-Aware which is 'needed' if you want to get rid of spyware. In the last year and a half i was starting to see reports about needing both Ad-Aware and S&D, and now people are starting to suggest that someone needs 3 independent spyware/adware removal tools to clean up!!! Not to prevent infection, but to clean up!

    Seriously folks, when will the madness stop? You can't patch a broken design combined with user unawareness by semi-working cannot be trusted commercial programs!

    Personally i stopped using windows around the time XP arrived in 2001. I just had enough. I don't need no antivirus software, firewall software, ad and spyware removal and detection software and to fight an uphill battle trying to contain IE with an alternative browser. It is absolutely ridicoulus what someone needs to put up with.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  31. Re:Commercial programs by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Amen to that.

    Where is the Open Source anti-adware, anti-spyware stuff? I don't see a spyware removal tool for Linux. Oh ..... there wouldn't need to be one, would there? We could just comment out the spyware-ish bits before compiling, and distribute the resulting patchfile. On Gentoo, that would probably be part of the ebuild scripts. OK then, what about Open Source spyware removal for Windows?

    But the point is that all the Open Source software available for Windows is there by accident. It wasn't written for Windows, it just was ported to Windows from some unix variant. Nobody writes GPL software with Windows in mind -- it's just that some Windows user manages, with more or less effort, to persuade it to compile, and is obliged by the licence to make the source available. {If anybody persuaded BSD-licenced code to compile under Windows, they probably would keep it closed-source -- and maybe even disable some options in an effort to extort money out of users}.

    My computer is my property, and I have the right to determine what software runs on it. Installing software without my explicit consent is at least trespass {which is a civil offence and grounds to sue} and may constitute criminal damage {which is a crime, so dial 999 and let the police deal with it}. These things were already offences long before computer-specific legislation was passed. The use of confusing language to persuade someone to install software may additionally constitute Burglary Artifice. If it's a Crown Court, then the odds are in your favour -- out of a jury of 12 people, how likely do you think it is that none or only one have experienced PC trouble due to spyware?

    You know, I often wonder what would life have been like if, way back in early 1976, some members of the Homebrew Computer Club had dragged Bill Gates {the author of that letter} into the gents' and given him a bloody good hiding. That has to be my second choice for an "if I could alter the course of history" fantasy.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  32. fair about how other companies' software? by Goeland86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well MS is badly placed for any kind of critics towards other companies. Didn't MS themselves put spyware onto people's computers before they got nailed for it?

    This denial just proves once again MS' dishonesty towards customers, may they be corporate or individuals.

    Why don't people act upon the fact that MS is just lying so blatantly? Oh sure, their lawyers are good, but lawyers can't do anything against massive boycott!

    Action, to the streets dammit! Make piles of MS CDs to melt!

    --
    ---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
  33. How they do that by jamesl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Windows AntiSpyware (Beta): Analysis approach and categories

    http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/s oftware/isv/analysis.mspx/

    This white paper provides an overview of the approach and criteria categories currently used by the Microsoft research team to analyze and classify software.

  34. Re:Ad-Aware by Flyboy+Connor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Seriously folks, when will the madness stop? You can't patch a broken design combined with user unawareness by semi-working cannot be trusted commercial programs!

    Interesting comment, which reminded me of a story:

    I once worked for a bank, where there was a computer that processed all electronic banking files. The majority of the programs on this computer were written by a guy I worked with. This guy considered himself a programming god, while I thought he was below average.

    Now, one of the quite critical programs that ran on this computer was in the habit of crashing occasionally. The guy attributed this to an OS fluke, and instead of debugging the program and resolving the error, he wrote a program that simply checked whether the crashing program was running, and if it wasn't, would restart it.

    Without our department knowing, the crashes increased in frequency. We didn't know this, because the crashing program was restarted all the time. Unfortunately, at a certain point in time the crashes occurred about every few seconds, and our system basically went down. I was part of the team that analysed and resolved the problem, and, of course, we found that it was a basic DESIGN flaw in the crashing program. I won't go into details, but basically, with some knowledge of file transfer protocols, this flaw would have been avoided.

    Now, why is this story on topic? Because Windows is JUST like this crashing program, Microsoft is JUST like the guy who wrote the crashing program, and AntiSpam/AntiVirus/Firewalls are JUST like the program that restarted the crashing program.

    What I expect to find, in the not-too-distant future, is that our Windows systems will simply stop running because the patch programs need all computing resources to keep Windows from going down. And the only way to resolve this, is a redesign. Which should be done by people who know how to design a good system, and not by a marketing company.

  35. Linux Gets the BSOD by Nf1nk · · Score: 2, Funny

    I Just installed Ubuntu And got the BSOD,followed by the frowny face mac, followed by a the screen caused by a crashed C64, Ahh such a great screen-saver.

    --
    I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  36. What other programs? see below... by kryptx · · Score: 3, Informative

    Following the link to the original story on the status change leads to this page detailing the list of software that has been downgraded. Screenshots included for the doubtful.

    ...including certain WhenU adware programs, WebHancer and Ezula Toptext. So the Claria downgrade is quite likely part of a bigger picture regarding Microsoft's listing criteria for adware.

    --
    Mods: Do you disagree with me? Go ahead and mod me down. Meta-mods will sort it out. Good luck!
  37. Re:Wonderful by orthogonal · · Score: 2, Funny

    MSC++ exclusive features are only slightly different from the ANSI standard, while GCC ones are so absurdly different that you need to learn a whole new way of thinking

    You make a good point, and what GCCs does is actually a good thing: something slightly different is like The Crying Game -- hey, she looked like a chick until I'd invested in weeks of dating, and when after all that effort I got into her pants, out popped a pee-pee!

    Same with Microsoft extension -- you gets lots of people who don't notice the slight difference -- the Adam's Apple, if you will -- and think that C++ is what Microsoft calls C++. Then they get a real girl, and don't know what to do with her, because they've been dating Microsoft "almost girls" all their lives.

    GCC's extensions, on the other hand, are like a big, hairy, honest gay guy buying you a drink in gay bar: you see the bulge in the pants, it's totally different, and hey, if you want to try that lifestyle, it's gay, but, as Seinfeld says, "not that there's anything wrong with that". But it's different enough that you know it's different, and you know if you go back to girls, you'll need an entirely different technique to get anywhere.

    No offense to anyone intended by the analogy: the point is that obvious differences are honest -- they don't fool you into thinking you're not using an extension. Slight differences are pernicious, not because they're necessarily bad, but because it makes it hard to recognize when an extension is being used.

    A similar concern is why C++'s casting is so ugly compared to C's: a C style cast (MemPtr *a = (MemPtr) 0xb800 ;) looks too much like a function call or an expression to be easily grepped for. A C++ cast (MemPtr* a = reinterpret_cast 0xb800 ;) looks like a cast and nothing else. And it's ugly to boot, to remind you that casting should be done only when absolutely necessary.

  38. Think about it folks... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Think about it folks. Would Microsoft EVER admit they had done this? Screw over the users for crass commercial gain.

    Let me give you a hint.

    NO!

    So if they're going to make any statement about it at all, this is the one it will be. Anybody having trouble understanding this?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  39. Re:Commercial programs by emurphy42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    all the Open Source software available for Windows is there by accident. It wasn't written for Windows, it just was ported to Windows from some unix variant. Nobody writes GPL software with Windows in mind
    I believe Firefox is an exception to the former, if not the latter.
  40. Re:[Theory] backwards-compatible AdSense competiti by Charles+W+Griswold · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MS is likely hoping to counter Google by integrating an AdSense competitor directly into the browser, in a manner similar to Claria, but shipped with the next OS.

    IMHO, turning IE into a piece of adware would be a really stupid move on Microsoft's part. Doing that would guarantee Firefox a dominating market share (adblock is a wonderful thing).

    If they actually went so far as to embed ads into the desktop, that would cement my defection to Linux.
    --
    "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber" -- Plato
  41. Re:Difference between Opera and Gator? by makomk · · Score: 3, Informative

    Okay, I'm not sure if this is a troll, but...

    Gator is often installed automatically by other software/websites. The only way to get Opera is to install it yourself, implying that you actually want it.
    With Opera, the ads are obviously linked to a piece of software (the browser) and only appear in that software, in a well-defined area. With Gator, ads appear whenever you surf the Web with no immediately obvious link to any piece of software.

  42. Microsoft FUD and negativity by highmaster · · Score: 2

    I guess I am a rarity of sorts on slashdot. I am a fence rider when it comes to OS software, Browsers, processors, and video cards. What does that mean? That means I use Windows and Linux, even though I only dabble in linux. I use IE, Firefox, and Mozilla. I also run AMD processors, as well as Intel. And of course I use Nvidia and Ati. My point? Simple enough, I know it is wishful thinking but can you folks just get over yourselves and your blind brand/product loyalty and actually try before bashing? Thanks now, end of line.