Comments on: Dear Microsoft: Why should we trust you to detect spyware?

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Ed:

In light of all this, would you recommend the Microsoft Antispyware program? Or should users who want to run such a program switch to a third-party vendor? Better yet, should users try avoiding these programs altogether? I no longer use them, and I have never had an adware or spyware program. I think the best approach is prevention and avoidance, not detection and cure after the fact.

By: Ed Bott

Ed Bott — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

The Windows AntiSpyware program still detects unwanted software just fine, so I have no problem recommending it to people who know what they’re doing. (In fact, it will detect an attempt to install Claria’s software and offer to block it for you, which is great and is the best part of the program.)

I would never blndly trust a third-party program to remove or ignore stuff. I advise making your own decisions on what actions to take.

By: Shannon J Hager

Shannon J Hager — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

I tested MS AntiSpyware on my machine by installing the only piece of intrusive adware I’ve ever been infected with and then running MS AntiSpyware to have it clean up the various toolbars, etc that were installed. MS AntiSpyware cleaned a small portion of the adware-installed programs but left the majorly intrusive ones (2 toolbars and a pop-up window).
To make matters worse, it broke the adware program’s uninstall function so then there was no way for me to remove those remaining programs without re-installing the spyware and uninstalling via add/remove programs. I am a ‘power user’ and I knew where the adware came from so I was able to do this. I think a normal user would not and would end up stuck with those toolbars, a worse position than they would have been in without MS AntiSpyware.
Full post w/screenshots here.

By: Zaine Ridling

Zaine Ridling — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

If Microsoft followed your suggestions on publishing the database and releasing control of the detection database, it would knock the wind out of a lot of the “I hate Microsoft” folks on this issue. Nice dare, Ed.

By: Stan Krute

Stan Krute — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

I do NOT recommend the MS product.

I DO recommend the classics: Ad-Aware, Spybot,
KazaaBegone, HijaakThis.

Gator/Claria has money, and ex-FTC lawyer
as their privacy frontman, but they’re still
scum. Microsoft caving to scum is pathetic.

– stan

By: Metshrine

Metshrine — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

What difference does it make if they get an IGNORE or QUARANTINE rating? Ad-aware, by default, sets everything to UNCHECKED in its config.

By: Ed Bott

Ed Bott — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

When everything is set to Ignore, the user gets to make up his/her own mind. Ad-Aware does include a “remove everything” button, right?

The problem with the Microsoft solution is that an untechnical user will see the recommendation and say, well, if Microsoft says this is OK, it must be OK. I better not remove it. And they will continue to get pop-ups and have their acbrowsing history reported to Claria.

If you want to make no recommendations, as Lavasoft does, great. But when Microsoft starts saying, “This adware is OK and this one is not,” they have an obligation to be transparent about why they make those recommendations.

By: Me

Me — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Why you use WinDOS? Never understand.

By: Me

Me — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

Because of this change, I no longer recommend Microsoft AntiSpyware to my clients.

A pity – it was a good product but a spyware scanner that can’t be trusted is worse than none.

By: David May

David May — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

As usual, Microsoft is involved in a conflict of interest. Windows users classify spyware as unwanted, plain and simple. Microsoft classifies spyware based on how well the spyware publishers tell the user what their software will do. When you add that Microsoft plans to get into the spyware business themselves (by purchasing Claria or some other spyware program), their credibility will disappear entirely. Who in their right mind would trust Microsoft to classify their own program as spyware? It’s obvious to me that it won’t happen. Bottom line, Microsoft is changing their current definition of spyware so that their eventual purchase will fall off the spyware list (because buried in the EULA Microsoft will tell you that they will be collecting the information and sharing it, etc.) Whether or not Micrsoft changes their definition, however, the definition I use will not change. I will continue to use software that properly identifies spyware from someone who has no vested interest in the collection of my personal data.

As an aside, if data collection vendors would limit themselves to non-personally identifiable data, I would be happy to allow them to collect my surfing habits. I have no problem with them using me to collect the fact (for example) that an anonymous user shops for a particular Jazz CD online. But as long as any one of them insist on collecting that Dave May shops for a particular Jazz CD then I will not allow any of them to collect ANY data at all. So live with it or change your ways.

By: Erik

Erik — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

I find it funny that people say that instead of MS AS they are going to recommend other anti-spyware that has also capitulated to spyware threats (as outlined by the link in the article). For example, Ad-Aware has removed New.net from it’s list.

It seems that the spyware companies are sueing the anti-spyware vendors, and they’re often capitulating to their demands. You can’t trust any of them.

By: Lord Widebottom

Lord Widebottom — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

A clueless user infested with crap-ware runs MSAS:
“Microsoft says I should IGNORE GATOR/GAIN/Claria. If Microsoft says it is safe to ignore then OK – Ignore it is” The cycle of junk-ware and spy-ware continues on the poor sap’s computer… not very “trustworthy” if you ask me?

By: David

David — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

It’s a legal issue that’s forcing Microsoft to remove Claria et al. It’s well known that the user “accents” to a “license agreement” from Claria during the drive-by (er.. download). If they (Microsoft) remove it, they are violating the agreement between the user and Claria. That would allow Claria to sue Microsoft (probably for millions of dollars).

Symantec does the same thing with it’s SAV 10. At least they (Symantec) explain why they do it, and give you an option to “globally” turn it on at your request.

Microsoft ought to come clean and add a global option to allow you to do this and clearly explain why they have to keep it set to “ignore”.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

I actually think MS has bigger fish to fry. Couple this with MS’s announcement that they are going to charge for both this and their AV flavor at some point down the road and we have some massive conflicts of interest.

IMHO, if MS can prevent my computer from getting viruses and spyware that slip in because of *their* programming errors, then they have no right to charge me to stay protected, and are in my mind, liable for any damages caused by something that slipped in because of their negligent programming (not just to the extent of the cost of Windows/Office/Whatever, but for additional damages). EULA be damned! You want trustworthy computing – earn it, don’t sell it.

Security out of the box and in perpetuity, to the best of your ability, which includes any software in your umbrella, such as Anti-spyware and Anti-virus.

Re: the smaller issue of Claria. I want to set remove all, all the time on my client systems and not have MS or anyone else monkey with it. I don’t want the clients I manage to ever have their bandwidth sucked by any of these apps. If it looks like adware or spyware, nuke it! I don’t care if it’s claria or MSN’s Asian site, I don’t want it sucking my bandwidth, processing, memory, dialing porn, etc.

If MS gets admin privileges fixed appropriately for Longhorn this might not be as much of a problem, but RIGHT NOW it is a problem.

By: Brandon Paddock

Brandon Paddock — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000

“I actually think MS has bigger fish to fry. Couple this with MS’s announcement that they are going to charge for both this and their AV flavor at some point down the road and we have some massive conflicts of interest. ”

I was unaware that Microsoft had made such an announcement. Could you point me to it?