Getting the attention of spyware & adware perpetrators

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by revenger, Mar 2, 2005.

  1. revenger

    revenger Guest

    The launch of my site in the hope of gathering people to fight adware and
    spyware on a pro-active basis seems to have really ticked off a few folks.
    The attempts to penetrate my firewall have greatly increased. Also the
    number of virus loaded messages seems to have jumped a bit. Not really a
    problem but it is interesting.

    For those of you who claim that I know very little about the available
    programs to prevent adware and spyware infection, you are correct! Until
    recently, I really had not had much of a problem with it and had done little
    research at all. I am now learning quickly.

    For those that simply say that one must just protect his or her own system
    and go on with life, I disagree. That is like telling an assault victim that
    they should have learned more self defense and to get on with life without
    trying to prosecute the offender.

    Adware and spyware assault the systems of Internet users. Simple as that.
    These programs and scripts load onto people's systems without any type of
    informed consent. There is nothing that asks the user's permission to gather
    information and send it back to so-called marketing research companies.
    There is no option at all for the un-suspecting Internet user except to deal
    with the after effects.

    I feel there should be a way for those victimized by this sneakware to get
    some payback and at the same time simply make it too costly to employ such
    tactics. All done in a legal and open manner.

    Another organization has been brought to my attention that is having quite a
    bit of success against fraudulent "online banks" or fake banks. that is
    "Artists Against 419". I think they have a great idea in the way they use up
    the bandwidth of these frauds and I am currently working on the program
    specification to employ a similar tactic against adware and spyware. Their
    web site is www.aa419 I encourage you to visit them.
    The tactics of those that try to hack into my own system or to send viruses
    via email only give me more ammunition. Through tracking programs, I learn
    more of what networks are or are not trustworthy. This information gets
    posted to my web site about once or twice a week. A searchable database is
    in the works and there are other databases already on the Internet that can
    be searched by the general public.

    One last note. I am not trying to "make money" from this. Currently I am
    spending about $600 per month all out of my own pocket and that is fine. It
    may take longer to get things done that way but if that is the way it is
    then so be it! The absolute best support I can get is information and
    instruction from the Internet community anyway. I really don't think I am
    all alone in this battle anyway. There are others out there that want to rid
    the Internet of the adware and spyware assaults. We will find each other
    eventually.

    Revenger

    http://www.adware-revenge.com
     
    revenger, Mar 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. revenger

    revenger Guest

    Me too! I was not aware of it unless it happens to be one of google's ads.
    I'll check it out.
     
    revenger, Mar 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. revenger

    revenger Guest

    Must be some of the advertisements served up by Google! I have some control
    over that and will look into blocking ads from vendors that serve up adware
    and spyware. Of I may just abandon Google ads totally.
     
    revenger, Mar 2, 2005
    #3
  4. revenger

    E. Guest

    revenger wrote:
    > One last note. I am not trying to "make money" from this. Currently I am
    > spending about $600 per month all out of my own pocket and that is fine. It
    > may take longer to get things done that way but if that is the way it is
    > then so be it! The absolute best support I can get is information and
    > instruction from the Internet community anyway. I really don't think I am
    > all alone in this battle anyway. There are others out there that want to rid
    > the Internet of the adware and spyware assaults. We will find each other
    > eventually.
    >
    > Revenger
    >
    > http://www.adware-revenge.com


    Well, full marks for effort and fighting the good fight. I'm curious as
    to why you have a link at the top of your page to an adware vendor
    though......
    E.
     
    E., Mar 2, 2005
    #4
  5. revenger

    E. Guest

    revenger wrote:

    > Me too! I was not aware of it unless it happens to be one of google's ads.
    > I'll check it out.


    It appears to be a dynamic link delivery - after a refresh it delivered
    links targeted to the country I am currently in.
    I dunno what other people think, but I don't trust google.
    I hate scumware vendors with a passion. Good on you for making a stand.
    E.
     
    E., Mar 2, 2005
    #5
  6. revenger

    datacide Guest

    Well,
    what can I say.
    Most of the "Actions from today:" entries are normal viruses, randomly
    sent.
    That you seem to think they were targeted just shows that you currently
    lack the skills or ability to provide ay useful service at all. In
    fact, you're just causing more trouble for innocently infected users,
    weren't they the people you were trying to help?

    It's quite simple, just because you are entitled to have an opinion on
    everything, doesn't mean you should.

    Also, looking at your site, I see nothing to warrant anyone doing
    anything to you. There are bigger fish even in the shallow end of the
    pond ;)

    regards

    dc
     
    datacide, Mar 2, 2005
    #6
  7. revenger

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 06:16:41 GMT, "revenger"
    <> wrote:

    >One last note. I am not trying to "make money" from this. Currently I am
    >spending about $600 per month all out of my own pocket


    Thats a lot of money for hosting a website with no content
    supported by advertising.

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Mar 2, 2005
    #7
  8. revenger

    Apollo Guest

    Apollo, Mar 2, 2005
    #8
  9. revenger

    Leythos Guest

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:43:23 +0000, Apollo wrote:
    >
    >
    > "revenger" <> wrote in message
    > news:42255ae7$1_2@127.0.0.1...
    >>
    >> http://www.adware-revenge.com

    >
    > Well done for taking the initiative.
    >
    > The formatting of the centre text tables needs work, the wrapping
    > looks awful at 1280x1024, see screenshot here;
    > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/iandunbar/Image1.jpg


    Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then 6,
    FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows 98SE,
    Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
    their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600,
    1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
    these days.

    --

    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Mar 2, 2005
    #9
  10. revenger

    Apollo Guest

    "Leythos" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:43:23 +0000, Apollo wrote:
    >>
    >> The formatting of the centre text tables needs work, the
    >> wrapping
    >> looks awful at 1280x1024, see screenshot here;
    >> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/iandunbar/Image1.jpg

    >
    > Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5
    > and then 6,
    > FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on
    > Windows 98SE,
    > Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to
    > make sure
    > their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at
    > 800x600,
    > 1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming
    > very rare
    > these days.
    >


    Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does
    display fine in FireFox 1.00.

    I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too.
    With the amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is
    common, and pages should be tested at this resolution and maybe
    even higher.

    --
    Ian
     
    Apollo, Mar 2, 2005
    #10
  11. revenger

    Leythos Guest

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:07:42 +0000, Apollo wrote:


    > "Leythos" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:43:23 +0000, Apollo wrote:
    >>>
    >>> The formatting of the centre text tables needs work, the wrapping
    >>> looks awful at 1280x1024, see screenshot here;
    >>> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/iandunbar/Image1.jpg

    >>
    >> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then
    >> 6,
    >> FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows
    >> 98SE,
    >> Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
    >> their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at
    >> 800x600,
    >> 1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very
    >> rare
    >> these days.
    >>
    >>

    > Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does display
    > fine in FireFox 1.00.
    >
    > I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too. With the
    > amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is common, and pages
    > should be tested at this resolution and maybe even higher.


    800x600 is still used my many seniors and also my the visually impaired as
    it presents a larger image on those 17/19 inch monitors. If you want to be
    fully compliant you have to support 800x600 and 1024x768 for other users.

    When we do a site it's always interesting to see how it renders on the
    different browsers and the same browser on the different OS's (even on
    different Windows OS's).


    --

    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Mar 2, 2005
    #11
  12. Apollo wrote:
    > "Leythos" <> wrote
    >
    >> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and
    >> then 6, FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test
    >> on Windows 98SE, Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux
    >> variant in order to make sure their pages are fully browser
    >> compliant. They will also test at 800x600, 1024x768, and
    >> sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
    >> these days.

    >
    > Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does
    > display fine in FireFox 1.00.
    >
    > I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too.
    > With the amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is common,
    > and pages should be tested at this resolution and maybe even
    > higher.


    Everyone (not just you guys, all web designers) should stop thinking
    about the size of the monitor, and think about the size of the browser
    window. Which could be any size. Not everyone surfs with a maximized
    browser window.

    http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign

    <quote>
    So there are two accurate answers to "Which resolution should I design
    for?":

    * All of them
    * None of them
    </quote>

    One well-designed site will work everywhere.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 2, 2005
    #12
  13. revenger

    Leythos Guest

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:13:52 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Apollo wrote:
    >> "Leythos" <> wrote
    >>
    >>> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and
    >>> then 6, FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test
    >>> on Windows 98SE, Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux
    >>> variant in order to make sure their pages are fully browser
    >>> compliant. They will also test at 800x600, 1024x768, and
    >>> sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
    >>> these days.

    >>
    >> Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does
    >> display fine in FireFox 1.00.
    >>
    >> I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too.
    >> With the amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is common,
    >> and pages should be tested at this resolution and maybe even
    >> higher.

    >
    > Everyone (not just you guys, all web designers) should stop thinking
    > about the size of the monitor, and think about the size of the browser
    > window. Which could be any size. Not everyone surfs with a maximized
    > browser window.
    >
    > http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
    >
    > <quote>
    > So there are two accurate answers to "Which resolution should I design
    > for?":
    >
    > * All of them
    > * None of them
    > </quote>
    >
    > One well-designed site will work everywhere.


    While I agree with you, there is a practical limit of what can be done in
    a completely random sized window. In many cases there are Intranet sites
    that do more than just present text, many are conversions from C/S apps
    that are now just web apps - most of those don't work well in less than
    full screen. There are also many sights where scaling of all objects is
    just not possible.

    In general we don't do anything less than 800x600, and if the target is
    mostly 1024x768 we will use that, but try and comply with 800x600 users -
    it's really based on the target audience.

    --

    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Mar 2, 2005
    #13
  14. Leythos wrote:
    > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:13:52 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >
    >> Apollo wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Leythos" <> wrote
    >>>
    >>>> Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5
    >>>> and then 6, FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They
    >>>> will test on Windows 98SE, Windows XP, and then on Apple and
    >>>> a Linux variant in order to make sure their pages are fully
    >>>> browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600, 1024x768,
    >>>> and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very
    >>>> rare these days.
    >>>
    >>> Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was using IE6, it does
    >>> display fine in FireFox 1.00.
    >>>
    >>> I would say that 800x600 is starting to become less common too.
    >>> With the amount of 17"/19" monitors around now 1280x1024 is
    >>> common, and pages should be tested at this resolution and maybe
    >>> even higher.

    >>
    >> Everyone (not just you guys, all web designers) should stop
    >> thinking about the size of the monitor, and think about the size
    >> of the browser window. Which could be any size. Not everyone
    >> surfs with a maximized browser window.
    >>
    >> http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
    >>
    >> <quote> So there are two accurate answers to "Which resolution
    >> should I design for?":
    >>
    >> * All of them * None of them </quote>
    >>
    >> One well-designed site will work everywhere.

    >
    > While I agree with you, there is a practical limit of what can be
    > done in a completely random sized window. In many cases there are
    > Intranet sites that do more than just present text, many are
    > conversions from C/S apps that are now just web apps - most of
    > those don't work well in less than full screen. There are also many
    > sights where scaling of all objects is just not possible.


    You can do anything you want on an Intranet. <g> You are in control.
    Quite different on the WWW.

    > In general we don't do anything less than 800x600, and if the
    > target is mostly 1024x768 we will use that, but try and comply with
    > 800x600 users - it's really based on the target audience.


    All we need to do is _not_ specify pixel based sizes for layout. <g>
    There is a knack to that, though... liquid design...

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 2, 2005
    #14
  15. revenger

    Trinity Guest

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:48:53 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:


    >Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then 6,
    >FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows 98SE,
    >Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
    >their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600,
    >1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
    >these days.


    What about Lynx? If it don't look good on Lynx it ain't worth shit.
     
    Trinity, Mar 2, 2005
    #15
  16. revenger

    Leythos Guest

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:39:46 -0800, Trinity wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:48:53 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    >>Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then 6,
    >>FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows 98SE,
    >>Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
    >>their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600,
    >>1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
    >>these days.

    >
    > What about Lynx? If it don't look good on Lynx it ain't worth shit.


    LOL.

    --

    remove 999 in order to email me
     
    Leythos, Mar 2, 2005
    #16
  17. revenger

    Harri Mellin Guest

    In article <>,
    Trinity <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:48:53 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >Most commercial web designers will test their work using IE 5 and then 6,
    > >FireFox and one of the Netscape browsers. They will test on Windows 98SE,
    > >Windows XP, and then on Apple and a Linux variant in order to make sure
    > >their pages are fully browser compliant. They will also test at 800x600,
    > >1024x768, and sometimes at 640x480, although 640x480 is becoming very rare
    > >these days.

    >
    > What about Lynx? If it don't look good on Lynx it ain't worth shit.


    what about Mosaic? if it don't look good on Mosaic it ain't worth shit.

    what about Cyberdog? if it don't look good on Cyberdog it ain't worth
    shit.

    what about AOL Browser? if it don't look good on AOL Browser it ain't
    worth shit

    =)

    --
    -------------------------------------------
    Swedish Webcams <http://www.webcams.zap.to>
    -------------------------------------------
     
    Harri Mellin, Mar 2, 2005
    #17
  18. revenger

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:57:11 +0100, Harri Mellin
    <> wrote:

    >it ain't worth shit


    Heres some real world statistics based on 1.5m hits on
    www.gibnet.com

    Browser % of Total Visitors
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    1 Internet Explorer 6.x 70.56%
    2 Internet Explorer 5.x 11.89%
    3 Netscape 6.x 4.72%
    4 Netscape 4.x 2.93%
    5 Others 4,312 1.63%
    6 Netscape 7.x 1.00%
    7 Netscape 3.x 0.80%
    8 Netscape 5.x 0.75%
    9 Netscape 2.x 0.65%
    10 Opera 0.52%

    The balance consists of robots and insignificant things like web tv.

    I'm still curious to know what this guy is spending $600 a month
    on because its not a serious web designer.


    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Mar 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Jim Watt wrote:
    > Heres some real world statistics based on 1.5m hits on
    > www.gibnet.com
    >
    > Browser % of Total Visitors
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 8 Netscape 5.x 0.75%


    Your stats are skewed. <g>

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Mar 3, 2005
    #19
  20. revenger

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:24:00 -0500, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
    <> wrote:

    >Your stats are skewed. <g>


    Trust me - I have no shares in M$

    Heres another site's stats;

    Browser % of Total Visitors
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Internet Explorer 6.x 74.04%
    Internet Explorer 5.x 11.25%
    Netscape 6.x 6.78%
    Netscape 2.x 2.54%
    Netscape 4.x 1.16%
    Netscape 5.x 1.00%
    Others 0.46%
    Netscape 7.x 0.46%
    Netscape 3.x 0.31%
    Opera 0.15%
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Mar 3, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    512
    Big Will
    Mar 3, 2005
  2. Hugh Sutherland

    popup adware spyware and spam

    Hugh Sutherland, Jul 20, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    Hugh Sutherland
    Jul 20, 2003
  3. Shane

    Adware and Spyware on system

    Shane, Oct 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    630
    Brian H¹©
    Oct 4, 2003
  4. SW
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    693
    Bill Schowengerdt
    Dec 6, 2003
  5. Katie
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    624
    °Mike°
    Dec 29, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page