Now it is Computer Cops Turn

Well we all know now that Lavasoft removed WhenU from detection because they were threatened by WhenU attorneys. On the same day we learn that Computer Cops announces that they have just received a cease and desist letter from IDownload.com attorneys. These sleazy tactics will next be pointed at Spybot most likely and other applications that help the user to be free of spyware.Where does it all end? Do the sleazeballs end up winning? What can we all do to help the good guys?

http://castlecops.com/article-5762-nested-0-0.html

 

if it ends up in in front of a judge I'll pay some money to support them.

we all should if you ask me.

 

Link Please

 

Can't they just label it seperately? Give it it's own category.. "Shittyware"

 

Well, in regards to the letter from the attorney's representing iDownload's iSearch toolbar to Castle Cops.

You can count me in for a few bucks too!

~Nice~ to see Corporate America throwing the muscle of money around to try eliminate any resistance ... We have to nip this in the bud, because if this type of action successfully backs down the Anti-Spy Community, this tactic will steadily become the standard action.

Sorry Paul ... from under a black cloud, then back into the sunshine ... and now another black cloud grows on the horizon. Stay Strong, Know that you'll have the support of the "community", because even though this action is directly pointed at Castle Cops, we all have something to lose.

I'm glad your a survivor and a fighter. I hope this is a fight in which you can participate in and win. If you have to fold your hand, we'll certainly understand that too. Hopefully, they've picked on the wrong little guy.

Best Wishes;

Steve

 

AMEN!!!

 

Oh my....

ALL THE BEST Paul-ZX !!!!!

 

This is total [Censored]

Jimbob

 

This may seen a somewhat ignorant question, but....

How come the security forums are saying it containst malware and the companies saying it doesn't?

Jimbob

 

It is about time these " sleazy parasites " should be made to answer for the grief and misery they cause all computer users !!

 

Based on the definition of Foistware as per this link

http://www.dbo.ca/it-spyware.htm

it certainly appears that the CastleCop letter is inaccurate. The letter addresses only the issue of Spyware... at least as I read it. Lawyers might find other embedded words otherwise..

 

Due to the fact that Lavasoft doesn't have the balls to stay in the fight, I have removed AdAware from my sig - nor will I recommend it to anyone anymore.

Furthermore, should ComputerCops - or SBS&D - need funds with which to defend themselves from these kinds of "legal" attacks, I will cheerfully send them whatever I can every time I can.

I have no idea whatever whether Lavasoft was threatened with legal action or not - they won't solidly confirm or deny it (they've always had a problem with keeping their customers fully informed about anything - I guess they either don't care what our opinions/questions would be - nor whether we'd be willing to help them or not - I'm more upset by this fact than I am about the exclusion of WhenU, actually. They simply don't value their own customers!).

It's quite discouraging to realize that Lavasoft doesn't even have the brains to realize that all they have to do is make simple terminology changes, detections-wise, to make themselves totally immune from any present or future threat of lawsuits.

I urge everyone who really has the will to help us draw a line in the sand about this to contribute both to ComputerCops and to SBS&D immediately.

Money talks - and we all know what walks. All the bitching, hand-wringing and crying in the world isn't going to change the outcome of this current trend by the spyware-makers - all that will stop it is individuals like you and me, sending cold, hard cash to the people we want to stand up for us. Pete

 

You couldn't be more right. There are ways of dealing with these intimidating letters. Sending one right back telling them that they fit the generally accepted definition and vowing to stand their ground usually works. If they sue, there are many attorneys who would be willing, in any locale, to show up and ask that it be thrown out. Nobody likes this spyware crap. Not only thrown out, but a letter with the threat of a frivolous suit in return would probably shut them up in the first place. You are also right about Lavasoft running things so secretively. They lack the basics when it comes to dealing with customers. They are lightweight and I agree with your sentiments. It makes you wonder what else was promised to not be detected after intimidating letters when the other party saw fit to keep it out of the news.

 

Here is my analysis.

On a bright sunny day, I decided to go to http://toolbar.isearch.com/

I downloaded the "install.exe"; a rather quick download if I must note.

I run it.

http://img199.exs.cx/img199/9341/12fz.png

Whoa! What's this?!

As blind as a bat, I click on Allow.

http://img122.exs.cx/img122/4544/20qo.png

Again, as blind as a bat, I click on Yes.

The installation finishes, and it asks me if I would like to start iSearch. I say OK.

I do a simple search with Barney. I type this in the toolbar.

On the right-hand side of the window, I see this:

http://img77.exs.cx/img77/6522/31lw.png

Sex?! Casino?! WHOA!

Let me ask you this: If your little 5-year-old child liked Barney, and somehow searched for Barney through iSearch, they could accidently be exposed to a whole different world through that small 3 char link. Smart? Absolutely not.

Anyways, back to my little journey.

I close Internet Explorer. I re-open it again.

I see this:

http://img231.exs.cx/img231/4941/42qf.png

WHOA! WE HAVE MADE CONTACT! (Well, almost.)

I block the attempt, and I jot down the IP.

I fire up SmartWhois, and enter the IP.

http://img59.exs.cx/img59/4373/59nd.png

http://www.webair.net/ was the host iSearch was trying to connect to.

I had no idea what iSearch was about to send or where it was exactly connecting to, but things were getting weird, and I decided that I've had enough of this.

I start Microsoft Antispyware:

http://img77.exs.cx/img77/2775/64rg.png

It detects "iSearch.Toolbar". I wonder why?

Anyways, MAS froze midway, so I decided to go searching on Google for a removal tool. I found one on:

http://toolbar.isearch.com/uninstall/

I download and I run it.

http://img26.exs.cx/img26/1827/70en.png

After "removing it" *cough* I open HijackThis.

http://img150.exs.cx/img150/13/81gv.png

WHAT?! /VERYSILENT?! The context-menu option is still installed?! WHOA!

I'm still in the process of removing it completely.

After running the removal tool (created by iSearch.com, *cough*), I get this after a scan in Microsoft Antispyware:

http://img66.exs.cx/img66/7350/98lx.th.png

Note that the two are the same.

Now for my thoughts.

Quote on iSearch.com Tool Bar Uninstall:

"So called ad ware removers and spy ware removers"?

"there is no third party software which is capable of removing iSearch applications"

"we encourage you to contact your credit card company and request an immediate reversal with the reason of "Product Not As Described" and/or contact the Better Business Bureau."

Product Not As Described? Better Business Bureau?

I'm not sure what iSearch was about to send, but I don't want to know.

"iSearch does not gather any personally identifiable information about end users"

I believe the IP address is personal, and identifies the end user. I've been taught that the IP of a user is their identity on the Internet. Why? It identifies their computer, their ISP, etc. People skilled enough could hack into their computer THROUGH THE IP and download personal files.

I'm not saying iSearch is spyware. I'm not sure if it is.

Let's just say these are the "Findings of a Curious Internet User", and leave it at that.

BTW, if iSearch/iDownload is threatening CastleCops (of which I have great respect for, and am aggravated on a personal level by this piece of news), then why don't they start a lawsuit against Microsoft? Microsoft detected it as spyware (in a few of the above images). Are they too scared of Microsoft's money, power and lawyers?

 

Also, if they don't want to be identified as spyware, they can be called crapware.

 

KYE-U,

Excellent post! It should be forwarded to Castlecops! By the way, Symantec detects iSearch as "spyware" - I wonder if this law firm has the balls to threaten Symantec?
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/spyware.isearch.html

 

I think I'll drop this law firm an email. What scum.

 

Thanks Gerard

I wonder if they have the guts to threaten Microsoft. It'll be like a mosquito trying to stick its "mouth" into Arnold's (the governor of California) muscular arm. One flick of the arm, and the mosquito is sent flying.

I'm deeply irritated by their incompetence for three reasons:

1) ComputerCops is more of a security news site.
2) I am considerably close to the owner of CC, who supports Proxomitron. (and was close friends with Scott Lemmon, the creator of Proxomitron, God Bless His Soul)
3) This shows that iDownload/iSearch is threatening CC instead of Microsoft, probably because they're scared of what Microsoft would do if threatened.

 

I don't believe an address was given. Anyway, why email the law firm, they are just pupets, why not email the company operating the pupets

Jimbob

 

No press release saying this. But Jerry Skinner's latest post in the LavaSoft thread rather clearly points to this as the reason.


"The trackware, etc. has grown from it's infancy. There are many of those that have found that a profit can be made from it. They have found ways to legally get away with installing it on unfortunate users machines no matter whether they are challenged or not. This is through the EULA's they require all users whether challenged or not to agree to.
We cannot breach the legalities of this without a confrontation ensuing.

I do not believe that all of the users of Ad-Aware, or any other scanning\detection\user choice removal products can lay the blame for the content on their machines that they downloaded on the product that they choose to use to remove it if it is not legal to do so."
http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/index.php?showtopic=59013&st=80

 

I didn't think so

 

Hi all
From what I have read about this both here and on other forums, it looks to me like this is just the start of a new front in the fight. the scumware vendors are "testing the waters" by intimidating (financially)vulnerable opponents such as the forums and smaller companies to try and establish precedents and case law.
They cannot be permitted to succeed.
I personally would welcome the opportunity to argue that the EULA invoked by iSearch/Idownloader was neither fair nor enforceable (at least in UK law).
which brings me to my point-I want to take the fight to them, and in the UK, we have a mechanism called "The small claims court", where individuals can seek redress agains others in a legally legitimate venue at small cost to themselves. If any of the scumware merchants were UK companies or had UK divisions, they could be sued for any damage, nuisance or loss of facility that their products caused an individual who downloaded them, on the basis that the EULA was not binding because of its convoluted structure and lack of transparency, and that as a result, they were liable for the effects of the software installed by their application.
So.
can anyone tell me if there is a suitable "target" out there in that pool of ordure inhabited by such as iSearch? That is UK based or witha division in the UK?
I am serious about this and welcome your thoughts.

Jock

ps, wasnt it IDownload that were behind the snide(fake) patch for Win. Media Player recently? - I note (along with others above) that they seem reluctant to challenge Mr. Gates regarding the classification that his products assign them to!

 

Hi All:

Suzi of Spyware Warrior has now revealed that she, too, received a letter from iDownload/iSearch:

http://netrn.net/spywareblog/archives/2005/02/22/idownloads-product-is-not-malware/

Best,

Eric L. Howes