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."

Comments

There is no "in theory".

[khasim]

Yes, in theory, a Linux system can be cleaned without reimaging it.

There is no "in theory" about it.

You Microsoft fanboys just don't understand the technology behind a real packaging system.

Not practically though, and there's always the possibility you missed something.

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.

If a box is known to have been compromised, the only reasonable thing to do is reimage it to a known-good state.

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.

If a box is known to have been compromised, the only reasonable thing to do is reimage it to a known-good state.

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.

Re:Anti-spyware should not be considered a feature

[Mahou]

i'm going to kill you in your sleep, rawr.
the key? the key of the twilight? what are you talking about you insane person.

p.s. my rant was talking about idiocy in general.