On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:40:13 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<not.deliverable+usenet02@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2005 22:24:35 -0700, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, elfkar2001@yahoo.com
>wrote:
> >
> > please help, I installed a spyware remover, called webroot spy remover,
> [snip]
>
>There is no such animal.
>
>Webroot makes a (bad) product named "SpySweeper". They also spam:
>
><http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=Webroot+group:news.admin.net-abuse.*&sa=G&scoring=d>
><http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q="Window+Washer"+group:news.admin.net-abuse.*&sa=G&scoring=d>
>
>Hence, no informed and ethical person would buy anything from them.
>
>Meanwhile, "SpyRemover" is either:
>
> - a known-rogue scamware product from <rizalsoftware.com>, or
>
> - a putatively legitimate, but non-free, knock-off by <itcompany.com> of the
>freeware (and excellent) "SpyBot Search & Destroy".
>
>Even in the latter case, why anyone should prefer it to the original remains
>an open -- and very good -- question.
>
> > it ran ok and said the spyware was deleted, but when it is finished,
> > all pop ups keep coming back.
> [snip]
>
>So what does this tell you about the efficacy of whatever it is you really
>ran?
>
> > os is win xp PLEASE HELP ME!!!
> >
> [snip]
>
>That's a problem, in and of itself. There are quite a number of XP-specific
>issues you need to be aware of:
>
> <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>
>
>
> > WHAT DO I DO? thanks all..
>
>What you *should* do is:d
>
>A. - Learn what you're doing. Notwithstanding ANYTHING else, that is a
>prerequisite for avoiding the sort of problems you are now bemoaning (and many
>others).
>
>B. - Dump the crapware you've loaded onto your system, starting with WinXP
>itself, and replace it with either a less problematic version of Windows --
>Win2K being the last "acceptable" (if just barely, and even then only after a
>thorough application of 2000lite/XPlite) version -- or better yet, side-step
>the whole stinking mess: <http://www.knoppix.net/>, <http://www.linux.org:/>.
Excellent post Jay! Permission to gather links and add it to the
useful info section of my website?
Regards,
Ian Kenefick
http://antivirus.ik-cs.com


Reply With Quote