Reading down through all the comments I saw some very interesting points to ponder on this. I just presented my findings to an organization after doing an in depth security review. I agree with most of the comments about checking your work. Quite honestly, I use Nessus as one of the tools to do the assessment, but my report only includes a few pieces from that. The Nessus report is just added on in digital form, for review, but my recommendations and findings have more to do with lax password policy, leaving default services enabled, lack of Patching/updates/hotfixes. I used Nessus to identify which machines were "most vulnerable" and then went to each of the top machines and did a check on them. Sure, Nessus cam back with bunches of stuff, and guess what folks? most of the High values were TRUE! People who make blanket statements like "Nessus only shows obscure vulnerabilities" really should take a look sometime at the fact that most of those are detailed with either a fix, or if on a windows machine a KB article. Several of those that I checked when I ran nessus actually linked to KB articles that were fixed with silly little things like, oh I dunno, a service pack released two years ago? Ya know? Simple little obscure things like that. I actually resent the idiot who implies that I don't know my job as a security proffesional to go back and verify what ANY tool tells me is vulnerable. If a tool says "this service is not patched, and you go and look at the machine, and it isn't patched...then MAYBE, just MAYBE the machine is vulnerable to malicious intent!!!!
--Security; try it, you might like it...
Simple solution. Don't buy a Malware remover that supports a known malware product. It's simple. If you have two products and you don't like one of them, then don't buy it. Either they clean up their act, they change their product, or they go out of business. I prefer free removers anyway, because they have the tendency to look at a product more objectively. Business is fueled by the bottom line, or they wouldn't be in business very long.
I would buy a product that specifically removes Aluria+WhenU because I don't feel that I should be subjected to WhenU garbage. That's based on a fair evaluation of what I and my customers want. WhenU = garbage, take out the trash. Aluria supports garbage, take them to a landfill. My customers do not want the functionality of WhenU so we remove it, and do not use Aluria products.
Anti-competitive? Not really, if you think about it. If people are clamouring for something to remove Adware or Spyware, and you are adding it to their system, then it's not competition, it's reprehensible. Anything that claims to be removing spyware and adware, but then allows instances of it seems more like a trojan than anything legitimate.
Someone paying you money to classify their product as not adware is pretty close in definition to a kickback, or bribe. If they were on the legitimate course they would universally provide support to all vendors as to why they should not be considered adware. Trying to hide behind a license agreement is irresponsible in this particular case. IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
It's finally coming true!
What could be more carbon-neutral than powering your uber-city with the charred corpses of the old and unattractive?
Glad I'm not the only one who though Logan's Run. They were environmentally Green cities, too. Carousel anyone?
If we use science to define how we view the world through impulses, then it's like figuring out how the machines do it to us now...
The matrix has us all.
Reading down through all the comments I saw some very interesting points to ponder on this. I just presented my findings to an organization after doing an in depth security review. I agree with most of the comments about checking your work. Quite honestly, I use Nessus as one of the tools to do the assessment, but my report only includes a few pieces from that. The Nessus report is just added on in digital form, for review, but my recommendations and findings have more to do with lax password policy, leaving default services enabled, lack of Patching/updates/hotfixes. I used Nessus to identify which machines were "most vulnerable" and then went to each of the top machines and did a check on them. Sure, Nessus cam back with bunches of stuff, and guess what folks? most of the High values were TRUE! People who make blanket statements like "Nessus only shows obscure vulnerabilities" really should take a look sometime at the fact that most of those are detailed with either a fix, or if on a windows machine a KB article. Several of those that I checked when I ran nessus actually linked to KB articles that were fixed with silly little things like, oh I dunno, a service pack released two years ago? Ya know? Simple little obscure things like that. I actually resent the idiot who implies that I don't know my job as a security proffesional to go back and verify what ANY tool tells me is vulnerable. If a tool says "this service is not patched, and you go and look at the machine, and it isn't patched...then MAYBE, just MAYBE the machine is vulnerable to malicious intent!!!!
--Security; try it, you might like it...
Simple solution. Don't buy a Malware remover that supports a known malware product. It's simple. If you have two products and you don't like one of them, then don't buy it. Either they clean up their act, they change their product, or they go out of business. I prefer free removers anyway, because they have the tendency to look at a product more objectively. Business is fueled by the bottom line, or they wouldn't be in business very long.
I would buy a product that specifically removes Aluria+WhenU because I don't feel that I should be subjected to WhenU garbage. That's based on a fair evaluation of what I and my customers want. WhenU = garbage, take out the trash. Aluria supports garbage, take them to a landfill. My customers do not want the functionality of WhenU so we remove it, and do not use Aluria products.
Anti-competitive? Not really, if you think about it. If people are clamouring for something to remove Adware or Spyware, and you are adding it to their system, then it's not competition, it's reprehensible. Anything that claims to be removing spyware and adware, but then allows instances of it seems more like a trojan than anything legitimate.
Someone paying you money to classify their product as not adware is pretty close in definition to a kickback, or bribe. If they were on the legitimate course they would universally provide support to all vendors as to why they should not be considered adware. Trying to hide behind a license agreement is irresponsible in this particular case. IMHO.