Microsoft Anti-Spyware now ignores Claria.

Post #214,332 by Andrew Grygus 7/12/05 12:16:39 AM Reply	Microsoft Anti-Spyware now ignores Claria. The change from "remove" to "ignore" came about the same time rumors came out Microsoft was negotiating to buy Claria, publisher of the infamous Gator adware. Microsoft says there is absolutely no connection between the two events. I've only encountered Microsoft Anti-Spyware once so far. The client downloaded it and ran it and it destroyed the network protocol stack. Beyond that it was totally helpless in the face of the malware that remained. It popped up and tried to delete several programs over and over. Adaware still found over 1100 articles of spyware/adware. Of course it did take me 3 hours to get this machine clean and repair the protocol stack, but half that was waiting for scans to get through more than 130,000 files in the browser cache (I had Internet Explorer delete them but it took an hour to do so). Insanity! Insanity! Insanity! [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #214,335 by Another Scott 7/12/05 12:20:50 AM Reply	How many days are left on the doomsday clock? :-/
Post #214,344 by Ashton 7/12/05 1:29:52 AM Reply	I suggested they move it up a couple minutes on the basis of a coup within the parent country / not just exterior threats. Published it (dead tree Bulletin, that is). They haven't moved it, just yet.. Perhaps on Iran Freedom Day or Syria Democracy Day? 3.5 YEARS of the cabal to go . . . 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 day at a time.
Post #214,355 by CRConrad 7/12/05 2:51:52 AM Reply	I think he meant the Gryge's own "Internet useless at" clock
Post #214,361 by Ashton 7/12/05 5:31:49 AM Reply	Prolly, but aren't the Count-down clocks synchronized?
Post #214,362 by CRConrad 7/12/05 6:11:58 AM Reply	Hopefully not. Once the original one strikes midnight, nothing else probably matters much any more. So I don't really care that that would (at a guess) take the Internet down with it. But I certainly hope that Andrew's "The Internet will be totally useless as of" clock running out doesn't induce all-out nuclear war! We can, after all, live without the Internet... (I hope! :-) [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575\|Ashton Brown]
Post #214,476 by Andrew Grygus 7/12/05 1:00:15 PM Reply	Actually that was 'Windows useless on the Internet'. To Windows users it may amount to the same thing, but rapid evolution happens when 80% or more of a population is being killed off - let the fit survive! Meanwhile, I'll just keep sucking cash out of their pockets until they give up. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #214,524 by Andrew Grygus 7/12/05 5:22:39 PM Reply	Today I had one so bad . . . . . I cleaned it up on my own time just to see if I could - there's no way a home user can afford what it actually took - you could buy a new computer for less. Any more like this I'll just tell 'em it's a reformat and reinstall. It had about 10 "toolbar" and "search accelerator" programs installed, a bunch of "bargain" programs, several "anti-spyware" programs that were actually spyware, the protocol stack had parasites in it, plenty of trojans, hidden .dlls that regenerated themselves, plenty of worms, and on and on. Apparently something had hijacked part of Kapersky's anti-virus program - it claims to be kavsvc.exe but what it points to is kakkkk.exe (which doesn't exist any more). I also see parasites disguised as parts of Norton Antivirus, pretty obvious on machines that don't have Norton installed but hard to notice on machines that do. Looks like they'd already downloaded and run Microsoft Anti-Spyware 'cause it's installed with the icon on the desktop. Fat lot of good it did them. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #214,541 by Ashton 7/12/05 6:49:51 PM Reply	At $3-400, via those execrable Mail-in coupons.. I'm wondering if, Just Buy a New One is not the drug of choice? Are lots doing just that? (And then, presuming the worst case of default Doze 'protection' ==> same user - what does that buy next: 22 minutes?) Funny.. except for those who actually need a box - for something related to eating - and who believe they couldn't possibly learn/buy some old Mac, say. (I rate that as a less-brainer than their having someone install/tutor them on *nix du jour.) Nutzo. All around.
Post #214,554 by Andrew Grygus 7/12/05 8:07:49 PM Reply	Not quite so simple . . . . the typical small office user has 4 years of email in Outlook they just can't live without (and none of it backed up), and they "can't find" the CD for some important programs and they've got documents and pictures (seldom porn, more likely their kids' graduations or baby pictures and such). Getting everything up and running the way they liked it on the old machine costs more than the new machine. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #214,556 by Another Scott 7/12/05 8:58:18 PM Reply	Why isn't a thin client compelling in that situation? Years ago the folks at Serenity Systems would talk about the wonders of using OS/2 and Warp Server and some glue to enable booting over the network faster than booting from the local hard disk. It would seem to be an ideal solution to this problem. I assume that it hasn't taken the world by storm because: 1) It's not Windows. 2) Small businesses don't generally plan their computer infrastructure unless they have to. When they need a new computing box, they get a new PC. They don't worry about backups and data security until it's too late. 3) It's not Windows. 4) It requires a server and a decent network and someone who can get it all running. 5) It's not Windows. Sun and others were pushing thin clients for a while too. Do you think that the businesses you deal with are going to continue to use fat PCs over the next, say, 10 years? Will they trust Microsoft or Symantec or Google to do periodic backups of their systems over the Internet as part of Windows Update v 23 (for a "nominal" subscription fee, of course)? Or will businesses finally realize that the only thing that keeps them alive is information (with the corollary that offshoring of business functions is drilling a tapered hole in their heads)? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #214,559 by Andrew Grygus 7/12/05 10:04:18 PM Reply	Reasons 1 through 5 . . . . . but particularly that they have no system administrator. When they need a computer they just go out and buy it. They expect their camera interface and their Blackberry interface and now their wireless cell phone interface to just install by sticking in a CD. Particularly the camera interface can be critical. And in almost every small business there's at least one critical application that runs only under Windows, so a different OS is not practical. Most are too paranoid about their business data (could be for one or more of several reasons) to allow some outsider to back it up over the Internet. The favorite backup setup for a small business is a server with a tape drive and a receptionist who can be depended on to change tapes and a PC guy to check the tapes once in a while. Some with different requirements back up to rewritable CD, but Windows XP's built in "user friendly" CD software has made that a very iffy thing. If it decides it doesn't like a rewriable (often), it just treats the job as a write once and stores everything somewhere and then starts popping up messages about files waiting to be written to CD. The users don't understand any of this. Whoever designed that thing should impaled on a thousand shards of broken CD. Except for the accounting data on the server with the tape drive, backing up everything else is pretty hit-and-miss. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #214,356 by CRConrad 7/12/05 3:09:21 AM Reply	Why useIE to kill cache; why not just use "deltree"?
Post #214,365 by pwhysall 7/12/05 7:14:21 AM Reply	Cuz it doesn't exist on XP? `rd /s /q <dir>` is The Right Way. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #214,386 by inthane-chan 7/12/05 9:26:03 AM Reply	More properly... `attrib -h -s -r <dir>\\* /s /d del /f /s /q <dir>\\* rd /s /q <dir>` This is to get around the annoying habit that Microsoft has of occasionally changing permissions on some random file without notification. apt-get install godlike-powers
Post #214,489 by pwhysall 7/12/05 2:37:32 PM Reply	Nah. Remember, Everyone's An Admin on Windows :-) Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!

Welcome to IWETHEY!