Re: Spyware is only a marketing gimmick?
From: Galen (galennews_at_gmail.com)
Date: 07/27/05
- Next message: raytravis: "Re: A new startup process SlowDowncpu.exe gets added"
- Previous message: Galen: "Re: antispyware-beta"
- In reply to: Matt Gibson: "Re: Spyware is only a marketing gimmick?"
- Next in thread: Matt Gibson: "Re: Spyware is only a marketing gimmick?"
- Reply: Matt Gibson: "Re: Spyware is only a marketing gimmick?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:23:46 -0400
In news:O86PNPgkFHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
Matt Gibson <mattg@blueedgetech.ca> had this to say:
My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
> Agreed.
>
> I believe it's quite obvious he's never had to deal with the more
> viriulent strains of Spyware.
>
> Matt Gibson - GSEC
Alright, I picked this one to respond to. Why you? Because I've read your
article and figure I'll thrust the question at you. <g> That's what you get
for putting GSEC at the end of your name. Someone might read it, find it,
and then decide to ask you questions.
My impression, from the tone of the article, is that he considers spyware to
be like any other malware and that this means that it is to be prevented and
cleaned. KAV offers enhanced definitions (I hate them personally as they eat
my perfectly legit DAP as "adware" even though I paid for for the
application and get no ads with it) and does actually do a decent job at
protecting your system from spyware.
My impression of the proposition is that he's putting forth that the need
for separate antispyware applications is not required provided the AV
application is also capable of defending against it. (With so many blended
threats these days who has time to split them and tell the difference
anyhow? They're all malware. Or so it seems the impression I am getting from
the article and also happen to agree with to some extent.) The additional
comments that the usage of the term spyware is more often than not a
marketing gimick may also prove correct. It seems that the hottest trend in
security is antispyware applications and he believes that this isn't
required assuming (and that's a big assumption) that the AV active
protection is adequate to prevent such things.
Idealy? I tend to agree. If the AV is adequate then the additional
protection isn't required.
Reality? I use real-time protection offered through MSAS and scan with two
other AS applications. I'm a paranoid fella...
I suppose that we/you/us are reading more into it than is writen.
To quote from the article:
So, technically speaking, spyware simply doesn't exist as a stand-alone
cyberthreat.
The programs which are being called spyware are, from a technical point of
view, simply a limited sub-set of Trojans, advertising software and some
riskware:
a.. Trojan spies and some backdoors
b.. most adware
c.. riskware - potentially hostile programs that require users to make
conscious choices about using them
End Quote...
(that will not come through formatted properly - I send in plain text of
course)
It seems that he's lumping all malware into a single topic and saying that
they can be prevented with a single application. Idealy? I'd like to agree.
Realistically? I don't trust it as much as I would like to.
Galen
-- "But there are always some lunatics about. It would be a dull world without them." Sherlock Holmes
- Next message: raytravis: "Re: A new startup process SlowDowncpu.exe gets added"
- Previous message: Galen: "Re: antispyware-beta"
- In reply to: Matt Gibson: "Re: Spyware is only a marketing gimmick?"
- Next in thread: Matt Gibson: "Re: Spyware is only a marketing gimmick?"
- Reply: Matt Gibson: "Re: Spyware is only a marketing gimmick?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
