Jbob wrote:
> "History Fan" <UnknownplacesonEarth@unknown11.com> wrote in message
> news:7fe33$46680b44$48311160$32104@FUSE.NET...
>> I just installed Ad-Aware 2007. Slightly different interface, and
>> there are more settings to sift thru. I like the automatic check for
>> updates every time you launch the program. I didn't like the idea that
>> A-A 2007 creates a Windows XP service, though. If you disable it, A-A
>> 2007 will not run.
>
> FWIW Ad-Aware is not the only one doing this. AVG AS and A-Squared now
> also
> load services and cannot be disabled for the program to run. This may or
> may not have something to do with Vista certification and UAC. Let's
> hope
> that SUPERAntiSpyare doen't go down this line with it's Free version.
>
> It seems Spybot Search & Destroy is having issues with the Vista
> Certification thing
> http://www.spybot.info/en/news/2007-06-11.html
>
> During the past week, we've added the "Works with Windows Vista" to four
> additional programs: RunAlyzer, FileAlyzer, RegAlyzer and TagsRevisited.
> All
> these applications already worked on Vista, but now have received enough
> testing as well as updates (e.g. to support Vista's UAC) to be ready to be
> faced with the Works with Windows Vista logo program.
>
> Also, after struggling for months with Microsoft about Spybot - Search &D
> Destroy 1.5 and the more advanced Certified for Vista logo, we have
> decided
> not to get our next release certified. While we found the "Certified for
> Vista" logo requirements to be very useful to enforce a high software
> quality in general, it has a huge drawback, which essentially makes every
> certified security software prone to getting disabled by malware. Under
> these circumstances, version 1.5 will only receive the "Works with Windows
> Vista" logo, but at least there's nothing left blocking the release, which
> will take place as a beta version this week.
>
> For those interested in the technical background of the decision:
>
> Microsoft requires software that applies for this logo program to
> immediately crash when confronted with a situation described by Microsoft
> in
> detail. The background of this still is useful in a standard situation -
> software that has bugs should actually crash instead of just trying to
> hide
> them, so that Windows Error Reporting can log the problem and forward it
> to
> the developer. This way Microsoft can assure that applications that are
> part
> of the "Certified for Vista" program are of high quality.
>
> However, In the context of a security application, this is hazardous: if
> malware writers can use a perfectly documented way to crash a security
> application, the overall security is greatly harmed. To avoid this, we
> suggested some alternatives to Microsoft that would not compromise the
> goal
> of submitting bug reports on errors that are the fault of the developer of
> the software. In the end though, some people at Microsoft seem to be too
> certain that Vista is absolutely safe, upon which we do not intend to
> comment, since key Microsofts employees have already done so, for example
> Jim Allchin or Mark Russinovich.
How long can Vista remain a secure system? It usually takes a teenager a few
hours to take an out of the box XP system on the internet, to getting the
first installation of spyware/malware/viruses.
Gaz
Reply With Quote