Spymove & Kau antivirus ???

Nah, I'll come especially late so I am not tempted to make the coffee

 

I don't see why any AV Scanner should flag such software - or flag software that cause problems in general. That doesn't make sense.
I don't really understand what the problem is - why it should be flagged.
There are so many "rogue" programs out there, but you really can't call them malware - just a bad program you should uninstall.

 

KAU Antivirus is as much as dangerous as flyshit on your monitor. If you flag this then you also should detect ClamAV itself and rotten bananas & apples in the kitchen as malicious as well. Regarding the other program - if you start including programs into detection because they do not detect things which they claim then we should right now start to include a few other newcomer AV solutions: Let's start with comodo, then UNA Antivirus and oh yes - Kaspersky missed this particular trojan just lets included them as well Heck is it really so difficult to understand that AV programs are designed and supposed to flag MALICIOUS software? Why should we flag innocent applications?

 

I think AV's must flag Microsoft Windows , it is real crapware.

 

I think they should add a new categorize called innocent programs that dont do what they say on the tin IMO
lodore

 

@ Inspector Clouseau

So you think it is alright for you to say first quote

but when I ask you to run spymove not just analise it you don't like it? Nobody was telling you what to do why do you think that?

Once again you missed things that people wrote? You should know that BOClean alerts with a message saying malware when it detects something, maybe you didn't know that? but i explained that before. If you continue to misread or miss what people write, and then reply as if they have said something different we are not at fault so no bs on our part it's coming from others. I don't know if it's lazyness on your part, or because you are not english?

Who wants flyshit on their monitor? It might be not be dangerous but you still have to spend time cleaning it up. Maybe starting to include a few other av's might be a good idea like you said, see my screenshot for some clues on those av's that are still not detecting a gromozon file from months back. Recognise any names in the list?

~removed imageshack imaged which is against our policy to post....Bubba~

@ ibk

I have explained more than once about BOCleans message alert on detection of something, it happens to say malware, in the version before it said trojan. Malware covers more ground than just saying trojan that is why it was changed. And I have explained more than once why spymove and kau are detected, because they are either of little or no use or mess up your desktop. However you look at it they are not something anyone would want to run or keep, unless they like useless products? So detecting and removing them saves people from having to delete them manually if they are stupid enough to download and run them.

@ hurzelpurzel

You are now misreading or misquoting me? You quoted

This is what I really said and was talking about.

(Nsclean added detection for kau after testing it themselves, again after reports to them it may have been a false positive, they have not excluded it from the definitions. If the Mike you talk about is Inspector Clouseau then he is mistaken in what he thinks.) So you are also wrong there not me. Once again they are not included because they are malware but because of the reasons said before which you missed as well.

You also missed that i have said more than once spymove and kau are not malware, just useless. So writing lines about someones credentials was pointless and proves nothing, except some people do not read very well whatever status they might have or think they have or others imagine they have.

@ miekiemoes

Some people prefer not to have to have problems or spend time cleaning up especially companies, even if individuals do not mind.


StevieO

 

Your last post makes you a perfect Forum Troll, that's all i have to say to this.
Please explain to me why BOCLEAN says it's malware if they say it isn't? Or better question how can they be unsure if it is malware or not? I say it now for the very last time - both of the programs are NOT malicious. And KAU Antivirus is not even a Rogue Software! It uses ClamAV Engine and Signatures and is OPEN SOURCE. Have u ever seen a open source rogue antivirus program?! And if you say that it is "scumware" then you basically make this conclusion also to ClamAV. I'm not impressed by ClamAV myself, but this doesn't make it a rogue software! It does not even make it useless, since it is for a linux machine a reasonable protection at least for catching a lot of annoying email worms.

Next thing is we are not speaking here about detection of gromozon. Don't try to change the topic now after you found out that it's not so easy to fool technical oriented people with your bullshit here.

 

1. it does not fall in the category of malware, as it is NOT malicious. This means: it can not be called malware (because it is NOT malware).
2. antitrust
3. Do not understand what this discussion is all about. I would understand it if you were saying some products deliberatly do not protect you against a new rootkit or real malware. But all this typed words for discussing about the detection of a clean unknown product is silly and useless. maybe some software removes such threads automatically from forums because its considered useless and messes up forums... would save peoples from having to read such posts and to shake their heads

 

Hmmm? No one supported it, we just do not approve that someone tags software "crapware" at the same time relating it to malware. Who decides what is "crapware". I can imagine - and past has proven this partially is the case - that some company will love to tag the product of their competitor "crapware" ...

I quoted you, not myself:

... I don't get which part of quoting you accounts for misreading or misquoting on my side
My post clearly says whom I quoted, your post says "Originally Posted by hurzelpurzel" while you quote me quoting you!

Jap, you wrote exactly:

... of which I quoted a part. And yes, "Inspector Clouseau" is the same as Mike to answer that question.

It seems that this proves much more than you think. Sure, there is no rule about professionals being right per definitionem, yet you should also read more closely what others write ... not only ask others to do so.

You said:

... and yes, this clearly looks like you don't call it malware (which was your question in your very first post in this thread), but the problem is, that they are false positives in a software that calls itself "Full Spectrum Antimalware", since the name of the software detecting it implies it must be malware. If you wanted to flag everything one could call "crapware" there would be a lot more to detect, starting with programs that are unusable because the author(s) had no clue at all of GUI design - compatibility with visually impaired users would be one such criteria ... but where does that end?

To sum up: your very first post posed the question whether this is malware. It was clearly said it is not, yet you seem not be willing to accept this, which is clearly shown by the ongoing discussion in which you attempt to relativise your own previous statements. Period.

But since the discussion clearly shows we will not come to a consensus, I'll most likely not reply once more if you decide to base your response on ad-hominem statements again.

Cheers.