spy/adware

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I was wondering if you can tell me a few good downloads that get rid of and
block spy/adware? also i have stop-sign to block viruses and was wondering if
stop sign is a good one
13 answers Last reply
More about adware
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    For spyware and adware use the following:
    Spybot Search and Destroy.
    Ad-Aware.
    Pest Patrol.

    For anti-virus and firewall protection use the following:
    AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition.
    Zone Alarm Free Edition.

    Google for these and you will find them, no problems.

    "IE and windows" <IEandwindows@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:299AF97E-6F48-4FA6-B56E-86D57C922E1D@microsoft.com...
    >I was wondering if you can tell me a few good downloads that get rid of and
    > block spy/adware? also i have stop-sign to block viruses and was wondering
    > if
    > stop sign is a good one
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Go to www.download.com
    Search for and download: "Ad-Aware" by Lavasoft and
    "Spybot-Search and Destroy".
    Install each program, update it, then run a full scan on
    your PC. Best of all, they're free, unless you wish to
    donate to the developers.
    Good Luck!!
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Here you go http://aumha.org/win5/a/parasite.htm

    --

    Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


    "IE and windows" <IEandwindows@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:299AF97E-6F48-4FA6-B56E-86D57C922E1D@microsoft.com...
    >I was wondering if you can tell me a few good downloads that get rid of and
    > block spy/adware? also i have stop-sign to block viruses and was wondering
    > if
    > stop sign is a good one
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "IE and windows" wrote:

    > I was wondering if you can tell me a few good downloads that get rid of and
    > block spy/adware? also i have stop-sign to block viruses and was wondering if
    > stop sign is a good one
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    ad-aware is very good as is spybot . both are free and do a good job. i
    never liked stop sign. i think it had some key logging added to it

    "Abel Diaz" wrote:

    > Go to www.download.com
    > Search for and download: "Ad-Aware" by Lavasoft and
    > "Spybot-Search and Destroy".
    > Install each program, update it, then run a full scan on
    > your PC. Best of all, they're free, unless you wish to
    > donate to the developers.
    > Good Luck!!
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    IE and windows wrote:
    > I was wondering if you can tell me a few good downloads that get rid of and
    > block spy/adware? also i have stop-sign to block viruses and was wondering if
    > stop sign is a good one


    To deal with issues caused by any sort of "adware" and/or
    "spyware,"such as Gator, Comet Cursors, Smiley Central, Xupiter,
    Bonzai Buddy, or KaZaA, and their remnants, that you've deliberately
    (but without understanding the consequences) installed, two products
    that are quite effective (at finding and removing this type of
    scumware) are Ad-Aware from www.lavasoft.de and SpyBot Search &
    Destroy from www.safer-networking.org/. Both have free versions.
    It's even possible to use SpyBot Search & Destroy to "immunize" your
    system against most future intrusions. I use both and generally
    perform manual scans every week or so to clean out cookies, etc.

    Additionally, manual removal instructions for the most common
    varieties of scumware are available here:

    PC Hell Spyware and Adware Removal Help
    http://www.pchell.com/support/spyware.shtml


    Neither adware nor spyware, collectively known as scumware,
    magically install themselves on anyone's computer. They are almost
    always deliberately installed by the computer's user, as part of some
    allegedly "free" service or product.

    While there are some unscrupulous malware distributors out there,
    who do attempt to install and exploit malware without consent, the
    majority of them simply rely upon the intellectual laziness and
    gullibility of the average consumer, counting on them to quickly click
    past the EULA in his/her haste to get the latest in "free" cutesy
    cursors, screensavers, "utilities," and/or wallpapers.

    If you were to read the EULAs that accompany, and to which the
    computer user must agree before the download/installation of the
    "screensaver" continues, most adware and spyware, you'll find that
    they _do_ have the consumer's permission to do exactly what they're
    doing. In the overwhelming majority of cases, computer users have no
    one to blame but themselves.

    There are several essential components to computer security: a
    knowledgeable and pro-active user, a properly configured firewall,
    reliable and up-to-date antivirus software, and the prompt repair (via
    patches, hotfixes, or service packs) of any known vulnerabilities.

    The weakest link in this "equation" is, of course, the computer
    user. No software manufacturer can -- nor should they be expected
    to -- protect the computer user from him/herself. All too many people
    have bought into the various PC/software manufacturers marketing
    claims of easy computing. They believe that their computer should be
    no harder to use than a toaster oven; they have neither the
    inclination or desire to learn how to safely use their computer. All
    too few people keep their antivirus software current, install patches
    in a timely manner, or stop to really think about that cutesy link
    they're about to click.

    Firewalls and anti-virus applications, which should always be used
    and should always be running, are important components of "safe hex,"
    but they cannot, and should not be expected to, protect the computer
    user from him/herself. Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and
    every computer user to learn how to secure his/her own computer.


    To learn more about practicing "safe hex," start with these links:

    Protect Your PC
    http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/default.asp

    Home Computer Security
    http://www.cert.org/homeusers/HomeComputerSecurity/

    List of Antivirus Software Vendors
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;49500

    Home PC Firewall Guide
    http://www.firewallguide.com/

    Scumware.com
    http://www.scumware.com/

    The Parasite Fight
    http://www.aumha.org/a/parasite.htm


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:ezfFBe26EHA.2572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    Bruce Chambers <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> typed:

    > IE and windows wrote:

    >> I was wondering if you can tell me a few good downloads that get rid
    >> of and block spy/adware? also i have stop-sign to block viruses and
    >> was wondering if stop sign is a good one
    >
    >
    > To deal with issues caused by any sort of "adware" and/or
    > "spyware,"such as Gator, Comet Cursors, Smiley Central, Xupiter,
    > Bonzai Buddy, or KaZaA, and their remnants, that you've deliberately
    > (but without understanding the consequences) installed, two products
    > that are quite effective (at finding and removing this type of
    > scumware) are Ad-Aware from www.lavasoft.de and SpyBot Search &
    > Destroy from www.safer-networking.org/. Both have free versions.
    > It's even possible to use SpyBot Search & Destroy to "immunize" your
    > system against most future intrusions. I use both and generally
    > perform manual scans every week or so to clean out cookies, etc.
    >
    > Additionally, manual removal instructions for the most common
    > varieties of scumware are available here:
    >
    > PC Hell Spyware and Adware Removal Help
    > http://www.pchell.com/support/spyware.shtml
    >
    >
    > Neither adware nor spyware, collectively known as scumware,
    > magically install themselves on anyone's computer.

    Unless you've installed the newest version of AOL Instant Messenger, aka
    AIM.

    Imagine my surprise, when after downloading it because of it's webcam
    functionality, I found that it had also installed something called
    "Viewpoint Media Player"?

    WTF?

    I read the AIM TOS, the FAQ, and the Privacy Statement. Nowhere do any of
    them mention the fact that you'll also be installing VMP, and there was no
    option to "opt-out" of installing it while the AIM software was setting up.
    I thought I must have missed it the first time, so I went back to all three
    of those pages and used the "find on this page" function of IE and typed in
    the word, viewpoint. Nothing.

    Honestly, I don't know if Viewpoint Media Player is ratware or not, and I
    really don't care as it's gone. As is AIM.

    I'm just more than a little bit upset that it got installed through the
    "back door" in the first place, and wanted others to know that this happens.

    My questions are ..... How do they (AOL) get away with that sort of thing?
    And what did I "agree" to, that allowed them to do so?

    <snip>

    Bill
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Bill wrote:

    >
    >
    > Unless you've installed the newest version of AOL Instant Messenger, aka
    > AIM.
    >
    > Imagine my surprise, when after downloading it because of it's webcam
    > functionality, I found that it had also installed something called
    > "Viewpoint Media Player"?
    >
    > WTF?
    >
    > I read the AIM TOS, the FAQ, and the Privacy Statement. Nowhere do any of
    > them mention the fact that you'll also be installing VMP, and there was no
    > option to "opt-out" of installing it while the AIM software was setting up.
    > I thought I must have missed it the first time, so I went back to all three
    > of those pages and used the "find on this page" function of IE and typed in
    > the word, viewpoint. Nothing.
    >


    As I said in my original post, there are some unscrupulous
    people/businesses out there. However, AOL is well known to always
    require the installation of their own proprietary software to use any of
    their "services," so an informed computer user shouldn't be too
    surprised by this. Be that as it may, even simple good manners should
    require advance warning.


    >
    > My questions are ..... How do they (AOL) get away with that sort of thing?
    > And what did I "agree" to, that allowed them to do so?
    >

    The AIM TOS gives them this permission, actually (emphasis mine):

    "Additional Terms and Conditions for other Services or Products
    You agree and understand that certain AIM Products, features and other
    premium services offered by or through AIM (including services from AOL)
    may be subject to *additional* terms and conditions or registration
    requirements. You agree to abide by these additional terms and you
    further agree that a violation of those terms while you are accessing
    those products with your AIM Screen Name or through an AIM Product shall
    constitute a breach of these Terms of Service."

    "Changes to the Service
    AOL has the right at any time to *change*, *modify*, *add* to or
    discontinue or retire any aspect or feature of the AIM Products
    including, but not limited to, the *software*, community areas, Content,
    hours of availability, equipment needed for access or use, the maximum
    disk space that will be allotted on AOL servers on your behalf either
    cumulatively or for any particular service or the availability of AIM
    Products on any particular device or communications service. AOL has
    *no* obligation to provide you with notice of any such changes. "


    Also, remember that AOL's entire business model relies primarily upon
    its customers' almost total lack of technical knowledge. (AOL hasn't
    been called "the Internet on training wheels" for nothing.) AOL would
    not have expected its average customers to read or understand the TOS or
    a EULA, or, for that matter, to even notice that something else has been
    installed.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:entK2K36EHA.1524@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    Bruce Chambers <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> typed:

    > Bill wrote:
    >
    >> Unless you've installed the newest version of AOL Instant Messenger,
    >> aka AIM.
    >>
    >> Imagine my surprise, when after downloading it because of it's webcam
    >> functionality, I found that it had also installed something called
    >> "Viewpoint Media Player"?
    >>
    >> WTF?
    >>
    >> I read the AIM TOS, the FAQ, and the Privacy Statement. Nowhere do
    >> any of them mention the fact that you'll also be installing VMP, and
    >> there was no option to "opt-out" of installing it while the AIM
    >> software was setting up. I thought I must have missed it the first
    >> time, so I went back to all three of those pages and used the "find
    >> on this page" function of IE and typed in the word, viewpoint. Nothing.

    > As I said in my original post, there are some unscrupulous
    > people/businesses out there. However, AOL is well known to always
    > require the installation of their own proprietary software to use any
    > of their "services," so an informed computer user shouldn't be too
    > surprised by this. Be that as it may, even simple good manners should
    > require advance warning.

    That was my point. Along with the fact that *sometimes*, even if you *do*
    read things you're agreeing to *carefully*, you can still get screwed over.
    I don't know why, but for some reason I had expected AOL to be more
    forthcoming about what they were about to install on my machine.

    >> My questions are ..... How do they (AOL) get away with that sort of
    >> thing? And what did I "agree" to, that allowed them to do so?
    >>
    >
    > The AIM TOS gives them this permission, actually (emphasis mine):
    >
    > "Additional Terms and Conditions for other Services or Products
    > You agree and understand that certain AIM Products, features and other
    > premium services offered by or through AIM (including services from
    > AOL) may be subject to *additional* terms and conditions or
    > registration requirements. You agree to abide by these additional
    > terms and you further agree that a violation of those terms while you
    > are accessing those products with your AIM Screen Name or through an
    > AIM Product shall constitute a breach of these Terms of Service."
    >
    > "Changes to the Service
    > AOL has the right at any time to *change*, *modify*, *add* to or
    > discontinue or retire any aspect or feature of the AIM Products
    > including, but not limited to, the *software*, community areas,
    > Content, hours of availability, equipment needed for access or use,
    > the maximum disk space that will be allotted on AOL servers on your
    > behalf either cumulatively or for any particular service or the
    > availability of AIM Products on any particular device or
    > communications service. AOL has *no* obligation to provide you with
    > notice of any such changes. "

    So what you're saying is, that there's really no way of knowing what *else*
    will be included with any particular download, from any particular vendor,
    so long as they have wording like that in the TOS/EULA?

    > Also, remember that AOL's entire business model relies primarily upon
    > its customers' almost total lack of technical knowledge. (AOL hasn't
    > been called "the Internet on training wheels" for nothing.) AOL would
    > not have expected its average customers to read or understand the TOS
    > or a EULA, or, for that matter, to even notice that something else
    > has been installed.

    But I *did* read it/them. And I wouldn't even have cared if AIM had at
    least given me the option *not* to install Viewpoint Media Player, or at
    least make me aware that it was coming with the software whether I wanted it
    or not. *That's* what bugs me.

    I'm not real big on legislature, but there should be some kind of
    International law that requires *all* vendors to disclose just *exactly*
    what changes their software will make to one's machine. And it should be
    *obvious*. Not buried in some, "We reserve the right to do whatever we
    want, whenever we want" clause.

    Sorry for the rant. I'm just not very fond of having things installed on my
    machine without my knowledge or consent.
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Bill wrote:

    >
    >
    > That was my point. Along with the fact that *sometimes*, even if you *do*
    > read things you're agreeing to *carefully*, you can still get screwed over.
    > I don't know why, but for some reason I had expected AOL to be more
    > forthcoming about what they were about to install on my machine.
    >


    Why such an expectation, though? AOL's business model is predicated
    upon exploiting their customers' lack of technical understanding. Given
    that, why expect them to be any more ethical than any other such business?


    >
    >
    > So what you're saying is, that there's really no way of knowing what *else*
    > will be included with any particular download, from any particular vendor,
    > so long as they have wording like that in the TOS/EULA?
    >
    >


    That's pretty much it, yes. Sometimes EULAs ans TOSs have deliberately
    vague passages for legitimate reasons, such as a company's inability to
    predict the future or the urgent need for "hotfix" or a security patch.
    In such a case, getting your permission, in advance, to change their
    software simply isn't always practical. Unfortunately, less scrupulous
    businesses also use these "loopholes" to their own advantage, as well.


    >
    > But I *did* read it/them.


    And you are to be commended for so doing. Unfortunately, that TOS was
    written in such a manner as to almost guarantee that your eyes would be
    glazed over by the time you came to the relevant passages. There was a
    whole lot of extraneous verbiage included, probably at the insistence of
    an attorney or two. I found the relevant passages not because I read
    the TOS in its entirety, but because I searched for words like "add,"
    "change," "modify," and "software," etc.


    > And I wouldn't even have cared if AIM had at
    > least given me the option *not* to install Viewpoint Media Player, or at
    > least make me aware that it was coming with the software whether I wanted it
    > or not. *That's* what bugs me.
    >

    Perfectly understandable. The practice _is_ despicable.


    > I'm not real big on legislature, but there should be some kind of
    > International law that requires *all* vendors to disclose just *exactly*
    > what changes their software will make to one's machine. And it should be
    > *obvious*. Not buried in some, "We reserve the right to do whatever we
    > want, whenever we want" clause.
    >

    I understand your feelings, but I doubt that such legislation would
    really do much good; most people won't read the warnings and
    disclosures, anyway. Governments really can't - nor should they even
    try, to my way of thinking - protect people from themselves. People, in
    general, need to learn to be responsible for the consequences of their
    own actions and decisions. (This isn't pointed at anyone in particular;
    it's just a general observation.)

    Besides, on exactly whom should the legislative authority fall? The
    Internet is multi-national. Most software is sold internationally;
    which country's laws should pertain? The United Nations lacks the
    authority to govern how the hundreds of companies within each of its
    member nations conduct business.

    I feel that the most effective way for consumers to bring companies
    like AOL into line is for consumers to "vote with their wallets." When
    a company engages in business practices that you don't like, simply take
    your business elsewhere. If enough people start doing this, companies
    will eventually learn what does and does not hurt their bottom line.
    Sadly, though, this relies upon the existence of a well-informed and
    pro-active general consumer market - something I doubt we'll ever see.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Bill" <Bill@noemail.invalid> wrote in message
    news:JqSdnd8Eo8WQY1PcRVn-pw@comcast.com
    >
    > So what you're saying is, that there's really no way of knowing what
    > *else* will be included with any particular download, from any
    > particular vendor, so long as they have wording like that in the
    > TOS/EULA?

    You got it.

    --
    Frank Saunders, MS-MVP, IE/OE
    Please respond in Newsgroup only. Do not send email
    http://www.fjsmjs.com
    Protect your PC
    http://www.microsoft.com./athome/security/protect/default.aspx
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Bruce Chambers wrote:
    > If you were to read the EULAs that accompany, and to which the
    > computer user must agree before the download/installation of the
    > "screensaver" continues, most adware and spyware, you'll find that
    > they _do_ have the consumer's permission to do exactly what they're
    > doing. In the overwhelming majority of cases, computer users have no
    > one to blame but themselves.

    That's hardly fair IMO. Over the years EULAs have adopted a practise of
    using legalese optimized for ass coverage rather than readability, making
    any average EULA difficult to read and impossible to fully comprehend.
    People in general do not bother to contact their lawyer every time they want
    to install anything, thus most people (including myself, I am afraid) tend
    to install software in the usual next-next-agree-next-finish manner.

    Bill mentioned legislations about vendors disclosing what they are going to
    do to your system. Such a legislation should also require this information
    to be _understandable_ by basically any person able to click "I agree". In
    the mean time I prefer to translate each and every EULA I come across into
    the following two sentence summary: "Install at your own risk. We may or may
    not screw you."

    Pardon me, I just felt like ranting a little bit.
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    André Gulliksen wrote:

    >
    >
    > That's hardly fair IMO.


    Life isn't fair.


    > Over the years EULAs have adopted a practise of
    > using legalese optimized for ass coverage rather than readability, making
    > any average EULA difficult to read and impossible to fully comprehend.


    That's one of the costs of living in such a litigious society. If
    people were more willing to accept the consequences of their own
    mistakes, rather then looking for someone to sue every time things don't
    go as they naively expected, we wouldn't be where we are now.


    > People in general do not bother to contact their lawyer every time they want
    > to install anything, thus most people (including myself, I am afraid) tend
    > to install software in the usual next-next-agree-next-finish manner.
    >


    And businesses naturally tend to take advantage of their customers'
    tendency towards intellectual laziness.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Windows XP