bearskin Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 (edited) I really don't believe everything I read on the net so can someone clarify this please?it was suggested that I delete this link. Edited April 18, 2006 by bearskin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Infektious Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 http://rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=471I really don't believe everything I read on the net so can someone clarify this please?Basically what it's saying is that the company that owns Ad-Aware pumps it up to be more than it actually is. I didn't read through the whole thing but I'm also getting the impression that maybe the program makes false claims about what it can/will find by using 'beefed up' reference files. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sethook Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Other thoughts on your topic at G4..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Reads like some arrogant pre-teen thinks he could do better but will never achieve the success of Ad-Aware so he took the time to criticize it instead. It's not perfect? Oooo! Stop the presses! If he knew what he was talking about he would write a better program and get rich doing it. As soon as you see his better product, let me know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
handplane Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 http://rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=471I really don't believe everything I read on the net so can someone clarify this please?Sounds like sour grapes to me!!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 The only thing to ask this person is "And?" <sarcasm>Wow, you just pointed out that malware can make protection tools not work! Never knew that before!</sarcasm>Basically, all it doing is pointing out, in a very technical way, that malware can interfere with your anti-spyware tools. We all knew that already, which is why we use more than one. (and if all else fails, we move to manual removal).bearskin, I'm glad you pointed it out. It shows how people like to over-dramatize things. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jcl Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Basically what it's saying is that the company that owns Ad-Aware pumps it up to be more than it actually is. I didn't read through the whole thing but I'm also getting the impression that maybe the program makes false claims about what it can/will find by using 'beefed up' reference files.Exactly. The gist of it is that the definitions file is vulnerable (points 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5) and the marketing is misleading (points 2.6, both 2.7s). Interesting article. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bearskin Posted April 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 well hell, if 10,000,000 people use it (including me) it can't be that bad...after all it's free. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 well hell, if 10,000,000 people use it (including me) it can't be that bad...after all it's free.It's not. Even though AdAware & Spybot aren't the greatest with a lot of the newer and tougher infections, they are still very good programs; the best free ones anyway. If youre going to retain anything from the article, it should be just a bit of understanding on how the program works. Many more flaws could be found in programs such as... Norton Quote Link to post Share on other sites
martymas Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 this article is written by some one who has his own agenda and is bad mouthing other applis just ignore the p----kmarty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
xxkbxx Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 this article is written by some one who has his own agenda and is bad mouthing other applis just ignore the p----kmartyp----k ? Can't think of a suitable cuss word to fill that Quote Link to post Share on other sites
blim Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 this article is written by some one who has his own agenda and is bad mouthing other applis just ignore the p----kmartyp----k ? Can't think of a suitable cuss word to fill thatLOL, I can.....you aren't old enough, hon...Liz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheTerrorist_75 Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 this article is written by some one who has his own agenda and is bad mouthing other applis just ignore the p----kmartyp----k ? Can't think of a suitable cuss word to fill thatGive me a R > R, give me an I > I, give me a ..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JDoors Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 ... Many more flaws could be found in programs such as... Norton Best point yet. A technical analysis of any security software would reveal its flaws, and an analysis of something like Norton's or McAfee's would be a very long article indeed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
xxkbxx Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 No Blim, I know that word - I'm just conditioned to the average high school barage of profanity so that word (I figured it out by now) is not on my assumed cuss word list! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.