D
DanR
We all know this but worth a look.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ms_antispyware_glitch/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ms_antispyware_glitch/
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
Andre Da Costa
Has anyone ever heard of betas, unfinished work, not ready for prime-time,
still intesting, feedback? Lets wait until the final product before we make
a final judgement.
Andre
still intesting, feedback? Lets wait until the final product before we make
a final judgement.
Andre
B
Bill Sanderson
DanR said:We all know this but worth a look.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/21/ms_antispyware_glitch/
False positives are a problem for every vendor in this area. There is now a
direct false-positive reporting link available:
http://www.spynet.com/falsepositive.aspx
(you can also report them in these groups--preferably the .signatures
group.)
I don't view the report on VNC as a false positive at all. ALL remote
access tools which can be present without user notification should be called
out. In my view, the information presented about VNC, and the default
action (which was ignore) were appropriate.
A
A McGuire
I agree - most VNC's don't notify the end user, which I consider
eavesdropping if I've ever seen it before. I use UltraVNC for administering
my servers (tight passwords), but I never installed Real or TightVNC - and
there were registry entries on my system for them. I'm glad they were found
and removed. If I want to have them on my system, I will instruct
AntiSpyware to leave them alone.
eavesdropping if I've ever seen it before. I use UltraVNC for administering
my servers (tight passwords), but I never installed Real or TightVNC - and
there were registry entries on my system for them. I'm glad they were found
and removed. If I want to have them on my system, I will instruct
AntiSpyware to leave them alone.
B
Bill Sanderson
Hmm - I tend to suspect that what was removed was likely a result of the
UltraVNC install. UltraVNC built on what came before, certainly including
RealVNC, and probably TightVNC as well, so it wouldn't surprise me that
there were, say, registry entries with those ID's in them as a part of,
perhaps, multiple versions of UltraVNC installed over a period of time.
I do the same--I use UltraVNC on servers--primarily so that I can see the
console session of a Windows 2000 server when connected via adminstrative
mode Terminal Services.
UltraVNC install. UltraVNC built on what came before, certainly including
RealVNC, and probably TightVNC as well, so it wouldn't surprise me that
there were, say, registry entries with those ID's in them as a part of,
perhaps, multiple versions of UltraVNC installed over a period of time.
I do the same--I use UltraVNC on servers--primarily so that I can see the
console session of a Windows 2000 server when connected via adminstrative
mode Terminal Services.
D
DanR
Yes, it's a beta. But because of all the press, word of mouth and it's ease to
obtain, many everyday people are downloading and using this beta. So ready or
not it's out there and folks that don't know what beta means are using it.
obtain, many everyday people are downloading and using this beta. So ready or
not it's out there and folks that don't know what beta means are using it.