Spyware Warrior

Eldar · Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:36 pm Post subject: Privacy Tools 2004

I just saw this one on Download.com.
Their website: http://www.privacytools2004.com

Rolling Eyes

This must be a joke on my clean system, checked with Ad-aware, Spy Sweeper, Spybot & Spyware Doctor.

Another one for the rogue list.
_________________
Brabantse Leeuw | Eendracht maakt macht

Nick · Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:46 pm Post subject:

Yes, it does not look promising for this program. The home page of it has the look of being highly suspect and seems to follow the standard formula that the rogue ones follow. What is up with the girl getting videotaped at the top?
_________________
Nick's Security Ticker

Eldar · Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:59 pm Post subject:

Hi Nick,

eburger68 · Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:37 pm Post subject:

Eldar:

Thanks for posting this. I'll be checking it out tonight.

Looks like a big update to the "Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware" page later tonight. I've tested 6 apps today. Is there any end to these things?

Best,

Eric L. Howes

wawadave · Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:39 pm Post subject:

no eric theres no end to them at all. Evil or Very Mad

_________________
RFID tags! SPYWARE
Tired of proprietary Cor-pirationware?
http://www.openoffice.org/
Installing Vista http://tinyurl.com/2l9qyd

Eldar · Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:49 am Post subject:

nomorespyware · Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:13 am Post subject: ordering

The only way to order the product from their site is to go through ClickBank.com, which is in the IE-SPYAD restricted zone.

Somehow the name "clickbank" doesn't install a sense of security in me. Rolling Eyes

The site seems to be operating out of the UK.
_________________
nomorespyware

Eldar · Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:49 am Post subject: Download.com censorship

I posted a review at Download.com, although the rating was taken into account, it was however not posted. Crying or Very sad

Here's my original review:

nomorespyware · Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:32 pm Post subject: Probably the language

They may not be protecting them, your post might have been omitted because of the word "crap". Try posting another review using the word "objectionable" or something.
_________________
nomorespyware

suzi · Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:29 pm Post subject:

See my blog post here:

http://www.netrn.net/archives2/000643.html

Rolling Eyes

_________________
Former Microsoft MVP 2005-2009, Consumer Security
Please do not PM or Email me for personal support. Post in the Forums instead and we will all learn. Smile

ash1ey · Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:39 am Post subject:

Hmm.. Well before I start can I just ask you try and reframe from flamming me to much Smile

I see most of you already have so go easy…

I am the owner of the site and software Privacytools2004.com. Over the past few days I have been exchanging emails with Eric (eburger68). I wont go in to full details of what’s been said but I will try and summaries it and let you know what I’m doing with my software and where I currently am.

After reading Eric's review on this site and seeing other reviews similar, including the one at download.com (this may surprise you) I was actually shocked Shocked

to see what I was reading.

Again although you may find hard to believe, I honestly did not know that the software produced false positives identifying files it shouldn't do as spyware. Although many people blame this on a bad database, it has only recently been brought to my attention that the problem actually lies on the software's scanning engine. Which is the same problem I should imagine all the Rogue/Suspect software I am categorized under on the site has.

All the Technical people on this forum will understand this better then most (FYI I don’t do the programming of the software before you ask me any tech questions). The problem with the scanning engine was we were using the incorrect RSA MD5 algorithm for identifying files as spyware. So because we were using this wrong algorithm the software identifies files as spyware when they are actually not, which = False Positives.

Although I tested the software and had a few others test it, we (me and my programmers) are the new to the business and didn't realize the software was producing false positives. I have stopped selling the software until my new version has been tested and confirmed it is ok to continue selling. Eric and a few other sites all independent from myself will test the software before it is sold.

suzi · Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:21 am Post subject:

Hi Ash1ey and thanks for posting here at the forum.

It was just brought to my attention that your site, www.privacytools2004.com is now redirecting to my forum, here:
http://spywarewarrior.com/

What's up with that??? Last night it was redirecting to the Clickbank affiliate link as I noted.

Also, in case you were't aware, www.privacytools2004.com had the RSS feed for my blog on the lower portion of the home page.

I'm not a coder, so I can't speak to the coding problems with your software. I did experience the same ridiculous false positives that the others here noted.

But if you wanted to produce a high quality product, it seems to me you surely went about the the wrong way. You would have spared yourself a lot of time, expense and embarassment if you had done it right the first time instead of licensing code that was already known to be questionable.

You said:

mikey · Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:52 am Post subject:

I see absolutely no QC at all here. I see someone wanting to sell just another halfass anti-spy that doesn't work. You will never have a good product as long as the only reason your are here is to make money. A real bot killer is deved with passion...code alone will not suffice.

ash1ey · Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:38 pm Post subject:

3162 · Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:42 pm Post subject:

For what my opinion is worth, I appreciate your honesty.

However, we in the malware removal field (we, in the trenches) have to deal with all kinds of bull.
"WE" are the ones who have to contend with f/p's, stay on top of the latest varients and how to fix them.
Stay on top of the updates and stay on top of the other crapware that is provended to the general public.

I would suggest to you, that you load up half a dozen boxes with clean OS's (start with XP. When you master that, then run Win98), and then go out and let those boxes get infected.
*then* figure out how to clean them
_________________
Proud member of the Chest Zipper Club!

ash1ey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:09 am Post subject:

ash1ey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:18 am Post subject:

mikey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:49 am Post subject:

3162 · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:00 am Post subject:

Do you pay your helpers via Clickbank too?
Mr. Green

_________________
Proud member of the Chest Zipper Club!

ash1ey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:16 am Post subject:

mikey the post you qoute was made for someone else, do you always but in and speak for other people? If you would have bothered to read the other posts you would understand the situation with the redirect. Sry but i'm not wasting my time speaking to you anymore so dont bother posting any questions Laughing

3162, of course my affiliates who re-sell the software get paid through clickbank Razz

Anybody else who does work for me gets paid good old cash Wink

In the next few hours i should be able to post a link for my latest beta version. If anybody wants to download and let me know what you think and what the scan produces then i'm happy to listen to your comments.

ash1ey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:26 am Post subject:

For anyone thats interested in taking a look

http://www.privacytools2004.com/beta/Install.zip

NOTE: This is beta and is not yet completely finished (i.e. testing still needs to be done). Dont flame me if you see something bad, just let me know so i can get it sorted. DONT use the update feature on the software as we have not yet loaded an update to our server.

mikey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:36 am Post subject:

Just so you know; I reserve the right to respond to ANY comment here. Perhaps you forgot; this is a PUBLIC message board.

NetWidow · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:49 am Post subject:

ash1ey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:50 am Post subject:

mikey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:16 am Post subject:

I've said thousands of times that I do not have an issue with sharewares per se. Aside from disappointment, I would have no issue with PMK going shareware. I believe coders should be able to make a living.

What I have a prob with is folks taking advantage of users who have been exploited by selling substandard (at best) wares with unsubstantiated and untrue claims of performance. Sound familiar? Again I ask you, what do you intend to bring the world with your wares? What are your goals? What makes your product or idea worth paying for? What exactly do you bring us? What features make you or your product stand out and worth any investment? Even if you fix your ethics and are without any bugs and have all the proper definitions, isn't it just another plain scanner just like all the other 'halfa$$ sharewares around now'?
_________________
-
W2K/2K3/XP/2K8/Vista/W7/RHE/DEBIAN/SUSE

Spyware/Adware is NOT freeware, it costs all of us dearly.

Mikey's Stuff

Fiddler and friends...essential web diagnostic, forensic, & development tools.
-

mikey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:43 am Post subject:

Ashley, I'm having a prob with your beta. Perhaps you can help.

First, I don't seem to be able to find any logs or backups. What kind of bot killer is that?

Second, when I run a full scan or drive/folder scan, I get no F/Ps now. However, I get no detections at all. It completely missed my malware archive. I proceeded to load an old well known nasty; WebHancer. Again the scan comes up empty.

Database.dat is virtually empty other than;

ash1ey · Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:04 pm Post subject:

Mikey, sorry but you dont even bother to read my post properly and your not making much sense Laughing

Read my comments carefully before posting. I aint going to waste my time typing when its not being read correctly.

eburger68 · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:17 am Post subject:

Ashley:

I've tested your new beta of Privacy Tools 2004. Unfortunately, I ran into the same horrendous false positives as with the earlier versions.

First, four screenshots of the scan results, starting with the scan summary (click links to view screenshots):

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/pics_pub/pt-beta-6a.jpg
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/pics_pub/pt-beta-6b.jpg
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/pics_pub/pt-beta-6c.jpg
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/pics_pub/pt-beta-6d.jpg

A couple of observations:

1) The beta identified completely innocent files for the following applications as "spyware" or "malware" of some sort:

* Advanced Replacer
* Sam Spade
* NeoTrace
* SpywareBlaster
* Spyware Doctor
* UPX

These detections are a mixed bag. In some cases the beta correctly identified the program (e.g., Sam Spade), but provided no good reason why that app should be flagged as malware. In other cases, the beta completely misidentified the app, as when it flagged a plain text license file for UPX as part of "AGM65's FileCD Key Harvester 0.1."

2) The beta identified a number of completely innocent Registry keys as malware-related in some way, including keys for:

* AdShield
* SpywareGuard
* Internet Explorer (Radio Bar)
* FlashGet
* Neotrace

All of these Registry keys are completely innocent -- even the FlashGet keys, which are from the "for-pay"/non-adware version of FlashGet.

3) The beta identified several Registry keys as "Suspicious ActiveX control," without bothering to explain why those ActiveX controls would be "suspicious."

4) The beta identified hundreds of "ActiveX Compatibility" keys as malware related. In fact, those keys (and the associated DWORD:00000400 values) were set by either SpywareBlaster or Spybot S&D to block the installation of known spyware-related ActiveX controls. This method of setting the kill-bit against ActiveX controls is a well-known means for protecting users from spyware installations through Internet Explorer, and has been in use for several years now in the anti-spyware scene.

5) The beta performed very poorly in identifying actual spyware files. I happened to have a directory on my E-drive that houses dozens upon dozens of spyware installers and other spyware-related files. PT2004 identified only one installer -- SaveInstWm.exe, a SaveNow installer. The rest went completely unremarked by PT2004.

I understand this is a beta, but more work seems to have been put into making the interface look slick than in actually fixing the underlying problems with the detections. Indeed, this new version of Privacy Tools 2004 looks to be just another clone of the new version of ADS Adware Remover (from the same family of applications) that was released just recently:

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/pics_pub/ads3-5a.jpg

Even the license files are identical.

I don't know when you planned to release this new version, but you've got a long way to go before you have a usable anti-spyware utility.

One final bit of advice. Given that you've been batting 0 percent for the past month or so -- all the while selling a spyware utility you should have known was junk to unsuspecting victims (and having even admitted to not doing proper QC) -- and given that you've been been telling me and anyone else who will listen that you've got your independent developers fixing all the problems with your software in this new version, and given that these extraordinary claims seem not to be true at all, I would suggest that you adjust your attitude when addressing the other members of Spyware Warrior in this thread. These are the people who actually have some knowledge about spyware (knowledge which your developers seem to be sorely lacking) and who have been using that knowledge to help spyware victims remove unwanted malware from their systems day in and day out.

While you've been bragging to the world about your worthless, broken anti-spyware utility and selling it to unsuspecting users, condescending to the volunteers here at Spyware Warrior and refusing to answer their perfectly legitimate questions, as well as threatening me and Spyware Warrior with frivolous lawsuits, these volunteers have actually been doing the thankless job of providing real help to real victims, and all for free. That's a hell of a lot more than you can claim.

Until you get your own house in order, you have no business whatsoever bad-mouthing the volunteers here at Spyware Warrior or giving them an attitude.

Eric L. Howes

mikey · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:49 am Post subject:

Hey Eric, I was a little confused when I read your post this morning untill I realized that Ashley uploaded new files since I DLed yesterday morning.

Anyway, I got the same massive amount of F/Ps on a clean box;

http://www.voiceofthepublic.com/images/PTools2.gif

http://www.voiceofthepublic.com/reports/PTools.txt

And when using the same test for WebHancer. It did detect SOME items. If using the tool to 'fix', it will break the LSP chain renderring any user crippled and without any connection to the net. Fortunately for me, I am very familiar with the enumeration of the LSP pointers and could repair the prob.

The scan with WH present;

http://www.voiceofthepublic.com/images/PTools3wh.gif

http://www.voiceofthepublic.com/reports/PToolsWH.txt

Still misses my entire archive including the WH installer used to load files for the test.

Still can't check out the backups...can't find any.
_________________
-
W2K/2K3/XP/2K8/Vista/W7/RHE/DEBIAN/SUSE

Spyware/Adware is NOT freeware, it costs all of us dearly.

Mikey's Stuff

Fiddler and friends...essential web diagnostic, forensic, & development tools.
-

ash1ey · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:47 am Post subject:

TheProphet · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:36 am Post subject:

Interesting discussion around here...

I wonder how the Privacy Tools 2004 looks similar to ADS Remover.. not even the interface looks the same. And if you are referring to the functionality, well... look again.

In the latest beta of the Privacy Tools, the "suspicious activex controls" are gone. I guess Ashley didn't upload that yet. Besides that, it is the fault of the people that actually sell spyware databases (at least that's what they call them) without documenting them the proper way first. Programmers can't do much if they don't have the proper resources to work with.

There isn't a 100% effective anti-spyware program. There isn't a 100% effective anti-adware program. The heck, there isn't even a 100% effective popup blocker! Why are we searching for a needle in the hay stack?!?

--> "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." <-- (Voltaire)

mikey · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:43 am Post subject:

Eric, I was just wondering; would it be good to include in your rogue notes when certain sets of definitions are extremely hazardous if used.
Just the F/Ps alone would likely severely cripple any unsuspecting user.
_________________
-
W2K/2K3/XP/2K8/Vista/W7/RHE/DEBIAN/SUSE

Spyware/Adware is NOT freeware, it costs all of us dearly.

Mikey's Stuff

Fiddler and friends...essential web diagnostic, forensic, & development tools.
-

eburger68 · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:54 am Post subject:

TheProphet:

You wrote:

ash1ey · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:31 am Post subject:

I'm still looking around to buy another database, if a decent ones come then i'll implement into my software. I'm still going to continue distributing anti spyware removal programs. As soon as i have the F/P's fixed in my application it will be sold. And you cant really do nothing about it. All your bitchin and it comes to nothing.

And to be honest i'm even thinking of having some programmers write me some spyware. Yep, actual spyware to infect ppls machines. Why? Cus you all suck. I'm trying to work with you but you couldnt give a sh1t. So why try and work with the anti-spyware community when there only against you? You guys are against me so much that i'm going to start distributing spyware myself, its not hard. UNDETECTABLE stuff too Wink

To be honest theres probably more money in this then the actual spyware removal.

I've always been treated as your enemy so soon i will be.

Some of you need to get a day job too. There are more important things in this world that need your help. And you want to fight spyware? LOL

Listen, I'm 22 years old and making more money then most of you old enough to be my parents. We all need to make living. Just like the ppl at Gator and all the spyware companies. We all need to make money Smile

As long as my money making ways continue to be legal, i'll continue to do them. Including the distribution of spyware for the means of selling advertising Wink

Good day to you all Twisted Evil

mikey · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:47 am Post subject:

suzi · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:03 am Post subject:

ash1ey · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:01 pm Post subject:

TeMerc · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:22 pm Post subject:

ash1ey · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:42 pm Post subject:

suzi · Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:18 pm Post subject:

So Ashley - let me get something straight here. You think there's nothing wrong with tricking people into thinking there is spyware on their computers in order to sell them your product? That's exactly what happens when it produces false positives. Your unsuspecting victims are frightened and upset when they see all of the false positives and think they have to buy the program.

If you think that's ethical and honest, then you grew up in a different universe than I did and different from everyone else in this group. Evil or Very Mad

_________________
Former Microsoft MVP 2005-2009, Consumer Security
Please do not PM or Email me for personal support. Post in the Forums instead and we will all learn. Smile