WhenU delisted by Ad Aware, Pest Patrol?

It would seem that Lavasoft's Ad Aware SE is no longer targetting WhenU in the most current definitions update (as of the time of this post). Seems that there was no mention of WhenU being removed in the update announcements by Lavasoft. source

Pest Patrol also seems to have dropped WhenU from it's detections as well, and Aluria seems to have added WhenU back into it's detection database. Remember that WhenU and Aluria have partnered together, so targetting WhenU seems odd.

More info: http://www.spywareinfoforum.com/articles/spyware/whenu_detection_dropped.php

http://netrn.net/spywareblog/archives/2005/02/13/dont-drink-the-whenu-kool-aid/

 

Thanks Nick for posting this,

It shall be interesting to see what public statements Lavasoft & CA will make ... They have no other choice but to disclose this issue now. Good Work Eric & Mike!

Steve

 

Eric now has a detailed post at dslreports.com about this: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12665642~mode=flat

Also, I was searching around Wilders for any WhenU info and came across this old topic that I thought was interesting given the current news https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=981&highlight=whenu

 

Lavasoft seemed silent so far & they even deleted Eric's detailed post in their forum but brought it back after a few hours. I for one kept on eye on that thread ar DSLR. Now once they lost the trust of consumers would they able to to get back on track?

 

The Discussion @ Lavasofts Forums is on again ... It's now located here --> Explaination for Corrine & IAMSKINZ -->http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/index.php?showtopic=59008

Corrine has C 'n' P Eric's original Lavasoft thread from the DSLR thread, that was posted from a members cache. Below are their Quotes from this new Lavasoft Thread, that provide an explaination about the deletion of the original thread. An answer is still forth coming

 

Thx Dog. Lets wait for a week & see what Lavasoft comes up with an answer

 

This is just another reason why you have to run multiple anti-spyware programs. Spyware is a big business now, antispyware companies can easily get paid off to look the other way on specific spyware. Or worse yet do something like that assclown in New Jersey that got busted for running two companies, one that made spyware and another that made anit-spyware. His antispyware would remove everything but his spyware thus was not designed with the intent to help the consumer but more so to eliminate his competition and make a fat profit while he was at it.

Antispyware companies should be held accountable and indictments should be issued any for anti-spyware company and their officials whose product intentionally ignores specific forms of spyware for their own financial gain. Currently I believe it is way to easy for these companies to milk the profit at both ends so to speak, so to be safe we will have to continue using multiple anti-spyware apps to cover our own butts.

 

http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/index.php?showtopic=59008&view=findpost&p=389510

Lavasoft Threat Assessment Chart

 

Well ..even though they said the definition will be re-introduced in the forthcoming definition...think will have to do couple of more tests before getting my trust back on them. I for one feeling a lil guilty cause i recommended & installed it in many of friends pc & neighbours one as well....phew

 

Perhaps I am reading you wrong....but are implying you have read somewhere that WhenU will be back in the next database ?

"In case it turns out that the removal was incorrect, WhenU will naturally be reintroduced to the database."

 

Are you implying something? If so let's hear it and let us see the evidence. Otherwise such accusations should not be so easily tossed about with such an "air of mystery."

 

Yup Sorry Bubba...should have put that on the right way....

 

Hmm, while the explanation of why WhenU was delisted is more than exceptable on its own, it still doesn't account for Lavasoft failure to disclose this in it's update announcements, which is customary and expected. This whole incidence is rather unfortunate, but with that said, Lavasoft has more than gained my trust over the years; and deservedly so. So I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of doubt, and have that trust continue, which will naturally be a little more guarded.

Steve

 

exactly

still a topnotch program and I will continue to recommend it untill I'll personally won't use it myself any longer...


Inf.

 

I'm finding it very difficult to trust any adware/spyware remover to be thorough anymore. When the ultimate motive for the vendor of a remover is to make a profit, that opens the door for conflicts of interests, buckling under legal pressure, or decisions based on the "bottom line" instead of the needs/wants of the consumer. I'm not accusing any of them of these behaviors but the recent actions of several make it hard not to question their motives.
What we could really use is an Open Source adware/spyware remover, one free of financial influences, built and maintained by people who believe in what they do and do it because they want to. The type of attitudes that produced Mozilla and Open Office.org.
What's targeted should be kept very simple and straight forward:

• If it gets installed without the owners, not a users, knowlege, it's a target. No "it mentions this in the EULA" exclusions. Too many hiding behind book-sized EULAs.
• If it doesn't come with an obvious and thorough uninstaller, it's a target. Not separate uninstallers for each component in a bundle. If it came as a bundle, the uninstaller should remove it as a bundle, all of it. The owner shouldn't be expected to track down everything that was in a bundle.
• If it collects personal info, usage tracks, etc, it's a target.

Too many times I've seen the statement "The owner is responsible for what's on his/her computer" used when someone asks for help removing something that the particular remover doesn't target. While I have to agree with that statement, it means nothing if the owner isn't empowered to control what's on his computer, something the adware/spyware vendors seem to have forgotten. I've seen too many users going from forum to forum, product to product, looking for someone or something that will "get this junk off my computer".
A huge amount of time and effort is spent by volunteers at support forums cleaning up after remover programs and their missed detections. I think I speak for most of us when I say "we do this because we want to and we believe that our computers belong to us". Instead of just cleaning up after an ever increasing number of dropped and missed detections, why don't we join up and produce an Open Source adware/spyware remover. There's more than enough talent, skill, and dedication in the combined individuals at these different forums to get the job done. We're already volunteering our time and energy. Lets do something really good with it and solve this problem.
Rick

 

"What we could really use is an Open Source adware/spyware remover, one free of financial influences, built and maintained by people who believe in what they do and do it because they want to. The type of attitudes that produced Mozilla and Open Office.org."

I agree,

Open Source is the way only way to go ... the general public should guard their own backs and not leave the defense to a 3rd party software maker bent on making a profit ... and over charging for yearly definitions that may or may not include whomever currently owns their integrity and soul.

 

Ok I reworded it so maybe now so you can lower your blood pressure a couple of notches.

 

Now that’s an excellent idea!

To bad I am C+ challenged or I would gladly help in an endeavor such as this.

 

Not to continue this thread off-topic, but Notok started a thread about a new Open-Source Anti-Spy Program/App
( Spymonitor 0.1) - Here if anyone would be interested in checking it out.

Steve

 

~Latest Press Releases 2005-02-15~

Lavasoft does not cooperate with WhenU!

 

Sorry Bubba, I couldn't get your link to work. So I'll post this one -> http://www.lavasoft.de/news/press

Steve

 

That doesn't matter if it didn't score more than 2 TAC points. What matters is that they didn't notify customers about the delisting of WhenU...

 

Thanks Dog....link working now

 

Like many of you, I have been a follower of Ad-aware for a long time. As a matter-of-fact, Mr. Gibson's recommendation of Ad-aware following the non-development of his OptOut program, was my initial introduction to the security side of things. Unlike many of you, I do not have any background in computers, nor do I work with them on a day-to-day basis. I am an automotive technician for a large(2000 plus employees)construction company in the northern Virginia area. Six or seven years ago, I didn't even know how to turn a computer on, must less properly shut it down or maintain it, or anything else related to it. What this long-winded introduction is trying to get across, is the fact that all that I have learned, has come from sites such as this one, and in the beginning, with the Lavasoft forums back in the VOP days. It was essential to the process, that trust be involved. That is obvious and requires no explanation.

BUT.... over the years, I have seen many things happen concerning Ad-aware that I just can't reasonably ignore any longer. It began for me with the resignation of Paul Wilders at the VOP board. Way to much has already been written about the problems between Mikey and Lavasoft, followed later by Ahmad's disappearance from the scene. Then there was Mike Healan and Tom(Coyote)Wilson, more recently, SpyDie and Aaron, and anyone that keeps up with it knows that is only a partial list. While I don't claim to know specifics for anyone I have mentioned, it is disturbing to watch the turnover of good and respected people surrounding Lavasoft.
Posts at the Lavasoft board disappeared right and left if they portrayed Lavasoft in a less than desirable perspective.
Before Ad-aware 6 finally saw the light of day, there was an extended period of time when Ad-aware users were fed the same ole same ole story about there is nothing wrong, while instructing people to remove items from their computers using a program which was woefully out of date. I don't think anyone will argue that advice of that nature is not wise, if not downright dangerous.
Now, suddenly a detection is removed without any advance warning, even though previously this type of thing was usually made note of, and SHOULD BE noted, if for no other reason than people are made aware of the changes. Much to do was made of the detection of a competing product, because, even though it had been delisted on Eric's list, it was said that did not apply to earlier versions of said product, but apparently no such misgivings exist in this case. Does anyone really believe that to be reasonable?
There is no one reading this who hopes more than I do, that this will all work out for the best. But, I must ask, how many times must a loyal follower feel that he has to make an excuse for something else, before too much is really too much?

To the administration of this site, some of the things I have said to try and make my point, may be borderline or even over the line concerning allowable postings, so if this is the case, please accept my apologies in advance and remove any offending parts. No explanation necessary for my benefit.

Best wishes,
VV

 

I don't see anything wrong with your post

You bring up excellent points, and I agree with them all.

It's just that I don't want a program which you assume detects a spyware but, in reality, it doesn't. Many people who don't have any background in computers would most likely use Ad-Aware. What they don't know is that there is junk being left on your computer. (There may be more that is just like WhenU, where the definitions do not include it)

I don't believe in the TAC system. It should be: "if it's spyware, detect it and remove it". Not: "If it has a TAC value of 2, and is under 3, it will not be detected and removed."

Even so, they did not notify the public that they removed it from their definitions