WhenU delisted by Ad Aware, Pest Patrol?

I've watched this whole episode from afar, and have to say that the shortfall in the management of public and customer relations has been absolutely breathtaking to observe. There was the initial confusion, severe miscues at the support forums, follow-up comments which haven't appeared within the stated timeline, and a continuing vacuum of informed comment from the company. Absolutely abysmal and amateurish management of the situation and continuing customer expectations. While the irate population is certainly a decided minority, that fact of the matter is that these are the lead adopters and informal technical consultants for the bulk of the customers either directly or through postings on forums like these.

As for myself, I keep in mind that 'do know harm" should be the by-word of this industry. The missteps involved here cause the product to perform a little less good than it had in the past, but the change does not actively cause harm. For that reason, coupled with the general advice to users to employ multiple antispyware measures, the current situation really means that Lavasoft's actions provide most folks have a little less duplication of coverage than they previously possessed. For this reason, I do think that pre-emptive deinstallation of AdAware is the wrong course of action for now. Given coverage statistics outlined by Eric Howes here and the follow-up consolidation of the impact of two product coverage by Brian Livingston here, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that regardless of emotional rationale, removal of AdAware from a system at this time only increases your vulnerability. An informed reconsideration of products used and recommended should clearly be expected, but an emotional recoil does seem counterproductive to all.

I really feel for the forum volunteers and lower level staffers who are facing the brunt of the response here. It is in circumstances like these that it is clear that true leaders always lead from the front.

As in most circumstances where raw emotion is driving the response, that's a clear signal to step back and ask oneself "What do I wish to accomplish and how do my actions help achieve those goals".

Blue

 

I firmly believe that a layered approach to security is the most rational one to adopt. No single app can do everything and all have their individual strengths and weaknesses. I am concerned about Adawares policy regarding WhenU, just as i was with Alluria in a similar situation, however I will continue to use Adaware in conjunction with Spybot and MSAS, each covering the others back orifice (so to speak). Got to agree tho that a dysfunctional gibbon could have handled their PR aspect better.

Jock

 

So Lavasoft say that WhenU is being added back to the Ad-Aware database? Lets hope that they review the last six months of changes using the same method that has established that WhenU needs putting back. I am convinced that other adware/spyware has been removed incorrectly from the Ad-Aware database due to this TAC score being flawed.

muf

 

Hi,

The above quote from Paul's post pretty well sums up what I was trying to convey in my earlier post in this topic. Some of the things that have happened over the course of time have made me scratch my head in amazement!

I must confess that I am not 100% sure exactly what Paul meant in this quote, but from my perspective, the only valid reason for yanking Ad-aware off of your machine based on the decision to remove detection of WhenU would be because of a collaboration scenario between the two parties. There has not been one shred of evidence to support this assumption, to the best of my knowledge! To suggest that something underhanded is going on without any such proof is baseless hysteria and just plain irresponsible.

If you are talking about a question of integrity on Lavasoft's part,(and I do think that is exactly what Paul means), there is nothing I can see that warrants that assumption.

If we are talking about their attitude on daily decisions and policies which I personally think convey an arrogant take it or leave it, blind faith or else feeling, maybe you have something to think about. As said before, that is a personal decision that should not be based solely on one incident that has the attention focus, at this moment in time.

My reasons for posting this? After reading and re-reading other postings in this thread, it is entirely possible that the original intent of a post could very easily be totally misinterpreted. For example, in the beginning of my original post in this topic, I was talking about trust. Paul later posted and talked about trust. In my opinion, we are not really talking about the same thing, but how people interpreted those two posts could, in some people's eyes put me squarely in the middle of that bandwagon Paul mentioned. I most certainly do not want to be there! Call it paranoia, but I just wanted to clarify how I personally feel.

Best wishes,
VV

 

Is this applying politics to forums? because it sounds a lot like politics

 

This is the reason for the delay in responding: http://dc1e5dnl03.digitalriver.com/

Completely rewritten!

 

http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/index.php?showtopic=59336&view=findpost&p=391164

 

f.a.o lavasoft
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=10386&start=30
(my last post on this page)
i would like to post this on your forums but i can't.

Ben Eldeman's view of your new TAC
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12665642~mode=flat~start=420

"Problems with the new LavaSoft detection criteria

I carefully read the new TAC, as posted at »www.lavasoftnews.com/ms/research/tac.htm . I think the TAC remains a seriously flawed and poorly-designed. Let me explain.

Detection rules shouldn't be written in a vacuum. We've all seen what providers of unwanted software oten do, what behaviors systematically raise problems, what reforms are typical, and what issues often remain. Any sensible, helpful rules have to take into account the current points of contention and ambiguity -- the issues that have arisen time and time again. If rules are silent on these issues, they're unhelpful -- failing to give guidance toe the questions that inevitably arise.

So let's look at some example TAC criteria.

"Auto-updates without user permission and/or knowledge."

What does "user's permission and/or knowledge" mean? Does a EULA disclosure suffice to establish permission? Does a disclosure at the time of installation suffice to establish permission? Even if written in euphemisms? How about a permission granted only via a license shown in a link at time of installation, but never actually shown to users except upon their specific request? Or is the only permissible approach what legit companies do -- actually showing users some on-screen indication when an auto-update is to occur? I think this last reading is the most sensible and, conveniently, also the most pro-consumer. But there's so much ambiguity in the stated "rule" (if we can call it that) that it's far from clear what the rule actually means. Can Claria claim to update only with user permission because, when Claria was installed (potentially months or years before), a user had an opportunity to click a confusingly-worded link to view a license, that on page 25 of 50 would have mentioned an auto-updater?

"Connects to a remote system with or without the user's awareness to transmit usage statistics and/or personally identifiable information.

This statement raises all the same problems. Can a mere EULA suffice to establish a user's "awareness"? Even if that EULA is never actually shown? Or shown only in a tiny scroll box with dozens of pages of hard-to-read text?

I like the idea behind "Serves no discernable function other than as a vehicle for the distribution of advertising content." But what does "no discernable function" mean? How about "comes bundled with a P2P program that a user requested"? Is that a "discernable function"?

So, at every turn the TAC identifies behaviors related to what problematic programs do. But never does the TAC draw a real line in the sand. Implement this TAC, and you'll still get call after call from vendors claiming their EULAs grant them full permission to do everything they do. A better TAC would make it clear that users' supposed permission is not enough -- that when users are tricked into installing the software, via deceptive popups or confusing bundles, no "consent" can possibly be granted. Or if Lavasoft's position is that in fact a EULA is sufficient to permit all the behaviors described above, then why not come out and say so, so your users can then decide if that's the kind of company they want to count on for detection and removal services."

 

Hi! Just thought I'd let you know that the initial version of the WhenU uninstaller has been released. http://www.lavasoft.de/support/download/

 

It seems to me Mr. Wilder, that it is incumbent upon you to go to Lavasoft and ask your questions, since you are the individual who keeps the controversy going, and it is you that is not satisfied with the answers supplied here.

Why rely on second hand answers when you are free to go there and ask you questions if you are all that concerned about the issue. Then you are free to come back here and write up any column you please with first hand quotes from the officials you named.

I for one will continue to use AdAware and have not lost my faith in them at all. Where is all the outrage at MS when they make an error. Do you tell everyone to not use MS products? How about a little fairness here.

Thanks for your time.

 

All the better, don't speak with them on the LS support forum. Get in touch with them in private, do an interview and post their replies in their entirety. Sounds fairly simple rather than have to rely on them or their forum adimins. and moderators to bring the info to you.

On the subject of bashing LS........I think yiou have in a round about way just by letting the bashing go on on your this forum without not even a word of trying to settle the issue down a bit and caution against inflamatory comments by the posters. So we can leave it at that ........we will agree to disagree.

 

Wasn't there a huge issue here at Wilders a couple of years back over Lavasoft and their secrecy and the way they handled (or mishandled) customer service issues? I remember a big row that could all be repeated today with just a change here and there.

 

Lets hope that they have taken on board the lessons learnt over this.Customer support has always been their Achilles heel and in the past any criticism was swept under the carpet.

Trust once lost, is hard to regain.

A watching brief in this case.

Onwards and Upwards

 

I understand that emotions are high and am glad that because of Eric's analysis and professionalism, this issue was brought to the surface and is being resolved. In fact, based on my understanding, I believe we will see additional positive changes.

On a personal note, I have many special friends who are long-time members here at Wilders as well as other forums I visit. Most are also proud members of ASAP. As a result, I hope that a spitting match can be avoided and that, instead, we can all work together in the spirit of ASAP

 

Hi All:

I promised that I would post a reply to Lavasoft's anticipated announcement. I've finally done that -- see my long post on this page at DSLR:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12665642~mode=flat~start=560

The discussion following spills over onto the next page.

Also, I've started this thread at DSLR to discuss criteria and targeting definitions used by anti-spyware applications.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,12746264~mode=flat

Best,

Eric L. Howes

 

Eric, as usual, your professionalism is admired.

 

Everyone keeps talking about Lavasoft, how about pestpatrol though has anyone heard anything from them or contacted them.

 

Good point dread,

I would be interested in any answer myself.

 

They've re-introduced the WhenU "crapware" to their detection lists.

I think they got scared.

 

Ok cool ty. I was gonna post on their forums but didnt. Figured they wouldnt answere. They have sucky forum support. You got more support from
pestpatrol's old forums before they closed down than since ca took them over. Figured they didnt care. Well at least ca fears something lol.

 

another thing puzzling me which i hope someone can shed light on.this is with reguards to the CA pest patrol position.
they dropped/doctored WhenU detections citing a review of the company was in progress due to an appeal lodged by WhenU.
they reinstated WhenU detections more than likely as a result(to exploit for capital gain) of the bad PR(recent events) over at lavasoft.
has their review of WhenU's appeal been completed or have they changed company policy to keep detections in their database for duration of the appeal ?

any takers?

 

I have just posted a thread on the Lavasoft support forum asking what will be done to prevent such a controversy occuring again. Don't know if it will stay there or not.

Thread URL: http://www.lavasoftsupport.com/index.php?showtopic=59938&st=0&#entry394527

Jimbob