HOSTS Spybot F-Secure BackWeb

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Ron Reaugh, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. Ron Reaugh

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    What in general constitutes malicious or criminal distribution of harmful
    and uninvited code/programs? Such is generally clear in situations like the
    Swen virus which is a crime and arrests are made.

    Here's one I dealt with recently which I'll indict the BackWeb folks. And
    F-Secure because of their un-natural association therewith.

    Suddenly one afternoon at a small company an XP Pro(fully patched and Nav
    latest defs protected) workstation was unable to find/bring-up
    www.google.com on the web. Each time a specific IP address would appear
    instead. So I started investigating. The first thing of course was to
    suspect a virus, trojan or worm. The fact that Google and only Google had
    stopped working seemed to me to constitute a malicious interruption of
    service/operation so something that NAV would find was what I started
    looking for. So I double checked NAV defs to be the latest and NAV found
    nothing. A search at Symantec found nothing so I decided to try another AV
    program and downloaded F-Secure trialware and it found nothing. I could
    find nothing wrong but just Google wouldn't work. I ran the latest Adware
    6.181 + latest defs and it found a usual few things which got removed but
    still NO Google operation.

    So I asked myself what that strange IP was and striking out finding
    anything, I simply submitted that IP to Goolge-Web and then Google-Group
    on another unaffected workstation.

    Soon I found that what this was is a form of "BROWSER HIJACKING".
    Something that started by those sites that overwrote your homepage setting
    in IE. A behavior that I consider nearly illegal when done without user
    approval which is often that case. However MS seems to do it so that
    implies legal acceptability.

    So I downloaded SpyBot which is more agressive and more tedious than AdWare
    and ran Spybot which found a ton of stuff and started removing the crap it
    found. Soon I had a machine that was frozen and wouldn't complete a boot.
    This was rather unexpected as I've used SpyBot before with no problems.

    This new hijacking behavior involves overwriting the Windows HOSTS file and
    apparently it's BackWeb code. It hijacks all searches to some brand-X
    search site and apparently BackWeb contains some anti SpyBot code also.

    Overwriting the HOSTS file destroyed user data as the HOSTS file was in use
    at this company and of course Google operability was maliciously
    interrupted. The fact that this is a file and was maliciously over written
    constitutes a felony in my opinion. My Google research found that
    apparently some code by the BackWeb folks, which is immediately attacked by
    SpyBot and less so be AdWare, is the culprit.

    Anti-Virus folks need to be lilly white and avoid all appearances of nasty
    involvements. The freeze up of that XP Pro machine was due to the
    interaction of SpyBot and ANOTHER VERSION of BACKWEB THAT F_SECURE FOLKS
    EMBED IN THEIR TRIALWARE. That interaction caused me hours of hand
    debugging and uninstalling in safe-mode to regain operability on that XP Pro
    workstation.

    The fact that F-Secure installed BackWeb, which attacks Spybot, on that XP
    Pro machine without user permission constitutes a complete impeachment of
    F-Secure as a reputable security company.

    BLACKLIST if not prosecute F-SECURE.

    Prosecute anyone over-writing the file HOSTS without premission.
     
    Ron Reaugh, Sep 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Ron Reaugh" <> wrote in message news:5yJcb.153080$...

    > This new hijacking behavior involves overwriting the Windows HOSTS file and
    > apparently it's BackWeb code. It hijacks all searches to some brand-X
    > search site and apparently BackWeb contains some anti SpyBot code also.


    > My Google research found that
    > apparently some code by the BackWeb folks, which is immediately attacked by
    > SpyBot and less so be AdWare, is the culprit.


    Some bad stuff *uses* the BackWeb application
    Some good stuff also does.
    Each thing using the application has registry settings which
    may have been messed with by you and Spybot

    > Anti-Virus folks need to be lilly white and avoid all appearances of nasty
    > involvements. The freeze up of that XP Pro machine was due to the
    > interaction of SpyBot and ANOTHER VERSION of BACKWEB THAT F_SECURE FOLKS
    > EMBED IN THEIR TRIALWARE. That interaction caused me hours of hand
    > debugging and uninstalling in safe-mode to regain operability on that XP Pro
    > workstation.


    Not all BackWeb applications are bad things, Spybot IIRC warns
    of problems the user may incur.

    The hijacker is the culprit I think, not Spybot or F-Secure.

    > The fact that F-Secure installed BackWeb, which attacks Spybot, on that XP
    > Pro machine without user permission constitutes a complete impeachment of
    > F-Secure as a reputable security company.
    >
    > BLACKLIST if not prosecute F-SECURE.
    >
    > Prosecute anyone over-writing the file HOSTS without premission.


    I laughed, I cried, I grabbed another beer.

    Are you saying that the BackWeb application attacks Spybot, and
    the HOSTS file has BackWeb code? ~ nevermind...

    Spybot must be used with caution.
     
    FromTheRafters, Sep 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron Reaugh

    Spam Buster Guest

    "Ron Reaugh" <> wrote in message
    news:5yJcb.153080$...
    |
    | Prosecute anyone over-writing the file HOSTS without premission.
    |

    I agree with your assessment of SpyBot: great stuff; one of its (optional)
    features is to make the hosts file read-only...

    SB
     
    Spam Buster, Sep 26, 2003
    #3
  4. Ron Reaugh

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    I find that most your post was jibber.

    No reputable computer security company should be including ANYKIND of
    adware/spyware code in there downloads. I say blacklist F-Secure for so
    doing.

    Both Adware and Spybot remove BackWeb...therefore BackWeb is bad stuff! You
    wanna supply any reputable source saying BackWeb is good stuff?

    "FromTheRafters" <!> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Ron Reaugh" <> wrote in message

    news:5yJcb.153080$...
    >
    > > This new hijacking behavior involves overwriting the Windows HOSTS file

    and
    > > apparently it's BackWeb code. It hijacks all searches to some brand-X
    > > search site and apparently BackWeb contains some anti SpyBot code also.

    >
    > > My Google research found that
    > > apparently some code by the BackWeb folks, which is immediately

    attacked by
    > > SpyBot and less so be AdWare, is the culprit.

    >
    > Some bad stuff *uses* the BackWeb application
    > Some good stuff also does.
    > Each thing using the application has registry settings which
    > may have been messed with by you and Spybot
    >
    > > Anti-Virus folks need to be lilly white and avoid all appearances of

    nasty
    > > involvements. The freeze up of that XP Pro machine was due to the
    > > interaction of SpyBot and ANOTHER VERSION of BACKWEB THAT F_SECURE FOLKS
    > > EMBED IN THEIR TRIALWARE. That interaction caused me hours of hand
    > > debugging and uninstalling in safe-mode to regain operability on that XP

    Pro
    > > workstation.

    >
    > Not all BackWeb applications are bad things, Spybot IIRC warns
    > of problems the user may incur.
    >
    > The hijacker is the culprit I think, not Spybot or F-Secure.
    >
    > > The fact that F-Secure installed BackWeb, which attacks Spybot, on that

    XP
    > > Pro machine without user permission constitutes a complete impeachment

    of
    > > F-Secure as a reputable security company.
    > >
    > > BLACKLIST if not prosecute F-SECURE.
    > >
    > > Prosecute anyone over-writing the file HOSTS without premission.

    >
    > I laughed, I cried, I grabbed another beer.
    >
    > Are you saying that the BackWeb application attacks Spybot, and
    > the HOSTS file has BackWeb code? ~ nevermind...
    >
    > Spybot must be used with caution.
    >
    >
     
    Ron Reaugh, Sep 26, 2003
    #4
  5. On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:09:54 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
    <> wrote:

    >I find that most your post was jibber.
    >
    >No reputable computer security company should be including ANYKIND of
    >adware/spyware code in there downloads. I say blacklist F-Secure for so
    >doing.


    "you say"? You, the well known "IBM GXP drives have no problem"/
    Ultra Cable shill, want people to take you seriously? Bwahahahaaa.
    Why don't you commit suicide you pathetic ****? That is the one way
    anyone in their right mind would find you serious - and even then it
    would only be a moment before they started cheering and laughing at
    your bloated corpse.

    You opinion is utterly worthless.

    --
    Michael Cecil

    http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/howto/
    http://home.comcast.net/~antiviruscd/
     
    Michael Cecil, Sep 26, 2003
    #5
  6. "Ron Reaugh" <> wrote in message news:mtLcb.158665$...
    > I find that most your post was jibber.
    >
    > No reputable computer security company should be including ANYKIND of
    > adware/spyware code in there downloads.


    It is *not* adware or spyware, it is a legitimate application
    that some adware and spyware abuses. E-mail worms use
    SMTP, but that shouldn'r mean that anyone using SMTP
    is malicious by association.

    > I say blacklist F-Secure for so doing.


    Say it all you want, but those with a clue won't listen.

    > Both Adware and Spybot remove BackWeb...therefore BackWeb is bad stuff!


    Erroneous conclusion.

    > You wanna supply any reputable source saying BackWeb is good stuff?


    I will leave that to others, or will try to supply info tomorrow if nobody
    else does beforehand.

    Later.
     
    FromTheRafters, Sep 26, 2003
    #6
  7. Ron Reaugh

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    The same old trolls still seem to be around and working for F-Secure or
    BackWeb possibly.

    "Michael Cecil" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:09:54 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I find that most your post was jibber.
    > >
    > >No reputable computer security company should be including ANYKIND of
    > >adware/spyware code in there downloads. I say blacklist F-Secure for so
    > >doing.

    >
    > "you say"? You, the well known "IBM GXP drives have no problem"/
    > Ultra Cable shill, want people to take you seriously? Bwahahahaaa.
    > Why don't you commit suicide you pathetic ****? That is the one way
    > anyone in their right mind would find you serious - and even then it
    > would only be a moment before they started cheering and laughing at
    > your bloated corpse.
    >
    > You opinion is utterly worthless.
    >
    > --
    > Michael Cecil
    >
    > http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/howto/
    > http://home.comcast.net/~antiviruscd/
     
    Ron Reaugh, Sep 26, 2003
    #7
  8. Ron Reaugh

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    "Ron Reaugh" <> wrote in message
    news:lcMcb.153283$...
    > The same old trolls still seem to be around and working for F-Secure or
    > BackWeb possibly.


    Ah, here's the F-Secure connection(F-Prot)...thankyou mikie:
    http://home.comcast.net/~antiviruscd

    > "Michael Cecil" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:09:54 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >I find that most your post was jibber.
    > > >
    > > >No reputable computer security company should be including ANYKIND of
    > > >adware/spyware code in there downloads. I say blacklist F-Secure for

    so
    > > >doing.

    > >
    > > "you say"? You, the well known "IBM GXP drives have no problem"/
    > > Ultra Cable shill, want people to take you seriously? Bwahahahaaa.
    > > Why don't you commit suicide you pathetic ****? That is the one way
    > > anyone in their right mind would find you serious - and even then it
    > > would only be a moment before they started cheering and laughing at
    > > your bloated corpse.
    > >
    > > You opinion is utterly worthless.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Michael Cecil
    > >
    > > http://home.comcast.net/~macecil/howto/
    > > http://home.comcast.net/~antiviruscd/

    >
    >
     
    Ron Reaugh, Sep 26, 2003
    #8
  9. Ron Reaugh

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it causes
    SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure to
    the dark side.

    "FromTheRafters" <!> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Ron Reaugh" <> wrote in message

    news:mtLcb.158665$...
    > > I find that most your post was jibber.
    > >
    > > No reputable computer security company should be including ANYKIND of
    > > adware/spyware code in there downloads.

    >
    > It is *not* adware or spyware, it is a legitimate application
    > that some adware and spyware abuses. E-mail worms use
    > SMTP, but that shouldn'r mean that anyone using SMTP
    > is malicious by association.
    >
    > > I say blacklist F-Secure for so doing.

    >
    > Say it all you want, but those with a clue won't listen.
    >
    > > Both Adware and Spybot remove BackWeb...therefore BackWeb is bad stuff!

    >
    > Erroneous conclusion.
    >
    > > You wanna supply any reputable source saying BackWeb is good stuff?

    >
    > I will leave that to others, or will try to supply info tomorrow if nobody
    > else does beforehand.
    >
    > Later.
    >
    >
     
    Ron Reaugh, Sep 26, 2003
    #9
  10. "Ron Reaugh" <> wrote in
    <news:mtLcb.158665$>:

    > Both Adware and Spybot remove BackWeb...therefore BackWeb is bad
    > stuff!


    Oho!

    In addition to F-Secure, add IBM, SAP, NAI, and Check Point to the
    list of evil companies partnered with BackWeb in an effort to cause
    you untold amounts of trouble. Good luck with your legal action(s).

    > You wanna supply any reputable source saying BackWeb is good
    > stuff?


    To refute one Usenet post which alleges that Backweb "apparently" did
    something bad to your machine? I think I will pass.

    --
    »Q«
    "KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET"
    By Senator John Ashcroft
    <http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm>
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=, Sep 26, 2003
    #10
  11. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 00:09:54 GMT, "Ron Reaugh"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I find that most your post was jibber.
    > >
    > >No reputable computer security company should be including ANYKIND of
    > >adware/spyware code in there downloads. I say blacklist F-Secure for so
    > >doing.

    >
    > "you say"? You, the well known "IBM GXP drives have no problem"/
    > Ultra Cable shill, want people to take you seriously? Bwahahahaaa.
    > Why don't you commit suicide you pathetic ****? That is the one way
    > anyone in their right mind would find you serious - and even then it
    > would only be a moment before they started cheering and laughing at
    > your bloated corpse.
    >
    > You opinion is utterly worthless.
    >
    >



    never met you before in my life, but I already like you....

    keep up the nice flamage :)


    --
    Colonel Flagg
    http://www.internetwarzone.org/

    Privacy at a click:
    http://www.cotse.net

    Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

    "...I see stupid people."
     
    Colonel Flagg, Sep 26, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-
    news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, says...
    > The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it causes
    > SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure to
    > the dark side.



    You're a goddamn idiot.

    Backweb isn't bad, the people that MISUSE it *under certain
    circumstances* would be considered bad.

    a gun, when sitting in a cabinet harms no one... put it in a crack-heads
    hands and someone will eventually get shot....

    a piece of software, hell, let's say Internet Explorer is *meant* to
    view websites, browse the web, whatever.... when placed in the wrong
    hands.... you can completely and totally destroy websites with it
    through Unicode Exploits...

    Backweb is used by legitimate and accepted programs.

    Backweb is used by illegitimate and unacceptable malicious programs.

    Get the idea you fucking moron?
     
    Colonel Flagg, Sep 26, 2003
    #12
  13. Ron Reaugh

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    "Colonel Flagg" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > In article <9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-
    > news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, says...
    > > The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it

    causes
    > > SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure

    to
    > > the dark side.

    >
    >
    > You're a goddamn idiot.
    >
    > Backweb isn't bad, the people that MISUSE it *under certain
    > circumstances* would be considered bad.


    Clueless.

    Try your nonsensical rantings on the folks at SpyBot who immediately strip
    out(or at least try to) that which F-Secure Trialware installs aka BackWeb.
    What is F-Secure doing installing something(BackWeb) that SpyBot has
    identified as something to rip out? What is F-Secure doing installing
    something(BackWeb) that is SpyBot resistant and results in system hangs?
    That's the smokin gun here.

    Blacklist F-Secure is the obvoius course for those with a clue.
     
    Ron Reaugh, Sep 26, 2003
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    says...
    > In article <9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-
    > news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, says...
    > > The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it causes
    > > SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure to
    > > the dark side.

    >
    >
    > You're a goddamn idiot.
    >
    > Backweb isn't bad, the people that MISUSE it *under certain
    > circumstances* would be considered bad.
    >
    > a gun, when sitting in a cabinet harms no one... put it in a crack-heads
    > hands and someone will eventually get shot....
    >
    > a piece of software, hell, let's say Internet Explorer is *meant* to
    > view websites, browse the web, whatever.... when placed in the wrong
    > hands.... you can completely and totally destroy websites with it
    > through Unicode Exploits...
    >
    > Backweb is used by legitimate and accepted programs.
    >
    > Backweb is used by illegitimate and unacceptable malicious programs.
    >
    > Get the idea you fucking moron?
    >
    >
    >
    >




    --
    Colonel Flagg
    http://www.internetwarzone.org/

    Privacy at a click:
    http://www.cotse.net

    Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

    "...I see stupid people."
     
    Colonel Flagg, Sep 26, 2003
    #14
  15. Ron Reaugh

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    "»Q«" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Ron Reaugh" <> wrote in
    > <news:mtLcb.158665$>:
    >
    > > Both Adware and Spybot remove BackWeb...therefore BackWeb is bad
    > > stuff!

    >
    > Oho!
    >
    > In addition to F-Secure, add IBM, SAP, NAI, and Check Point to the
    > list of evil companies partnered with BackWeb in an effort to cause
    > you untold amounts of trouble. Good luck with your legal action(s).
    >
    > > You wanna supply any reputable source saying BackWeb is good
    > > stuff?

    >
    > To refute one Usenet post which alleges that Backweb "apparently" did
    > something bad to your machine? I think I will pass.


    Try your arguments on the folks who wrote SpyBot who attempt to rip out the
    implementation of BackWeb which F-Secure trialware installs. Are there any
    good instances of BackWeb that adware/spyware removal tools approve of???
    Centainly F-Secure's BackWeb implementation is NOT one of those.

    Computer software security companies must be held to a higher standard.
    They can NOT even appear to be allowing/installing anything hidden or
    anything that anyone might consider intrusive, malicious or harmful. Even
    if one experienced NO ill effects(in this case there were ill effects),
    F-Secure has NO business installing some code that is hidden and not known
    to the user in a virus removal situation; that's unethical at a minimum.
    F-Secure should be blacklisted from the list of reputable computer security
    companies for this gross impropriety.
     
    Ron Reaugh, Sep 26, 2003
    #15
  16. In article <XYNcb.153412$0v4.11432897@bgtnsc04-
    news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, says...
    >
    > "Colonel Flagg" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    > > In article <9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-
    > > news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, says...
    > > > The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it

    > causes
    > > > SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure

    > to
    > > > the dark side.

    > >
    > >
    > > You're a goddamn idiot.
    > >
    > > Backweb isn't bad, the people that MISUSE it *under certain
    > > circumstances* would be considered bad.

    >
    > Clueless.
    >
    > Try your nonsensical rantings on the folks at SpyBot who immediately strip
    > out(or at least try to) that which F-Secure Trialware installs aka BackWeb.
    > What is F-Secure doing installing something(BackWeb) that SpyBot has
    > identified as something to rip out? What is F-Secure doing installing
    > something(BackWeb) that is SpyBot resistant and results in system hangs?
    > That's the smokin gun here.
    >
    > Blacklist F-Secure is the obvoius course for those with a clue.
    >
    >
    >



    no only are you a fucking moron, you don't have the ability to be
    anything else.

    you're now in the *plonk* file.

    and you're dismissed.

    see folks, "ron reaugh" is what happens when cousins breed.



    --
    Colonel Flagg
    http://www.internetwarzone.org/

    Privacy at a click:
    http://www.cotse.net

    Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
    A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

    "...I see stupid people."
     
    Colonel Flagg, Sep 26, 2003
    #16
  17. Ron Reaugh

    Ron Reaugh Guest

    "Colonel Flagg" <> wrote in
    message > you're now in the *plonk* file.

    The usual response of the outwitted and classless trolls.
     
    Ron Reaugh, Sep 26, 2003
    #17
  18. In article <XYNcb.153412$0v4.11432897@bgtnsc04-
    news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, says...
    >
    > "Colonel Flagg" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    > > In article <9RMcb.153330$0v4.11425106@bgtnsc04-
    > > news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, says...
    > > > The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it

    > causes
    > > > SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure

    > to
    > > > the dark side.

    > >
    > >
    > > You're a goddamn idiot.
    > >
    > > Backweb isn't bad, the people that MISUSE it *under certain
    > > circumstances* would be considered bad.

    >
    > Clueless.
    >


    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    > Try your nonsensical rantings on the folks at SpyBot who immediately strip
    > out(or at least try to) that which F-Secure Trialware installs aka BackWeb.
    > What is F-Secure doing installing something(BackWeb) that SpyBot has
    > identified as something to rip out?


    F-Secure uses Backweb to deliver definition updates automatically. (The
    retail versions of F-Secure AV also use Backweb to download and install
    product updates. )

    SyBot is wrong. It's that simple!

    > What is F-Secure doing installing
    > something(BackWeb) that is SpyBot resistant and results in system hangs?
    > That's the smokin gun here.
    >


    ROLFMAO! The only "smoking gun" here is the one pointed at you... You
    clearly didn't bother to read any of the F-Secure product documentation.
    F-Secure doesn't hide the fact they use Backweb to deliver updates.

    (I'm not sure about the retail versions but you can opt not to install
    Backweb in the enterprise versions.)

    > Blacklist F-Secure is the obvoius course for those with a clue.
    >


    Nah... Lets blacklist you (seeing as you are completely clueless).
     
    Jeffrey A. Setaro, Sep 26, 2003
    #18
  19. Ron Reaugh

    Bill ® Guest

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 23:44:34 -0400, Jeffrey A. Setaro
    <> wrote:

    >F-Secure uses Backweb to deliver definition updates automatically.



    And has for a long time. It's common knowledge and they make no secret
    of it. It works.
     
    Bill ®, Sep 26, 2003
    #19
  20. Ron Reaugh

    »Q« Guest

    (Sorry for the 'followup-to: poster' in my previous reply - it was
    inadvertent.)

    "Ron Reaugh" <> wrote in
    <news:VcOcb.158992$>:

    > Try your arguments on the folks who wrote SpyBot who attempt to
    > rip out the implementation of BackWeb which F-Secure trialware
    > installs.


    I'm not responsible for advising the Spybot team on how they should
    handle or not handle BackWeb. Nor do I particularly care. Since
    you are the one who ran into trouble using Spybot, perhaps you
    should contact them about it.

    > Are there any good instances of BackWeb that
    > adware/spyware removal tools approve of??? Centainly F-Secure's
    > BackWeb implementation is NOT one of those.


    You gotta get over your worship of the authority of Spybot and
    Ad-aware if you want to be able to think through this.

    But if you really want to try to have Spybot crash your system
    again, you could install the enterprise version of McAfee along with
    its BackWeb stuff and see what happens.

    > Computer software security companies must be held to a higher
    > standard. They can NOT even appear to be allowing/installing
    > anything hidden or anything that anyone might consider intrusive,
    > malicious or harmful.


    There will always be someone who considers any given app intrusive,
    malicious, or harmful. Expecially any app that tries to connect to a
    server to pull updates for itself.

    > Even if one experienced NO ill effects(in
    > this case there were ill effects), F-Secure has NO business
    > installing some code that is hidden and not known to the user in a
    > virus removal situation; that's unethical at a minimum.


    All commercial AV products install "code that is hidden and not
    known to the user." There's an open source AV project out there
    somewhere, but nobody seems to think it's very promising.

    > F-Secure should be blacklisted from the list of reputable computer
    > security companies for this gross impropriety.


    Yeah! You should put up a web page with a petition! That'll show
    them!

    That's enough crossposting - I'm past my limit for the year now.
    Bye.

    --
    »Q«
    "KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET"
    By Senator John Ashcroft
    <http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm>
     
    »Q«, Sep 26, 2003
    #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. Gunjani

    backWeb-728871.exe...What is it?

    Gunjani, Jul 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,424
    Michael
    Jul 12, 2003
  2. UnderDog

    Spybot 1.3 Final - Lock Hosts File

    UnderDog, May 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,429
    °Mike°
    May 16, 2004
  3. spec
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,318
    Peter
    Jun 5, 2006
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    616
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    750
Loading...

Share This Page