Windows Defender Last in Review

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeV06
  • Start date Start date
MikeV06 said:
Windows Defender came in last according to this review:

http://www.comparespywareremovers.org/reviews.html?gclid=CJiJi9nDrowCFSgRGgod_B7SSQ

Anyone know anything about this group and/or the accuracy of said review?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The site is registered by Domains by Proxy to hide their identity.

Looking at a couple of their higher ranked programs:
http://www.f-secure.com/sw-desc/max_spyware_detector.shtml
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/viewtopic.php?p=142985
http://forums.stuffedguys.com/index.php?showtopic=223&hl=

I've seen enough to convince me that it's a rouge site.

Bob Vanderveen
 
I'm convinced that is one word whose spelling will change in future
dictionaries, based on usage. The other one, as my teenagers remind me
nearly daily, is "versus", which is apparently now spelled, or at least
pronounced, "verse"--or perhaps the full spelling is now "vs".

As in Lions verse Bears...

--
 
Thanks for that post. I've always wondered about that review, which was
completely different from their previous rating of the beta product.
--
 
Bill Sanderson MVP said:
Thanks for that post. I've always wondered about that review, which was
completely different from their previous rating of the beta product.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I don't believe WD would score at the top on anyone's test.
However, it irritates me to see people presenting bogus tests results to
downgrade a program that I think has a chance to develop into a decent
product.

Bob Vanderveen
 
I haven't seen any rave reviews lately. I do think that the team working on
the issue knows what they are doing, though, and that all the existing
testing methodologies are probably flawed.

As I looked at it, I'm sure mad as a long time subscriber at CU's attitude
on this one--they didn't publish their testing methodology at all on that
report--and I can see why!

OTOH, I'm not sure what they did was wrong, even though contrary to the
intent of the test provider--A major point of Windows Defender is that it
isn't purely signature based. I can remember going through that test suite
when it was first made available and puzzling over the results, myself.

I suspect that if you had a product which blocked all the actions in that
test suite, you would find it quite irritating--probably worse than UAC on
Windows Vista.

--
 
AARGH! That's one of the most obnoxious collections of Google ads for rogue
products that I've seen in a long time.

If you have any connection to the publisher of that page, you might want to
have them check out the ads against Eric Howes rogue list:

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm

And we all ought to see whether we can get Google to rein this stuff in,
too.

This stuff is hard to catch--I just went back to the page a second time, and
see only a single ad for Bally--so maybe Google is doing something.

--
 
MikeV06 said:
A link on this page

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060204001054.htm

Mike
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, Mike.

I don't see to ads when I visit that page due to ad blocking by my firewall
and hosts file. Looking at the log from my Outpost Pro firewall I see 10
blocked ads from adhostingsolutions.com. They all use Oasis php, an open
source ad server. It's possible the link you see is a result of http
injection, but more likely the ads are from an ad broker who will take
anyone's money.

The comparespywareremovers site itself seems to my to be the work of an
scamware affiliate program.

Adhostingsolutions.com is also blocked by the MVPS hosts file:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
I highly recommend it's use as a component of safe surfing.

Thanks again,
Bob Vanderveen
 
Bill Sanderson MVP said:
AARGH! That's one of the most obnoxious collections of Google ads for rogue
products that I've seen in a long time.

If you have any connection to the publisher of that page, you might want to
have them check out the ads against Eric Howes rogue list:

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm

And we all ought to see whether we can get Google to rein this stuff in,
too.

This stuff is hard to catch--I just went back to the page a second time, and
see only a single ad for Bally--so maybe Google is doing something.
Click to expand...

Related links:
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/004248.html
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/004213.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,131285-page,1/article.html

In a system where ad space is blindly sold to the highest bidder and
Google's recent ad related acquisition I would only expect the problem to
get worse.

Bob Vanderveen
 
in message
Windows Defender came in last according to this review:

http://www.comparespywareremovers.org/reviews.html?gclid=CJiJi9nDrowCFSgRGgod_B7SSQ

Anyone know anything about this group and/or the accuracy of said
review?
Click to expand...


comparespywareremovers.org hides behind GoDaddy's Domains by Proxy
service so you don't know who is the true registrant for the domain.
The registrants have their reasons for hiding. I have my reasons for
knowing who they are. I don't deal with anyone that hides their
identity.
 
This seems like the right approach. I do wonder about the rate of false
positives, and about how you incorporate such an analysis tool into the
daily life of the average computer user. I'm quite sure that getting away
from signature-based detection a high priority for the Microsoft
anti-malware team--this is a theme I've heard for awhile, I think.

--
 
Back
Top