Slashdot Mirror
Spy Sweeper, the Next Netscape?
GenieGenieGenie writes "AP is running a story about Webroot's Spy Sweeper, specifically about the competition it's facing from Vista's bundled anti-spyware. Webroot's CEO David Moll maintains that 'The taking of a second-best product in this space [i.e. Vista's Defender, f.k.a. AntiSpyware] is akin to locking half the doors in your house,' but others seem to think that if Moll doesn't want his company to become a second Netscape, it would 'ultimately [...] need to offer more than just an anti-spyware package.' The interesting issue here is whether this need for broadening the offer would be the case also for other leading companies subject to similar 'bundled-with' competition."
You mean they're not just going to sue Microsoft?!?
I think there's an opportunity here for someone to sell a spyware app, but to bundle a free operating system with it. That ought to hit MS where it hurts. =)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I mean, with the demise of Netscape we got much BETTER browsers, in the way of Mozilla and Firefox and Camino. An MPL'd spyware scanner for windows? I dont think it will have that wide of appeal though...
...And Open-Source the program. Think of the possibilities.
At the time of the IE/Netscape war, Navigator wasn't the only product that Netscape made. They also had a variety of server software, which from what I've heard wasn't all that bad, especially compared to the competition at the time. So saying Webroot should make other products in order to avoid the same fate as Netscape may not be particularly good advice. Depends on what other areas they branch into, I guess.
This guy's the limit!
The taking of a second-best product in this space [i.e. Vista's Defender, f.k.a. AntiSpyware]
So, they're the bests and Vista Defender the 2? What about ad-aware, spybots...?
Also, who knew before about this "Spy Sweeper"?
A bootable CD that cleans up the spyware/virus crap. This is particularly important with the rootkits showing up for Windows.
It's easy to clean a Linux box (if you should ever get infected). But it is extremely difficult to clean a Windows box.
I often see it the other way around...
If I'm looking for a good anti-spyware program, and it comes bundled with something that I'm _not_ looking for, then I might instead use something that's not necessarily quite as good but isn't loaded down with other software.
If their software is that much better than Microsoft's, then I'm sure they'll have no problem competing. Honestly most people install spyware without looking at what they're agreeing to, and the people who care about this will be willing to spend the time it takes to install a third party app.
... because nobody's ever heard of them.
Seriously.
Why can't MS just make an OS which isn't so prone to it?
If they somehow made Vista impervious (without a built in addon or tool) do you think people would be mad at them for killing the competition?
Microsoft steals the lucrative business of fixing Microsofts mistakes. Spyware manufacturers also make money off of Microsofts mistakes.
Just some food for thought.
But thats kinda the risk you have to take being a software company that secures windows machines. They are banking on someone making mistakes in their software, now the company making the mistakes is attempting to fix some of them / release a program that follows everything going on to fix them on-the-fly. I believe Netscape in a way was much less deserving than Webroot.
Also keep in mind that Netscape's product sucked while Spy Sweeper is fairly good at what it does. I think for at least the next few years, even if Windows Defender is good that Webroot will still be around. People would probably be less willing to pay for their software though...
It's called Linux.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Netscape was a competitor to a product Microsoft sold. Anti-spyware software is little more than a fix for Microsoft's crappy security model that's included in its OS and default browser. There's a big difference here.
Microsoft bundled IE and bullied PC makers into not putting Netscape on the desktop because it wanted to put Netscape out of business. That's a bad thing. On the other hand, Microsoft is bundling anti-spyware software into its new OS to protect its users from a) their own ineptidude, and b)the afore-mentioned crappy software that Microsoft themselves put in place.
Where Microsoft wanted to get into a new market (the browser application) by crushing Netscape, in this case they're just trying to band-aid their operating system's vulnerabilities to (hopefully) lower the amount of user frustration in the future.
I've been an IT guy for nine years, and I've always thanked Microsoft for releasing bad, buggy code. The anti-spyware folks should do the same, instead of being angry that Microsoft is finally trying to fix the problem.
..wake up with fleas. If you develop for, around, close to, in addition to, anything that micrsoft makes, and THEY aren't making the cash from it..good luck, you are sleeping with the dogs and taking a big chance, and I would include such offerings as FF for windows, a thoroughly misguided and ill advised effort, albeit some of them are well meaning. They are still naieve from the long haul view of things and will one day seriously regret what they are doing to make MS "better". All you are doing is giving MS breathing room as they further consolidate and corrupt things, and they WILL screw you over in the long run somehow.
But if can include both better and different services to appeal to customers, they will have a chance. Having a better product alone will not be enough though. Look how dominate IE still is even though it is pretty well known that Firefox is much better. Users just do not bother to care because they just dont know better.
A chance only though, my money is on Vista to begin with - Who knows what problems Vista will open up for other companies to try to fix.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
You can't simply compare the anti-malware market to others.
With browsers, you want to be compatible. You have a self perpetuating cycle where your browser wants to be compatible to the pages where the page creators want to be compatible with your browser. Thus the widest used browser is the most compatible, and thus "the best" if you want to be able to view everything "well".
The same applies to media players, MP3 players and everything else where all sides involved want to be as compatible as possible.
In the anti-malware biz, it's exactly the other way. You do NOT want to be "compatible" with the malware.
Take a look at antivirus soft and the corresponding trojans, viruses etc. There is almost no trojan today that does NOT try to disable Kaspersky, McAffee, NOD etc. Trying to tear down the WinXP firewall is a given.
I bet my computer against an old ice cone that the FIRST thing that happens as soon as the Windows "Anti-Malware" comes out is that every trojan that could be disabled by it comes with some Anti-Anti-MS-Malware functions, just like they do now with Anti-WinXP Firewall functions.
In other words, there will always be a market for "small" Anti-Malware businesses. For the simple reason that, as odd as it may sound, they will have a higher chance to succeed. Simply by being neglected by the trojan writers.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Okay, I haven't been following the spyware world closely lately -- and it changes fast -- but IIRC, when MS bought the rights to this program from Giant, most of the reviews I had read put it as the best antispyware program on the market. Now granted, that is a very disputable claim, and I obviously offer no evidence to support it. Still, it seems like Webroot came the close second here, so they have a little more to worry about than Mr. Moll seems to display.
Genius is the art of making everyone think you know what you're talking about.
It is sad that a company is primarily remembered for losing to Microsoft.
Al-Qaeda Operations, how may I direct your
trial, conviction, sentencing, of call.
Thank for your donations.
Kilgore Trout, M.D.
I've been in the spyware removal (windows consulting) business basically since there was spyware to remove (restart computer into safe mode and clean out startups) and I've NEVER had a client who used spysweeper come back and tell me how great it was. Usually they'd say the program didn't do anything to prevent or remove their britney spears doggie porn popups/virus/adware melange. I'd install spybot S+D, spyware blaster, and have them run spybot weekly after I'd removed crap. The spybot/spyware blaster machines ALWAYS came back cleaner. Now I just make them get a copy of Symantec Antivirus 10.0.2 and after installing the innoculations from spybot and spyware blaster, setting the default actions for adware/trojans to delete, and making sure it updates everyday, I get machines from complete porn addicts who refuse to switch to firefox that only have 20 or so (very very minor) issues after 3-6 months as opposed to 20,000(literally) in one month. And for the record I normally HATE symantec products, but their pro (non norton) antivirus is the best I've used.
is this really still a problem? Geez I run hundreds of Windows and Linux desktops with no spyware/malware/crapware problems. If I can create a windows image that stops this surely Microsoft can.
Simple. Include email functionality. It will happen anyway.
Individually, they all failed to remove everything, even after many reboots and journeys into safe mode.
But if you looked at the list of spyware items, you could be covered fairly well if you used two or three antispyware packages. Spyware nasties change hourly, and there are hundreds of variations and updates to fool the scanners.
I think it is unfair for one antispyware company to be able to catch them all. This doesn't address the problem that windows should be more resilient to this sort of thing, but if you want good protection you are fooling yourself if you think only using one program to check for spyware will do it.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Trust MS for my net security? Not on their track record.
Maybe they could start writing software to protect against the flaws in MS' new anti-spyware software.
Yeah, when I think of removing spyware, I think of Adaware.
"Webroot's CEO David Moll maintains that 'The taking of a second-best product in this space [i.e. Vista's Defender, f.k.a. AntiSpyware] is akin to locking half the doors in your house,'"
His product may lock all the doors in the house, but Windows is still wide-open. If you want a secure house, don't start with a modular home that fell off the truck a few times during transport.
Basically - MS acquired Giant and started offering free Spyware within XP SP2. I'm sure these guys would have liked to have been acquired by MS - they might even have been in the running. No chance of a trade sale now - they've taken too much funding to provide backers with an attractive exit, and now they're stuck with having to fight against a product which will not only be free, but be part of the operating system which really needs it. Other than Firefox (which is also free), how many pieces of software have ever beaten that combination in the mass market? Given that it's impossible for most people to determine which is the better anti spyware product, the CEO's claim that people will choose a superior solution is pretty weak. Their options now are pretty rapidly to widen the offering (in which case the CEO's claim is pointless) or to provide a niche service to businesses (which is fine). The lesson? You can occasionally make money by offering a single software solution, but if you're betting your shirt - back a company that has more than omne product.
Who plagerised who? http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70952-0.ht ml?tw=rss.index/
That sound like spam to me. Why bother about a company no one has ever heard about before. Why no talks about Lavasoftware, which makes a very good produc, or Symantec, or PC Tools Software?
It's a good thing to quote that "bundled-with" because the term is misleading. No one cares if M$ or anyone else gives away a text editor. What matters is if they make it so no other text editor will work. The Netscape complaint was that M$ strong armed vendors to gain a desktop software monopoly and then abused that monopoly in all sorts of ways to make it a huge pain in the neck to run Netscape on the desktop so that they could steal Netscapes' server market. The tactics included constantly changing the user's defaults back to IE and a combined smear and code breakage like they did with DRDOS.
It's all very nasty and they keep doing it, over and over. They have done it with Office Software to Lotus and Word Perfect, they have done it with backup software, browsers and just about anything you can think of. The people who want to own the worlds computers want to own every piece of it. The developers ran off a long time ago except for a few large companies and even they are looking for a way out. The current fights are over media and, yes, antivirus.
The most obvious result of all of these fights is a decidedly second rate user experience. So many second rate programs have been kludged together, they hardly work. All the hooks and barbs M$ made for others, they have to deal with themselves. Add a bit of DRM and remove the last of the companies trying to patch up your system and you get Vista, the five year development flop. It's kind of like watching an oil filled megatanker fall into the moon.
Information about the DRDOS example can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313031916/www.ki ckassgear.com/Articles/Microsoft.htm
Windoze performance information can be found anywhere Windoze is run. Just wait for them to curse.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Considering that Alexa is installed with IE 6 by default and it was known spyware even when IE6 came out, why trust Microsoft's anti-spyware? I'm really not trying to just troll here, but if they bundled IE with links to a known spyware provider in the first place, one has to wonder if a certain amount of spyware isn't deliberately overlooked by their program for business reasons.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Why does Microsoft bundle malware in with it's new operating system? That should kill out the competition in the malware market and make it easier on the rest of us with a homogenized environment. No more spyware trouble :D
Is it some kind of game?
I have had Spy Sweeper on my XP Desktop for over a year. It is always freezing up and/or choking. I can't even turn the computer off without it hanging and spitting up nag screens etc. I only bring it up for the weekly scan now and don't use it when surfing. I keep the program updated and even after clean installs the thing doesn't work like it did a few years ago. I don't think Microsoft is their only problem. I won't be renewing for this software because of its own issues.
To be analagous to the Netscape situation, they would have to be clearly the best product in their category before Microsoft moves in. They are not. There are several other anti-spyware products that are as good as or even better than SpySweeper, some free, and some for-pay.
I use Windows Defender on XP. I also use Spybot S& D, Ad Aware Personal, Spyware Guard and Spyware Blaster. Their problem is that, in the home user market, there are so many good free tools that the marketplace is shrinking for "for profit" spyware elimination.
They'll be able to insure a place in the "business" market by producing a product that is superior to Microsoft's.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I like how many clamoured for M$ to include an anti-spyware solution and now, depending on how some people decide to act, litigation may keep it from being bundled. I'm not saying it will happen, or that anyone will even try, I just found it a little entertaining. And I'm also not saying that it should be bundled.
Wow, I feel old now.
The DR DOS example is classic Bill Gates:
Why is anyone shocked by this guy's behavior? Even before building a 20-year history of "Supreme Weasel" he was dumpster diving and selling other people's software. It's ALMOST as irrational as electing 2 shills from the oil industry to the White House and then complaining about "oil addiction".
barack to the future?
I think the antitrust issues which microsoft was absconed for in the past really needs to be tightened just a tad.
.NET anyone?
.NET.
Lets say Microsoft keeps going down this road enabling buyers to always utilise their products first over another vendors system. I can see every vendor be at risk of being downsized or knocked out of business.
Imagine, need a graphics application? install microsoft photoblahblah, adobe photoshop users see the simplicty and functionality of microsofts app to be the same and because windows makes it easier to implement their applications over competing applications people take presendence of ms photoblahblah not because its a better product but because its easier and more convienient?
I see "easier" and more "convienient" something thats starting to annoy me, because its an excuse that people use all the time to defend Microsoft. Take away that excuse alone and debate the finer points of operating systems and software and Micosoft is left behind.
But lets face it, compare DOS to today's systems compare Win3.11 aswell, even 95 was difficult for people to install and setup. XP and Vista represent ease-of-use and simplicity that people want today but how many car manufactors do you know that make the engine more simpler so people can fix it themselves without going to a mechanic? At the end of the day microsoft wants to cut everyone and everything out (even IT specialists if they can) through ease-of-use and simplicty.
The price we pay for that simplicity quite frankly isnt worth it, I see it causing more issues in the progression of technology then it will fix problems and more so it hurts people/companies who have perfectly good ideas and the "right" to make money in this industry.
Oh yeah Microsoft made the OS they are allowed to do whatever they like, right? They also own the cpu and the graphics card too? lets just break down what their product does. Its just an operating system it maps memory and timeslices the processor. The other stuff is not an os, the GUI is not an OS element. Microsoft Windows is a fully pledged environment not simply an Operating System like linux (but we know linux is even less then that).
So how far does this environment go before it simply encapsulates everything? My view they have the OS, GUI and Web Browser. Being a web developer it means that the whole windows system from the word "get go" can see my programs (websites) and how long will it be before the whole process of developing a website in windows is encapsulated using windows based products and windows based tools?
For that reason alone I refuse to even touch
Yes people want ease-of-use and yes other solutions are not as easy as ms based apps, but how far will this ease-of-use take us before we end up shooting ourselves as users in the foot?
At present people dont see how previlant the dominance of ms based systems are at the moment because its simply crept up on us, in my view they've already won and hold all the cards and what every blaitent choices they make can destory anyones business at a keystroke, regardless if they are set out to put you out of business or not.
Having said that how are you going to feel creating your next program? how are you going to feel knowing your excellence and time will be merely a template of disaster for yourself later down the track if you were to create something of originality and perhaps popularity?
Every time this topic comes up, there are always Microsoft fanboys who claim that it just isn't possible.
... you either installed it yourself so you should be able to delete it and re-install it ... or it is a problem and can be deleted.
The reality is that I can boot a Linux box with a Live CD and access the hard drive (read and write).
Since most of the system will have been installed via the package manager, identifying what packages were installed should be a simple matter.
Once you know the packages, you know the files, their location and their checksums. Since you booted from a Live CD, you aren't running those apps so they can be safely verified.
Anything that can not be identified
There, a nice, clean system.
And it is because of that technology that Linux will never have the problems that Windows has with viruses, trojans, worms and "malware". A Linux system can be cleaned without re-installing it.
If you doubt it, try it.
Why don't you let ME decide which anti-spyware programs to install ? I know it's the common belief here that only Slashdotters and Govt. know what is best for everyone else. But I think I might know a little bit more about what is in my best interest than you.
I'd think their biggest problem would be that they are selling a useless product, not that they have competition in that field of uselessness.
- Jesse McNelis
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
All Webroot ever does is invite Denver Post reporters in every week or two in order to show some software engineers standing around their "Threat Board" - a map of the world with a real-time display of worldwide virus threats.
I think they might also have a side business selling expensive software that has a fraction of the capabilities of the leading freeware packages.
Somebody should tell them the dot-com boom is over and nobody is going to buy their little company.
Being a recent purchaser of SpySweeper (tm), I never - EVER - have spyware products a second thought, until the day I switched ISPs and went from DSL to Cable. The installer apparently came and went, and when I got home 4 hours later, I've got Surf Sidekick popping up all over my computer. No firewall, just Windows XP, and my entire system is completely unusable. Cable internet just sucks.
So I end up looking for a spyware program that will get rid of Surf Sidekick - and SpySweeper says it can clean it, even a few sites claim that they had the same problem, not anymore! Sounds promising, so I lay down my 29.95 and run it the entire night with the cable pulled. Next morning, and a couple reboots later? No change - popups, ads, and even a virus AVG can't clean!
So everything is nicely reformatted with ZoneAlarm as my software firewall and a SMC router as my hardware router, and no problems since. For those who think customers are stupid who have two firewalls, obviously don't understand how much time you'll spend trying to "fix" your system. It's frustrating, and hopeless.
I think it's a little presumptious for the owner of SpySweeper to think he's got the best product for antispyware - I don't think anyone has it, because there's always new flavours being made every hour of every day. Nothing like a good reformatting and a lesson in firewalls to teach you the value of your computer, and unless your opening every e-mail that comes in and clicking on every attachment, you won't ever need a spyware program.
I happen to think it's M$'s fault anyway, the whole spyware deal. It's their OS, they SHOULD have a scanner in it. Granted, some spyware gets on there in other ways, ie bundles, tricking the user into clicking on something, etc. But there should still be a way to scan for it. I don't think spyware scanning should fall under the antitrust thing. They wrote an OS, it is their responsibility to make sure it works. I don't care about the business that has sprung up underneath M$'s problems. Half of them are fake anyway, giving the scanner away, then charging for the fix; when most of the time the scanner put the problem there in the first place (if there even was a problem), or it adds it's own spyware.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
... what the hell is this "spyware" you speak of? ;-)
Is it some kind of game?
Ok, so everyone now knows you're a Mac user, you can go away now..
Well, the word is, you'll have to PAY for Windows anti-spyware (and some other services). It'll be called Windows One Care. So the situation is a bit different, since the only reason why IE gained on Netscape (at first) was because it was bundled for free. It's only later (circa IE4) that IE had become a better product.
The article referenced in the Slashdot story seems like a press release to me. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that Webroot is better. When the magazines began saying it was the best, SpySweeper had a bug that crashed Windows in some cases. If the magazines had truly tested SpySweeper, they would have discovered the bug, which I found after very little testing. (The bug was verified by someone at Webroot.)
It seems to me that Webroot is better at marketing than other software companies. There is no reason to believe the claims in the article, that I can see.
Webroot's product, while fairly able at removing spyware from a system in safe mode, is rediculously bloated and riddled with bugs.
Inability to update definitions from behind a proxy, frequent application hangups for up to a minute while waiting for various things to time out, a fancy "skinned" interface which uses more resources than is necessary for it to do its job, overly invasive shields, and real-time scanning that produces a noticable performance drop on any single-core PC.
Despite the way it does its task, I'd have to put Webroot's product at the bottom of my "recommended" list of serious anyi-spyware products (don't get me started about Intermute products, or any of a dozen other anti-spyware applications which are just a joke.)
"Mine Sweeper, the Next Netscape?" I thought MS was integrating Internet Explorer and Minesweeper. Perhaps they'd call it Mine Explorer.
OK, I didn't really think that.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
You Microsoft fanboys just don't understand the technology behind a real packaging system.No, there is not.
You boot with a Live CD.
You mount the drive.
You use "ls -a" to list all the files.
You don't miss a thing. Every file will belong to a package. You identify the package from the file. That tells you the specs for those files.
Any file that is not identified as part of a package may be a problem.
It's as easy as that.Bullshit.
I've used this process to clean up boxes after a co-worker tried installing updates from source. I found the crap he installed and what files he had manually deleted. Including the dependencies he broke.
Don't try to pull any "in theory" shit on someone who's already gone through and done it. I've done it. It's easy. It's scriptable. You can argue all you want, but the fact is, I've done it and anyone else who knows the basics of their packaging system and shell scripts can do the same.Wrong.
When the system is correctly designed, each component should be easily verifiable. The ramifications of such are beyond your ability to comprehend.
The only time you'd have to re-build the box is when the components could not be verified.
That is Windows. That is not Debian/Ubuntu/RedHat/SuSE etc.
I installed Spysweeper and thought I should run it BEFORE I did my usual weekly backup. I had been running Spybot S & D, but all the reviews I'd read said you needed two programs to really do a good job of clearing up all spyware.
Spysweeper informed me it found two rootkit-hidden directories, so I told it to quarantee them. Upon reboot it told me (within a DOS text) it listed all the things it was removing. When I got to the Windows login screen (XP, SP2+) when I touched the KB, it froze. I could not get into Safe Mode because it required a login too!
After hundreds of dollars and days lost, I gave up and reinstalled Windows, losing ALL my settings and the stuff hidden within all those Windows directories, such as my email.
And this was not the time to learn that while I had backups, I could not access them. For some reason after the Windows XP reinstall, that computer would not recognize my backup HD. So, I copied files from the BU to another machine, made CDs and copied them to my primary machine.
Then, as a developer, I had to spend days reinstalling the 10-20 apps that I use all the time. Sheesh... and I had a deadline coming up soon.
Needless to say, I was seriously P.O.-ed at these people for making software that could do such a thing.
So, I will return to Spybot S & D and leave it at that and pray that it won't miss malware.
Be warned - backup BEFORE you install any of these. Then if it works, and you remove malware, do another backup.
I just wish I had done daily backups on a USB drive or something trivial like that. Be assured, I will be doing that from now on.
I don't work for Spybot S & D, and I don't think Spysweeper is the only anti-malware program that has the potential to screw up systems like this. So, beware of any of these.
Good luck!
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
There will be always someone to whine about something. ALWAYS.
The modern culture has imprinted on us this concept of "justice" and how if everything is "justified" and "proper" everyone should be happy.
What a damn outright lie!
If Windows doesn't include tools to protect us from malware (part security improvements, part signature based detectors), you can bet people will whine why Windows leaves them more vulnerable than if they bundle something.
But if they bundle, busineses cry fowl about their business being broken.
What can be done so all are happy? Nothing. And that's the full story.
You can all reply with your little stories about competition and monopoly abuse, but as operational systems grow, they naturally include more essential features and will naturaly hit someone's business.
Just like we experienced mass bankrupts of the thousands companies releasing simple text editors and calculators with the release of Calculator and Notepad (it's a joke, don't reply with historical references please...), it's just a fact of life: it's a demanded feature and got included.
You can still disable it and install something else.
Netscape fell victim if an aging code base and poorly implemented standards support (next to none...).
Instead of making a quick series of patch fixing the standards support, speed and so on, they decided to drop everything and spend few years rewriting everything from scratch. Their first releases (Netscape 6, 6.2x, 7.x) were bloated, slow to start, slow to render, buggy and damn, they were ugly.
The company's been sold, resold, split, merged, reorganised and what not, and after so many years we got Firefox, which was able to compete again with its 1.0 release.
Was the inclusion of IE Windows important in this development of history? Certainly! However the fact IE4 was a significantly better browser than NS4 and all the crap NS did to themselves was what made the crucial difference.
(yes IE4 was better than NS4, it's hard to comprehend it today, when IE6 is the worst browser of the bunch, but back then the situation was pretty different)
it seems like since microsoft put all the security holes in, its only natural that they should provide you with the software to deal with the results of the holes.
What does this have to do with a browser?
Quote: "Spy Sweeper is to malware what NOD32 is to viruses"
I've been using it for some time and it detects stuff that Ad-aware and Spybot S&D don't even bother checking. Webroot should NOT expand into other products, you see this happening regularly and the products FAIL because they don't get the attention they began with and eventually decay into a useless piece of junk.
I think Netscape tried to bulk up their browser packages with other things to beat IE, didn't they? That code base made a comeback when they stripped out all the communicator stuff and just did web browsing better. If this anti-spyware package does a better job it will be worth buying. If it just bulks up into bloatware, I doubt it will
Radio on your iPod
Cue IE not supporting standards and the continued lack of such things as PNG support.
Until opensource arrives on the scene and sets MS ass on fire. Some optomist think that IE7 will finally see MS coming back into action so web design can move out of the 1990's.
So will Vista's defender be the same? MS going full tilt to get marketshare then when it has it let the product rot as long as it is unopposed?
Remember MS didn't give shit about IE being insecure as hell until people started seeking out alternatives. So once Vista's anti spyware/firewall software has killed the competition will MS this time be motivated to keep its software uptodate?
MS is the textbook example of why monopolies are bad (lack of innovation). Will windows users again fall for it. Offcourse. They are windows users. A donkey may not trip on the same stone twice but the average windows user would loose an intelligence contest against the dumbest of donkeys. After it fell down a ravine. And had its brains picked out by hungry vultures.
Oh well, maybe this time things will be different.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
After hundreds of dollars and days lost, I gave up and reinstalled Windows, losing ALL my settings and the stuff hidden within all those Windows directories, such as my email. ... Then, as a developer, I had to spend days reinstalling the 10-20 apps that I use all the time.
What kind of developer doesn't know how to boot using BartPE or similar to rescue his data?
I've never heard of this program. If anyone's "the next Netscape" it's Ad-Aware or Spybot.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
slashdot: bashing microsoft no-matter what they do, since 1997.
seriously. look through the microsoft topic. the stories are either complaining about a lack of features or complaining about ripping off/stepping on someone else's features. a thousand slashdot stories complaining about susceptibility to adware and viruses, and plenty of stories complaining about any steps microsoft takes to fix the problem.
look: let me spell it out for you.
first, microsoft is working with many software components and techniques that are older than the great mess of you. it is crucial that they maintain backwards compatibility. not just for your videogame playing pleasure either. the US economy is computerized, and like it or not, one way or the other, microsoft touches every aspect of the phenomenon 90% of the time. no drastic changes are possible in this light. that's why MS doesn't just re-write the OS from scratch. they certainly have the resources in knowledge and manpower.
second, microsoft has to balance their approach between leaving room for developer (the OS they sell being where 90% of the world's programmers turn their attention, and is crucial to microsoft's continued success to keep that attention), and making sure they have a functioning environment. If MS makes too much of the software themselves, developers lose interest and wander away. The OS is the Industry.
third, the dizzying world of obligations. MS is in a bizarre series of paradoxical requirements. the world depends on their software, if only just to continue to run 3rd party software they've invested in. so they must maintain that capability. on the other hand, the changing face of computing has placed immense strain on the architecture, especially as regards security in an always connected network environment. remember that windows XP is based on windows NT, an OS developed in the early 90s, well before the widespread adoption of the internet. everyone wants to have an OS that runs all software they have, perfectly, as well as perform flawlessly across all the dramatic changes of the internet. this story is an attempt to bitch MS out for addressing the problem...
but wait! there's more. they also have 'due diligence' obligations to maximize profit for the shareholders. slashbots call this 'greedy', but actually, it's the only thing any officer at microsoft can do without being ruined across the sharp jagged rocks of tort court. it's the law, and their hands truly are tied. if it can be shown that they had a chance to make some money and passed it up (say because slashbots whined about it too much), bam. lawsuit. the shareholders can use the law to force the board to change the management. no high level microsoft manager, a very successful and intelligent person, is going to screw with that. an awesome responsibility, but doable. unless...
you do it too well and every other half-assed, business casual pot-smoking tech company you were competing with flounders themselves out of business. yes, i'm talking about Sun. yes, i'm talking about Netscape. yes, i'm talking about Apple (till the return of Jobs, anyway). each one of those companies could have just got the shit together and competed. each one of those companies had ridiculous pie-in-the-sky or otherwise delusional fundamental flaws in the operating plan. the proof to all this is amply shown with the return of steve jobs to apple. apple didn't have to suck so hard through the 90s, and microsoft certainly didn't have anything to do with their decision at apple to in fact, suck that particularly hard. apple did it all by themselves.
now, you can plainly see with these last two, how the due diligence at the secondary, also-ran companies would force those incompetent corporate officers to cast around for a place to assign blame (other than themselves, obviously). enter Microsoft, lobbyists and the DOJ. the rest is slashbot rote history.
so many of you fail to grasp the problem it blows my mind. the point of all this is merely to show you that the pict
I worked for a company that was a big Webroot reseller, and a lot of our clients had SS Enterprise installed. It worked well, cleaning non-cookie stuff that current MS AntiSpyware wouldn't see.
Our problem came in the last 6-8 months when a major upgrade took place. Some systems attempting an autoupgrade tanked, requiring a PITA uninstall and reinstall of the admin console. Other systems took the autoupgrade, but the clients began going haywire.
We eventually began removing it and not reselling it. Some guys thinks it works OK if you just do periodic sweeps and disable all the active shields, but at that point, why bother?
I think it is great. Windows is the OS that needs the pretection. If they provide the protection, kill off the people that have been doing it for them, and suffer the degradation in quality, I'm all for it. It is their pot. They like to piss in it. Let them live with it.
There by the grace of fools goes the mob.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Cannot reach!
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Oh, you could
My, that's the first time anyone on the Internet ever made a claim that he refused to (read: "could not") substantiate.So, you're claiming that once I've validated every executable on my system
I've stated before that this is not magic. Once the executables have been validated, they are validated. They have been verified to have not been compromised.Keep believing that.
Meanwhile, I've posted instructions on how to accomplish this while all you've done is claim that you could, somehow, magically hide something there.
Sure you could. Just don't get in the way of those of us who actually know what we're doing. Okay? Thanks! Buh bye.
During the validation process, the files in the /etc/cron* would also be validated. Anything that didn't match the package would have to be checked by hand. Since all of those should have been setup by you (the admin), it should be easy to quickly validate them.
...and...
The same with the accounts. A quick check shows what accounts are configured with what access and what groups. The only time this would be a problem would be when it would also be a problem for re-building the machine. That is, when you have multiple user accounts that you cannot verify. If you're re-building the machine, you'd have to request that each account be verified and re-submitted. If you had existing documention that you'd use, then you'd also use that in the package validation process so no more time is gained or lost between the two approaches.
So, in the worst case scenario, using the package management approach does not cost you any more time than re-building the box
In anything other than the worst case scenario, you save time and are actually able to validate whether your box was compromised.
That last part is not possible in the re-building processes.
And knowing whether you've been compromised is a very important factor.
State something which is technically foolish (640Kb is all anyone will ever need)
PROVE IT. I've seen this quote attributed to Bill Gates about 30,000 times and never have I ever seen proof of it. What publication was it in? What year? Who was interviewing him? *anything*?!
Comment of the year
Right. I think this is key. The anti-spyware and anti-virus software business is all about trust, and it's fairly obvious to me that Microsoft are not strong competitors in that arena.
For example, does Spy Sweeper identify World of Warcraft as the piece of intrusive spyware it is? Does Microsoft's anti-spyware software?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Here's my ORIGINAL statement on the issue:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186319&thresh
You're one step away from me questioning your ability to read with comprehension. Don't cross that line.No. You start with validating the packages. That will tell you if you're machine has been compromised.
Then you check the accounts.
If you haven't found any problems at that point, then ANYTHING you do will have the same net effect. But re-building the machine will have taken MORE time and NOT give you the information that none of the files on your system were compromised.Yes, and that would be no different from re-building the machine and having those same users re-create those keys.
In order to show that I'm wrong, you'll have to come up with a scenario where re-building the box would remove the threat while just validating the box would not. That includes checking the files that are not validated. As I originally stated.
I go over this every time this subject comes up and so far no one has been able to give a specific scenario where that would be the case.
#1. If the vulnerability is there, it is still there when the box is re-built.
#2. If it is a matter of passwords and accounts, those are easily checked after the box is validated.
#3. If it is something else, then explain how it got there in the first place and why it would not happen again when the box is re-built.
Come on, gimme a break! WebRoot built a business around what amounts to a security vulnerability. Did they honestly expect that it would never be patched? What exactly do they want the outcome to be? They want Microsoft to continue releasing crappy software so that they have a viable business model? Why don't go after Symantec since Symantec has included 'malware' detection in 10.0?
I'm not in the habit of helping along the next generation of script kiddies. If you're smart enough to use the information responsibly, you're also smart enough to figure it out on your own.
Beyond that, I've no interest in further enlightening you. Cross your fingers and hope no one who knows what they're doing ever targets you, because you're a low hanging fruit for anyone who does.
or any other spyware removal tool. That is not to say that you shouldn't use any of them, but instead you should use two or three different ones. In doing residential support for a small college I've discovered that each removal program detects different things.
I currently use Windows Defender and Ad-Aware for spyware, and we have Symantec Antivirus for virus protection. Additionally, sometimes I'll whip out Panda Titanium for bad infections. Plus there are the numerous specific removal tools out there for certain spyware packages
I used to use Spybot S&D, but its bugs are too much. I can't spend 10, 15, or 20 minutes trying to find an update server that doesn't return a bad checksum, or when Spybot mysteriously takes exactly three seconds to scan a computer and says it's clean. Fixing that requires reinstalled Spybot. These may not be a big deal on one computer, but when they happen numerous times over the course of setting up several hundred machines, it's unacceptable.
Anyway, as I've found, each scanner detects something different. Ad-aware in particular, is much more anal about what it considers unaccetpable that Defender, as you might expect. As for Webroot Spysweeper, I'll just say this: the worst spyware infections I've seen have all been on computers with Spysweeper already installed and running on them.
mr.nobody
--Don't you wanna go where nobody knows your name?
You are an idiot. You are an idiot because you cannot provide a single example where my process would not result in a system that was as clean and secure as completely re-building the box would.
My system is faster, provides more information, and in all instances, provides a system that is as clean and secure as completely rebuilding the box.
You are incapable of reading with comprehension because you are an idiot who is trying to push his idiotic agenda.
This conversation is over. Feel free to post whatever ignorant tripe you wish in response. You've failed to substantiate your claims while I have provided example after example for mine.
This is nothing but advertising for webroot. Since people in my field do not consider this product to be of any real consequence for detecting and removing adware/spyware/malware the use of slashdot.org is deplorable.
Anyone doing any sort of cleaning on a system knows that you need a cadre of programs to clean and keep clean a system. Claiming webroot will be supplanted is just foolhardy and stupid.
If anything this helps the users and the industry by stabalizing it. Obviously webroot can't offer a cost effective solution or we'd see everyone using it.
In my shop, in the rare times when I see it installed, I remove it from customers computers and I put in a slew of free tools: spybot search and destroy, microsoft's product, ad-aware, the yahoo anti-spy toolbar, ewido, and a bunch of others. Weboot doesn't even come into the equation. What I mean is how can a junk program company claim vista will harm the industry.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.