HOSTS Spybot F-Secure BackWeb

[Ron Reaugh]

"Colonel Flagg" <colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00internetwarzone.org> wrote in
message news:MPG.19dd71702dd712d9989b1e@news.charter.net.. .
> In article <9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it
causes
> > SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure
to
> > the dark side.
>
>
> You're a goddamn idiot.
>
> Backweb isn't bad, the people that MISUSE it *under certain
> circumstances* would be considered bad.

Clueless.

Try your nonsensical rantings on the folks at SpyBot who immediately strip
out(or at least try to) that which F-Secure Trialware installs aka BackWeb.
What is F-Secure doing installing something(BackWeb) that SpyBot has
identified as something to rip out? What is F-Secure doing installing
something(BackWeb) that is SpyBot resistant and results in system hangs?
That's the smokin gun here.

Blacklist F-Secure is the obvoius course for those with a clue.

[Colonel Flagg]

In article <MPG.19dd71702dd712d9989b1e@news.charter.net>,
colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00internetwarzone.org says...
> In article <9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it causes
> > SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure to
> > the dark side.
>
>
> You're a goddamn idiot.
>
> Backweb isn't bad, the people that MISUSE it *under certain
> circumstances* would be considered bad.
>
> a gun, when sitting in a cabinet harms no one... put it in a crack-heads
> hands and someone will eventually get shot....
>
> a piece of software, hell, let's say Internet Explorer is *meant* to
> view websites, browse the web, whatever.... when placed in the wrong
> hands.... you can completely and totally destroy websites with it
> through Unicode Exploits...
>
> Backweb is used by legitimate and accepted programs.
>
> Backweb is used by illegitimate and unacceptable malicious programs.
>
> Get the idea you ****ing moron?
>
>
>
>



--
Colonel Flagg
http://www.internetwarzone.org/

Privacy at a click:
http://www.cotse.net

Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

"...I see stupid people."

[Ron Reaugh]

"»Q«" <boxcars@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:MrQ9401DC0EFB748itsmeitsQ@QsFQDN.dyndns.org.. .
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> <news:mtLcb.158665$3o3.11358935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>
> > Both Adware and Spybot remove BackWeb...therefore BackWeb is bad
> > stuff!
>
> Oho!
>
> In addition to F-Secure, add IBM, SAP, NAI, and Check Point to the
> list of evil companies partnered with BackWeb in an effort to cause
> you untold amounts of trouble. Good luck with your legal action(s).
>
> > You wanna supply any reputable source saying BackWeb is good
> > stuff?
>
> To refute one Usenet post which alleges that Backweb "apparently" did
> something bad to your machine? I think I will pass.

Try your arguments on the folks who wrote SpyBot who attempt to rip out the
implementation of BackWeb which F-Secure trialware installs. Are there any
good instances of BackWeb that adware/spyware removal tools approve of???
Centainly F-Secure's BackWeb implementation is NOT one of those.

Computer software security companies must be held to a higher standard.
They can NOT even appear to be allowing/installing anything hidden or
anything that anyone might consider intrusive, malicious or harmful. Even
if one experienced NO ill effects(in this case there were ill effects),
F-Secure has NO business installing some code that is hidden and not known
to the user in a virus removal situation; that's unethical at a minimum.
F-Secure should be blacklisted from the list of reputable computer security
companies for this gross impropriety.

[Colonel Flagg]

In article <XYNcb.153412$0v4.11432897@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> "Colonel Flagg" <colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00internetwarzone.org> wrote in
> message news:MPG.19dd71702dd712d9989b1e@news.charter.net.. .
> > In article <9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-
> > news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > > The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it
> causes
> > > SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure
> to
> > > the dark side.
> >
> >
> > You're a goddamn idiot.
> >
> > Backweb isn't bad, the people that MISUSE it *under certain
> > circumstances* would be considered bad.
>
> Clueless.
>
> Try your nonsensical rantings on the folks at SpyBot who immediately strip
> out(or at least try to) that which F-Secure Trialware installs aka BackWeb.
> What is F-Secure doing installing something(BackWeb) that SpyBot has
> identified as something to rip out? What is F-Secure doing installing
> something(BackWeb) that is SpyBot resistant and results in system hangs?
> That's the smokin gun here.
>
> Blacklist F-Secure is the obvoius course for those with a clue.
>
>
>


no only are you a ****ing moron, you don't have the ability to be
anything else.

you're now in the *plonk* file.

and you're dismissed.

see folks, "ron reaugh" is what happens when cousins breed.



--
Colonel Flagg
http://www.internetwarzone.org/

Privacy at a click:
http://www.cotse.net

Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

"...I see stupid people."

[Ron Reaugh]

"Colonel Flagg" <colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00internetwarzone.org> wrote in
message > you're now in the *plonk* file.

The usual response of the outwitted and classless trolls.

[Jeffrey A. Setaro]

In article <XYNcb.153412$0v4.11432897@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
>
> "Colonel Flagg" <colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00internetwarzone.org> wrote in
> message news:MPG.19dd71702dd712d9989b1e@news.charter.net.. .
> > In article <9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-
> > news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net says...
> > > The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it
> causes
> > > SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure
> to
> > > the dark side.
> >
> >
> > You're a goddamn idiot.
> >
> > Backweb isn't bad, the people that MISUSE it *under certain
> > circumstances* would be considered bad.
>
> Clueless.
>

Pot. Kettle. Black.

> Try your nonsensical rantings on the folks at SpyBot who immediately strip
> out(or at least try to) that which F-Secure Trialware installs aka BackWeb.
> What is F-Secure doing installing something(BackWeb) that SpyBot has
> identified as something to rip out?

F-Secure uses Backweb to deliver definition updates automatically. (The
retail versions of F-Secure AV also use Backweb to download and install
product updates. )

SyBot is wrong. It's that simple!

> What is F-Secure doing installing
> something(BackWeb) that is SpyBot resistant and results in system hangs?
> That's the smokin gun here.
>

ROLFMAO! The only "smoking gun" here is the one pointed at you... You
clearly didn't bother to read any of the F-Secure product documentation.
F-Secure doesn't hide the fact they use Backweb to deliver updates.

(I'm not sure about the retail versions but you can opt not to install
Backweb in the enterprise versions.)

> Blacklist F-Secure is the obvoius course for those with a clue.
>

Nah... Lets blacklist you (seeing as you are completely clueless).

[Jari Lehtonen]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:44:34 -0400, Jeffrey A. Setaro
<jasetaro@SPAM.ME.NOT.mags.net> wrote:

>(I'm not sure about the retail versions but you can opt not to install
>Backweb in the enterprise versions.)
>
Yes it does, but it install also a iadhid.dll (or like that) which is
meant to suppress the ads.

Jari

[donutbandit]

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it
> causes SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves
> F-Secure to the dark side.

Perhaps you are over reacting. However, I would not want someone installing
what amounts to a backdoor on my box even if it WAS to install automatic
updates.

That's why I stay away from any such applications. I prefer to go and get
my own updates.

[Charles Otstot]

"Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:VcOcb.158992$3o3.11373987@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > Both Adware and Spybot remove BackWeb...therefore BackWeb is bad
> > > stuff!
> >
<snip>

Ron,

I won't speak to Adaware, since your posting is based on your SpyBot
experience. SpyBot does NOT remove backweb automatically by default. If you
will notice the results of your SpyBot scan, you'll find that BackWeb is
identified by name (along with it's registry keys, etc.) You will also find
that *none* of the BackWeb entries are marked for removal. You, as the
user/administrator of the system, must intentionally opt to have those
components removed, either by selecting the individual components or (most
likely in your case) by choosing "Select All" from SpyBot's sub-menu and
then choosing to remove the components.

Why would SpyBot opt to only flag BackWeb as found and NOT flag it for
removal? The answer is obvious; the application (BackWeb) is used by
legitimate applications as well as illegitimate applications. SpyBot is
warning that you *may* have something malicious, but it is at least as
likely that BackWeb is installed legitimately. It is up to you to either
know it's origin or to investigate the origin *prior* to telling SpyBot to
remove the application.

You asked for and have received other legitimate installations of BackWeb, I
will toss yet another into the ring. Compaq Presarios a couple of years ago
(I cannot confirm if they still do) used BackWeb to permit home users to
allow Compaq technical support to assist customers with home systems and
update drivers, etc. in the background.

As to your specific complaints against F-Secure...which appear to be:
1) BackWeb was installed without your knowledge
This has been answered by several F-Secure users who indicate that
F-Secure's documentation clearly states that BackWeb gets
installed with their product. RTM appears to be the answer here.

2) F-Secure's installation of BackWeb broke your system because SpyBot
tried to remove it.
As noted above, had you investigated the origin of BackWeb *prior*
to selecting the removal option, and had you better
understood the behavior of your applications (i.e. SpyBot and
F-Secure), you would have avoided your problems entirely.

Conclusion:
Your problems resulted more from a lack of effort and understanding
on your part. You should either:
1) Gain a clearer understanding of your system (Get training, read
manuals, etc) or
2) Have a competent technical person on retainer to assist you with
your system maintenance.

[Jeffrey A. Setaro]

In article <ddd98e7858d82d35a9b37d5e37305b78@news.teranews.co m>,
boxcars@gmx.net says...
> (Sorry for the 'followup-to: poster' in my previous reply - it was
> inadvertent.)
>
> "Ron Reaugh" <ron-reaugh@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> <news:VcOcb.158992$3o3.11373987@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>
> > Try your arguments on the folks who wrote SpyBot who attempt to
> > rip out the implementation of BackWeb which F-Secure trialware
> > installs.
>
> I'm not responsible for advising the Spybot team on how they should
> handle or not handle BackWeb. Nor do I particularly care. Since
> you are the one who ran into trouble using Spybot, perhaps you
> should contact them about it.
>
> > Are there any good instances of BackWeb that
> > adware/spyware removal tools approve of??? Centainly F-Secure's
> > BackWeb implementation is NOT one of those.
>
> You gotta get over your worship of the authority of Spybot and
> Ad-aware if you want to be able to think through this.
>

FWIW... AdAware 6.0.181 DOES NOT flag F-Secure Backweb on my system.

[Snip]