What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
111 Comments
- CajDarkmoon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43Is it just me or is this one of the most poorly written articles I have ever read on digg?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39My advice? Use Adaware, Spybot S&D and MS Defender. They don't conflict with each other at all. Also, use the latest version of Firefox as your browser and keep your virus checker and firewall on...
It's very satisfing to run spyware checkers every couple of weeks and find almost every time that no spyware has made it on your machine... - liava, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28It's very difficult to say exactly what's going on here. The author really makes three points:
1) Breaking the encryption scheme on the signatures file is trivial.
That's probably not a big deal. The only thing that could fix this is signing the signature file, and even that isn't a guarantee since malware that can hijack the internet connection could, presumably, change the public key that AdAware checks the signature file with.
2) AdAware multiplies the number of signatures by a constant.
That constant seems rather arbitrary. I think it's probably more likely that they are doing something interesting like counting signatures multiple times if they match several variants of a piece of spyware or something like that. It's really impossible to say how they calculate the number. It could be perfectly honest. We don't have enough information from that article to tell.
3) AdAware is slow.
The author provides some pseudocode for the AdAware scanning algorithm which suggests that the file is re-read each time for each signature it checks. I don't believe this as it would take absolutely forever to run if that were the case. While I'm not saying they have the best search algorithm in the world, I highly doubt it's as bad as the author claims, and a bit of pseudocode that says otherwise isn't good enough proof of his claim.
In the end, it's a long-winded, poorly written article that has very little substance. The only way to evaluate AdAware is to compare it to other anti-spyware programs - something that the article doesn't do at all. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28The article is more childish than academic in its tone and approach. While the author points out some potential problems, he also adds a lot of subjective commentary, as well as an anecdotal estimation of the program's performance.
Hey, the program still works. It's not the best anymore (and hasn't been for a long time), but I'll probably keep using it since no one anti-spyware app is capable of catching all spyware. I actually have four apps installed on my computer; AAW, Spybot, MS Defender, and (most recently) SpyCatcher. - toomuchgreentea, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/RootkitRevealer.html
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/ProcessExplorer.html
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/autoruns.html
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/RegDelNull.html - Remmy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15It basically says that bypassing it is incredibly simple. The protection schemes used could be broken in a matter of seconds making it mere childsplay to hide your adware/malware from the program.
I still believe the the best form of protection is preventive software. It may take a small hit on system performance, but at the cost of your privacy, it's worth it. - lightyear4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I used this program for a long time when administering my Windows machines. Then, noticing a decline in detected malware -- despite a current defs file -- I started using it in concert with SpyBot and several other tools. Of course, that simply proves that one should avoid a single point of failure. However, having read this article, that advice seems all the more important.
- plumeria, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I would have to agree as well. I also believe that the teenage kind of hostile slang he is using deducts from his overall credibility.
- Rmplstltskn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Ad-aware has detected things on my computer that Spybot S&D didn't. Make of that what you will.
- clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11*I caught myself one bad ass virus some time back that couldn't be removed by _any_ of the other tools you guys have listed there.*
What you need then is an antivirus, like AVG. - Rickard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Still, multiplying the number of definitions in the def file with 1.46 to make it appear as if the software detects more malware than it actually does == lame.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Always has too. Its the first tool that I run to clean a slow, buggy computer, and the vast majority of the time after running adaware and rebooting everything is working properly again.
The only ppl/groups I've seen to have apparent issues with adaware are those with their own anti-spyware stuff to flog, usually the ones that ARE spyware infected delivery systems like Adware Away etc.
As for the authors claim that excessive disk access PROVES that adaware isn't doing a good job, well, it all depends how fragmented your drive is right. SPybot and ms anti-spyware all thrash HDDs too. - tciny, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I caught myself one bad ass virus some time back that couldn't be removed by _any_ of the other tools you guys have listed there. But since Ad-Aware did the job just fine I'd have to say its a lot better than the article makes it appear.
- lightyear4, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I highly suggest using a bootable linux or XP system in order to ensure a pristine environment from which to scan a given machine. Many linux liveCDs have become very helpful with maintenance of man varied system types; there are many such bootable distributions from which you may choose. Indeed, as I prefer a unix environment both personally and professionally, I lean towards this method. Likewise, a native XP bootable would also be very useful. (In this regard, I suggest the highly capable BartPE http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7FlimFlam: If you're curious, the reason you're getting dugg down is because (C) 1999-06 means the site creator has been working on the site since 1999, but has extended the copyright to this year. Same as saying copyright 1999-2006.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Stop using IE. Entirely. For any reason. Ever."
There are still times when you need to use IE. Windows Update site only works with IE. Lots of sites use ActiveX components. If you add ActiveX support to Firefox, you make FF just as easy a target as IE. Many sites are broken and don't render properly in anything but IE.
Absolute statements rarely hold up in the computing world. - natemc, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Someone want to sum this up for those that are code stupid?
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Maybe a lot of INTRANET, but few INTERNET... Use IE on your intranet, but please use some sense when browsing the web. And how many times per day do you really hit windowsupdate?"
All it takes is ONE website that you are interested in to break the "Stop using IE. Entirely. For any reason. Ever." rule.
The same goes for Windows Update. I agree that using IE as a daily browser is not a good idea but the absolute abolishment of IE use is impractical if not impossible for a large amount of people. - Rmplstltskn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I agree.
- liquidhot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Using Firefox doesn't stop adware. I just limits it. That's like saying Linux doesn't have viruses. I would say that 75% of the systems that I repair on a daily basis are caused because the user decided to download a 'free' program and it came loaded with adware. Firefox or IE, they still had it loaded with adware.
- eadnams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I work in consumer software support, which is mainly Adware/spyware removal these days. We swear by eWido in combination with another proven program like Spybot. Many of my co-workers refer to AdAware as a 'Glorified Cookie detector' due it its utter uselessness.
- Raian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I also had a pretty bad trojan/malware/virus that only adaware removed properly. Each time I tried to remove the file the computer would automatically restart... Ad Aware was able to remove the file before the computer started which was very helpful-- obviously there are other programs out there that would have done the trick, but ad aware was free.
- mcbean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Informative article. After recently being infected with a few nasty pieces of malware I can confirm Ad-Aware wasn't picking up any of them while others were.
- sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm a big fan of Ewido. Started using it when I worked at Circuit City, and it's absolutely amazing. Plus, IIRC, it does something about how it positions itself in memory that makes it so it can pick up some of the sneakier bits of malware. Personally, I run AVG, Ewido, Spybot, and Ad-Aware. Between the four I've yet to have ANY issues with this system, and they're all the free versions of the software. Works great.
http://ewido.org/ for Ewido
http://www.safer-networking.org/en/download/ for Spybot
http://www.grisoft.com/doc/1 for AVG - silverstrike, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14Okay, I've found the single greatest program on the planet for dealing with malware on windows, and I'll share that holy grail with you now:
http://www.mozilla.com
Stop using IE. Entirely. For any reason. Ever.
Couple that with a "don't run suspect executables" policy (that one really isn't hard folks) and the basic windows firewall (although, I have a hardware firewall), and I haven't seen a single piece of malware in over a year.
No Norton, Ad-Aware, Spybot required to swallow my memory in droves with their real-time monitoring, nor do I have to leave my machine on overnight so it can scan itself 7 times over.
And just to head off the inevitable now -- I do, from time to time, scan my box to see if anything has slipped through. So, at least in my case, ignorance is not the source of my bliss ;-) - bacirriu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You don't need source code. IDA, Softice, W32Dasm, gdb. Need I say more?
- vernsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's the copyright years, not when he had written it. Plus there was no "Lavasoft's Ad-Aware SE" version then.
- kwilliam71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I just ran SpyBot and it found 44 items (all cookies), so I cleaned them all. AFTER CLEANING I ran Ad-Aware. It found 91 additional items, two of which were registry keys, all the rest were cookies. Take that for what it's worth.
- sbutcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed - while the author has some bones to pick about the program internals, it generally comes up with the goods.
Such an article should only be read side-by-side with a results comparison. - bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't use Windows anymore but when I did Ad-Aware seemed to be doing a good job of getting rid of bad stuff. I used other programs along with it as well. It seemed to do the job. Plus it's ***** free. I can't complain. The guy seems to be bitching about security holes, but it's a god damn windows app for crissakes.
- drwtsn32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the article is full of excellent info.. it just sounds like it was written by someone whose native language is not English.
- ToddFFW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ad-ware is a problem because morons log in with Administrator privileges on their Windblowz XP machines. Windows wouldn't be half the security risk it is had Microsoft defaulted users to a restricted privilege set like Linux or OSX does. sudo pwnz.
- bluemech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I use SpySherrif, it catches all the viruses no matter what, and I didn't even have to download it! It came with crack.exe!
No I'm spyware free! - akkuma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What would be even better is if this author actually put the claims to a test. For instance, one could check to see how long it took to scan an entire system with numerous different programs, the number of malware detections (positives/false positives), etc. all on a "controlled" system meant specifically to find out if there is any merit to the author's claims.
For all we know Ad-Aware's algorithim, although "bad" according to the author, could wind up still working faster. If the claims of the author are true, perhaps ad-aware may still be really good as long as the type of malware you get isn't exactly the latest and 'greatest'. Regardless, if you are regularly getting serious malware you tend to be doing something on the internet that is risky and in an insecure environment so are only asking for trouble. - tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hmm interesting article. I've never really liked Ad-aware, but I never knew these facts. I just didn't like it because the Pro version I felt didn't do a good job in real-time monitoring. I had Spysweeper for a while, it's been awesome, it catches pretty much anything. I personally run Mcafee Virusscan Enterprise, Sygate Firewall (there's also a router), Spysweeper, and that's pretty much it. These items don't take up too much system resources. When I pick a security tools, I'm highly concerened about my system's performance.
Utilities such as Norton Anitvirus, they hog memory like crazy and are hard to uninstall. The only reason I care for memory usage is because it's a laptop.
When it's unplugged, you want to make sure that it boots up fast to the desktop, without waiting for the anti-virus, firewall or the anti-spyware, and any other software to be loaded. - aura, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's free and it detects peices of malware Spybot doesn't. I'm not complaining. I don't expect a perfect program for free.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dunno, all of the malicious programs that I've had on my computer were NEVER fixed by ANY of those programs ( Norton, Mcaffee, Winpatrol, Ad-aware, Spybot S-D, Windows Whatever ). The only way I managed to remove it was by hand. Now I don't trust any of 'em anymore.
- mexter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Using IE on the internet is like sex without a condom."
It's so wrong but it feels so right? This *is* IE we're talking about, right? The Tabless Wonder?
- me - - razorsharp84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the link comes up as red when using Site Advisor...better run Ad-Aware to see if anything was installed
- el_taco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@sporkwitch
and after waiting for all that to scan it'd be much faster just to reload imo - Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lets not forget the immunize function in spybot. I use it regularly & practically never get anything worse than a cookie. Using FF is a big help too.
- uownedge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For the few times I actually do anything with windows other than play games, I only browse with FireFox. Every once in a while I scan for malware, but haven't had a problem in years.
*nix and Mac OS are the best possible tools to avoid malware and viruses ;) *ducks!* - cwl157, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1alright, First i have been using ad-aware for a while and its done a good job. Second, i have an extension on my browser that says how safe a website is with a green if the site is good and red if the site is bad like pop ups or bad software downloads and the site with this article definetly came up red which means it loses credibiltiy in my book. Of course a site that administers sypware and adware is going to tell you a good program for detecting sypware and adware is bad.
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Was spybot updated?
- Bastian227, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Spyware, adware, etc. is not a problem for me. I don't grant that stuff admin rights to my computer. I used the same installation of Windows 2000 for five years; during that time I had no problems.
- chizad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1True or not, the author's sarcastic tone and writing style really detracts from his perceived credibility IMO.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I never really like Adaware. It really annoys me that it ALWAYS finds something "malicious".
I prefer Defender and Spybot. - algorythm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I havent had too much problem with Adaware personal edition, but the enterprise package is terrible. Any one use this in their company?
- torindkflt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I never relied on Ad-Aware alone. I always ran it in concert with Spybot and a reliable virus scanner. But, that doesn't mean I don't trust Ad-Aware, I don't see it as a misleading deceptive program. For me, it has had no problems whatsoever. Yes, Spybot has found stuff Ad-Aware has missed, yet on the other hand Ad-Aware has found stuff Spybot missed, this argument can be used when comparing any pair of malware removal programs, free or paid. I've been in the pc tech business for years, I know 100% what is real and what is not, and I can say with complete fact that none of the results Ad-Aware has shown me are false positives.
- yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Firefox, Adaware, Spybot, SpywareBlaster. Firewall. Period. End of story. Bye bye to viruses and spyware
-
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is