SUMO...Malware or not?

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by The Red Moon, Jan 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    Any opinions on this update program please..i think its the best out there and im using the portable version ...Im still unsure.:ouch: :ouch:
     
  2. Wild Hunter

    Wild Hunter Former Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Posts:
    1,375
    It isn't.

    However, SUMo's standard build comes with an optional adware. And adwares are considered to be a kind of malware.

    One can always use the Lite or Portable builds of SUMo. They are completely clean.

    Also, SUMo's developer is an active member of this forum: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/member.php?u=76494

    He can probably better answer this.
     
  3. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    thanks im using the portable version and checked it out via virustotal etc and seems clean.:argh:
     
  4. d0t

    d0t Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Posts:
    181
    I can't acess SUMo's website. A member here, on Wilders, said that WSA blocks it. I'm not sure :p
     
  5. Wild Hunter

    Wild Hunter Former Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Posts:
    1,375
    WSA isn't blocking SUMo anymore AFAIK.
     
  6. puff-m-d

    puff-m-d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    4,451
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    WSA here and no problems getting there for me. MBAM was blocking it but an update yesterday supposedly fixed it. I do not have MBAM so I cannot verify that the site is now unblocked. If you have MBAM, just be sure it is up to date and you should be fine.
     
  7. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    Well kaspersky does not block the website but does block sumo from running as untrusted..
    Only less than ten users in KSN..:blink:
     
  8. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,718
    This has been mentioned and discussed on this forum several times already. SUMo as a program itself is clean.

    Controversies arise due to the bundled Relevant Knowledge which is adware and classified/detected as spyware by some AV vendors. There have been debates on whether RK is spyware but I'll leave it to you to decide...

    Here's the problem (it's twofold) and is common for all software bundles.

    If you look at it solely on ethics, it's unacceptable. As much as the crapware bundled in SUMo regular is optional, it also relies on user not noticing it.

    On the other hand, if you look at it on business grounds and consider the costs that needs to be covered, it's a form of compromise as that is the developer's current source of revenue.

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1483565&postcount=9

    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2163193&postcount=458

    Now, it's only a matter of what your stance is. If you don't mind such a policy in exchange for a program that works, then the developer does offer the Lite or Portable builds that comes without RK. On the other hand, if you feel uncomfortable or simply disagree with the way things are handled, then it is within your rights not to use it.
     
  9. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    I'm really surprised anyone here endorses it to be honest. I've seen some rather heated discussions here about and damning of vendors who bundle anything with their products, let alone full-blown adware. In my opinion, AV vendors have every right to classify RK as bad. My comments aren't made against Kyle, as he obviously is here practically every day supporting the users of SUMO and that should be appreciated. It's just strange to see the flip-flopping. Credit needs to be given where it's due though, because Kyle readily provides a "clean" version for us, when he could just say it's RK or nothing and reap probably far better income. Perhaps that's why he's shown some mercy.
     
  10. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,634
    Location:
    UK
    It's the Relevant Knowledge bundle contained in the main installer that is being picked up by some anti-malware products. As has been suggested, you can use the lite or portable versions instead. However, my argument is if we tell people to use the lite version, for example, it makes use of the main installer redundant as more people will be using that.

    Kyle obviously needs/wants to make some money. Make the product donationware or, better still, charge a nominal fee for the use of it, and have done with the RK stuff.
     
  11. Fontaine

    Fontaine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Posts:
    245

    I agree wholeheartedly with this comment and will add that when I just tried to install it, the RK option was presented as if it's a terms of service message with a simple "accept" or "decline" option. Most users will "accept" without reading all the text in the box because they will assume it's TOS and they must accept in order to install (not the case).

    The RK option should be presented in a much clearer manner so the average user out there knows what they are installing. The way the software is coded right now rightfully puts it on the AV detection lists. I stopped installation solely because the software was too 'sneaky' for me.
     
  12. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
  13. d0t

    d0t Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Posts:
    181
    I sure understand SUMO's developers need/want money but the way the chose to profit is, in MY opinion, very dishonest.

    Ofc I know about the malware free version... what about the people who don't even know what RK is?
     
  14. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    That is not entirely fair to the developer..he is not being dishonest as he has made it clear there is a reason for the adware.and his website does show a adfree version to download.So he isnt sneaking anything in at all.
    If you look at a lot of software and there installers they try to get users to install google chrome or the ask toolbar etc so in that respect there is no difference.:argh:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.