Microsoft Anti Spyware

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 03:54:23 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dwayne Conyers"
<noah.boddie@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> I was almost tempted to try the beta but hear it turns up too many false
> positives.
[snip]

I can't comment on that specific complaint/rumor; but the larger question is,
why would you even consider Microsoft to be credible in this field, after all
they've done to abuse users' privacy (and enable others to abuse it)?

> I'll stick with Adaware and Pest Patrol for now...

Ad-Aware is fine; but PestPatrol is blatant spamware, promoted and sold by a
frothing loon:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=9ftp43%243g8%240%40216.39.174.41&rnum=1& prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3DPestPatrol%2Bgroup%253Anews.admin.net-abuse.email%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch>

Please do not use, support or recommend it.

The title most conspicuously missing from your "arsenal" is "Spybot Search &
Destroy" <http://security.kolla.de/>.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 10:31:35 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Gary"
<zero@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> On 2-Apr-2005, optikl <optikl@com_invalid_cast.net> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm...I've noticed *none* with MAS. Now with Spy Sweeper, I've seen a
> > few.....
>
> I would have to agree. I had a few with SpySweeper but they fix them right
> away. They are two of the best AntiSpyware programs out there.

You *must* be joking.

MAS is... well.. Microsoft. 'Nuff said.

Spy Sweeper is pure crap, from the same spamming thieves who foisted "Window
Washer" on the world:

<http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=Webroot+group:news.admin.net-abuse.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G&scoring=d>
<http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q="Window+Washer"+group:news.admin.net-abuse.*&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G&scoring=d>

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

[ted s.]

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
>
> Ad-Aware is fine; but PestPatrol is blatant spamware, promoted and
> sold by a
> frothing loon:
>
Computer Associates is a frothing loon? You do know that they bought
PestPatrol a long time ago, don't you? And referencing some four year old
rants from a dingy forum just shows how out of touch with present day
reality you really are.

[Victor Meldrew]

I have tested MSAS with about 5 customers and 2 test PCs. I have not had any
false positives yet. It did pick up TightVNC as malicious, but that was
understandable.

I am not a fan of Microsoft, but it could be argued that it is in
Microsoft's interest to keep its operating systems clear of malware.

Vic

"Dwayne Conyers" <noah.boddie@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:d2lmjr$cfd$1@snorky.bananasplit.info...
> I was almost tempted to try the beta but hear it turns up too many false
> positives. I'll stick with Adaware and Pest Patrol for now...
>
>
> --
> It rubs the lotion on its skin...
> Or else it gets the hose again...
> www.dwacon.com
>
>
>

[ted s.]

Far Canal wrote:
> ted s. wrote
>
>
>>> Ad-Aware is fine; but PestPatrol is blatant spamware, promoted and
>>> sold by a
>>> frothing loon:
>>>
>> Computer Associates is a frothing loon? You do know that they bought
>> PestPatrol a long time ago, don't you? And referencing some four
>> year old rants from a dingy forum just shows how out of touch with
>> present day reality you really are.
>>
>>
>
> The same CA who've given a free pass to a ****load of spyware?
>
Well, I'm not a fan of PestPatrol, though reputable people, like Eric Howes,
recommend it, I was just pointing out the folly of Blocksom. As far as a
"****load of spyware", if you mean the WhenU fiasco then you'll have to
include Ad-Aware, since they de-listed them for a time also. If you mean
the Claria/Gain item, they were pulled for two weeks then put back with more
versions. I guess that constitutes a "****load of spyware" to you. Or
perhaps you know of others they've given a "free pass" to?

[CalamityKen]

Far Canal wrote:
> Victor Meldrew wrote
>
>> I have tested MSAS with about 5 customers and 2 test PCs. I have not
>> had any false positives yet. It did pick up TightVNC as malicious,
>> but that was understandable.
>>
>> I am not a fan of Microsoft, but it could be argued that it is in
>> Microsoft's interest to keep its operating systems clear of malware.
>
> If you bought any other product with the history of piss poor
> development we all associate with M$, you'd take it back and ask
> for you money to be returned. Instead people are going to be
> conned into buying an aftermarket fix - which may or may not
> work.
> What are the chances of M$ taking the same route as CA and
> allowing certain spyware to bypass this program? If - as
> predicted - M$ drive the other anti-spyware companies out of the
> market, who's gonna know how effective or not M$ AS is?
>
> BTW - don't top post. This isn't a chat group.

Far Canal you are such a pedantic curmudgeon
--
YoKenny
Keep your Security software up to date at CoU
http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?&act=calendar

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:24:21 -0700, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "ted s."
<ted@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
> >
> > Ad-Aware is fine; but PestPatrol is blatant spamware, promoted and
> > sold by a
> > frothing loon:
> >
> Computer Associates is a frothing loon? You do know that they bought
> PestPatrol a long time ago, don't you?
[snip]

No so long ago:

<http://www.ca.com/be/news/2004/040817-ca-acquires-pestpatrol.htm>

And when they bought PestPatrol Inc., they bought the loon.

Independant of this specific issue, Computer Associates is also infamous for
their chronic cluelessness in many contexts.

> And referencing some four year old
> rants from a dingy forum
[snip]

You consider NANAE to be "a dingy forum"? What do you call *this* asylum?

> ...just shows how out of touch with present day
> reality you really are.
>

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it brings you comfort.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 01:12:41 +0100, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Victor Meldrew"
<Victor@OneFootInThe Grave.com> wrote:
>
> I have tested MSAS with about 5 customers and 2 test PCs. I have not had
> any false positives yet. It did pick up TightVNC as malicious, but that was
> understandable.
>
[snip]

Why do you think so?

TightVNC is a tool, and a reasonably good one at that. It is *not* malicious.
Further, it is NEVER distributed/installed via "drive-by download" or similar.
If a user has it on his system, then he has installed it deliberately --
presumably because he *wanted* the completely legitimate functionality it
provides. To label it as "malicious" is *clearly* either a false positive, or
an act of wilful maliciousness itself.

> I am not a fan of Microsoft, but it could be argued that it is in
> Microsoft's interest to keep its operating systems clear of malware.
>
[snip]

<SPLORF>

Then explain MSIE and Outleak Excuse. <~>

And besides, in many very significant ways, the current (and likely future)
generation(s) of Microsoft's operating systems *are* malware:

<http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm>
or <http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm>

and (read all three):
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/14/11winman_1.html>
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/21/12winman_1.html>
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/28/13winman_1.html>

and finally:
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html>


(And please... Stop top-posting and full-quoting.)

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

[Tim Smith]

In article <853751ld8n2tbbod4jh6kqjsm4284he79g@news.speakeasy .net>,
Jay T. Blocksom <not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
>
> and finally:
> <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html>

That FAQ was thoroughly discredited:

<http://www.research.ibm.com/gsal/tcpa/tcpa_rebuttal.pdf>


--
--Tim Smith

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 04:46:19 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> In article <853751ld8n2tbbod4jh6kqjsm4284he79g@news.speakeasy .net>,
> Jay T. Blocksom <not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
> >
> > and finally:
> > <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html>
>
> That FAQ was thoroughly discredited:
>
[snip]

Uhhh... no, it has not.

It may be fair to characterize the TCPA FAQ as imperfect; but then, the same
can be said of virtually any FAQ.

Further, the specific document you cite is nothing more than a single
dissenting (and highly suspect) opinion. It is also both obsolete and badly
off-point in many ways -- chief among them, it attempts to rebut many of the
generalized concepts raised by the TCPA FAQ by referring specifically to one
particular implementation (by IBM) of an earlier and far less capable
device/scheme, then claims that because that particular implementation "does
not do X", that therefore "TCPA does not do X".

For more specific and more recent information on C / TCG / LaGrande / NGSCB /
Longhorn / Palladium / TCPA / whatever-we're-calling-it-this-week[1], see:

<http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4360793.stm>
<http://www.notcpa.org/>
<http://www.scs.unr.edu/~raife/rants/tcpa/tcpa.html>
<http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200104/200104.htm>


Footnotes:
[1] - This "Musical Names" tap-dance is itself strong evidence that the
proponents of this scheme are well aware of its more sinister implications,
and are attempting to "slipstream" it into the installed base with as little
public fanfare/notice as possible. Each time a significant amount of negative
publicity gets generated, the name changes yet again. But fundamentally, it's
all the same crap.


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.