Chaotic World of Defining Spyware

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andre Da Costa
  • Start date Start date
Andre said:
This is an interesting article on eweek.com:
Anti-spyware vendors each use different criteria for classifying spyware
applications, leading to chaos, confusion and a drastic increase in legal
threats.
Click to expand...

Well, i think all US based anti spyware vendors have problem
with this
beacuse of jurisdiction and never ending trials with high costs.

Try to make a case against Lavasoft !
 
All AntiSpyware vendors, whether its Spybot, Lavasoft, Microsoft, MacAfee or
Norton, should come together in Unison to fight against this disgusting evil
called spyware.
 
Andre said:
All AntiSpyware vendors, whether its Spybot, Lavasoft, Microsoft, MacAfee or
Norton, should come together in Unison to fight against this disgusting evil
called spyware.
Click to expand...

Lavasoft and Spybot have advantage that they are from
Sweden/Germany.
If some stupid lawyer tries to sue them, swedish/germany
courts would directly
close that act.

It would of course be really good if all anti spyware
vendors could have a unison
TAC for spyware ranking but I think this is impossible.
 
The U.S. Congress should do something about it but as usual they are out to
lunch on the issue. I think all Netizens should batter thier congressmen
repeatedly about it so maybe they would do something. It is reaching a
critical mass now.
Ed
 
I think that's the intent. And, there's been an attempt to create a body
where they could talk and coordinate--called COAST, as I recall, which
failed--because a "reformed" spyware vendor was able to join. I don't think
that mistake will be repeated.
 
There is the same with viruses, worms and other trojans. There is always a
fight for the grey zone (some companies use viral or trojan technics in
their "commercial products"). Good AV tools detect them and give an
opportunity to by-pass diag in further scans. It may be difficult in
corporate env. which explain more expensive charge for tem.
 
Yes--one way in which this is evidenced is in the products which allow
remote access to a machine. Microsoft Antispyware detects these with
certain conditions. Remote Desktop and Remote Assistance, which require
credentials and give clear evidence to the local user when they are invoked,
are not flagged. A number of commercial products which can be invoked
without notice to the local user are flagged. This is an issue in an
enterprise environment where such a tool is a standard part of the
environment, and the users are on notice that it exists--and that's part of
why this KB article exists:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892375 End users may be prompted to allow or
block administrative actions that originate from a central management tool
after they install Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) on a computer that is managed
by Systems Management Server 2003

If you were to find that you have such a product installed and running, and
had no knowledge of that, you'd likely be very glad to have heard about it
from Microsoft Antispyware.

(I'm certain that there are also networks where managers have this kind of
software in place and haven't notified the users, but I don't want to
complicate the discussion!)


--
FAQ for Microsoft Antispyware:
http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

Jacques said:
There is the same with viruses, worms and other trojans. There is always a
fight for the grey zone (some companies use viral or trojan technics in
their "commercial products"). Good AV tools detect them and give an
opportunity to by-pass diag in further scans. It may be difficult in
corporate env. which explain more expensive charge for tem.

"Bill Sanderson" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le
message de (e-mail address removed)...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top