ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb Posted December 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 Everyone here agrees that multiple anti-spyware programs is the safest way to go. One program will be a little late with definition updates (e.g. Spybot Search & Destroy updates just once a week, AVG Anti-Spyware updates [by default] every 8 hours). Some programs will allow certain things that others regard as spyware, e.g. Ad-aware's way of defining spyware was so controversial that they needed to shut down their support forum as they almost had a war breaking out. The same goes for cookies - some view it as a threat, others do not.So, having multiple anti-spyware problem will protect us best; each is looking out for specific threats. I don't need WD to look for tracking cookies; CCleaner has already eliminated them. And if CCleaner doesn't do it, AVG Anti-Spyware will.P.S. I don't like anti-spyware programs that boast that they have just eliminated 28 threats, when in fact they have just deleted 28 cookies. A spyware infection can be something very serious and damaging to your computer; a cookie is a rather harmless affair that you can even delete by hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 It's not cookies in general that I object to, it's the ones that every other Spyware detector states are something best not to be on a machine and which WD ignores.Why do MS go against the perceived view that tracking cookies - things that track my Internet use and report back to base - be acceptable? I don't mind who knows where I go in my excursions around the WWW but I do want to know who is looking for that information and why they want to have it. What use (or misuse) will they make of that knowledge? Is that knowledge safe in their hands or will they be reporting it back to others with less honourable intent?What's with this "meh"? Hope you don't start putting doubles and triples in or I'll begin thinking we have an interloper from another place on here. :)Exactly my point.a cookie is a rather harmless affair that you can even delete by hand.First find them, and that is what this sort of program is for. Cookies can be useful, but NOT tracking cookies that are uninvited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 P.S. I don't like anti-spyware programs that boast that they have just eliminated 28 threats, when in fact they have just deleted 28 cookies. A spyware infection can be something very serious and damaging to your computer; a cookie is a rather harmless affair that you can even delete by hand.Just one little question. If an uninvited tracking cookie is not spyware, then what is?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb Posted December 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 Just one little question. If an uninvited tracking cookie is not spyware, then what is??It's a tracking cookie. The cookie itself does nothing; it is just sitting there, waiting to be deleted. It may be unwanted, but it is basically harmless. Does it fall under the spyware category? I don't know.Now some anti-spwares detect and delete them during a scan, others do not. But until you run the scan, the cookies are there, and function as they are supposed to. Sites that you visit and that examine (and update) these cookies will still get some information from you.If these tracking cookies pose a threat, why is there no anti-spyware around that prevents them from being placed? Just scanning (once a day / once a week?) and removing them makes almost no difference from just letting them sit there permanently. I think Windows Defender is more consistent in this area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanHo Posted December 7, 2006 Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 I have never really got my head round the subject of cookies. I just accept them as part of the internet process.Are you saying that tracking cookies are only activated when you visit the site they were originally planted by. When you browse elsewhere they are dormant. Wikepedia says :_Cookies are also subject to a number of misconceptions, mostly based on the erroneous notion that they are computer programs. In fact, cookies are simple pieces of data unable to perform any operation by themselves. In particular, they are neither spyware nor viruses, despite the detection of cookies from certain sites by many anti-spyware products.Most modern browsers allow users to decide whether to accept cookies, but rejection makes some websites unusable. For example, shopping baskets implemented using cookies do not work if cookies are rejected.****************They do say ignorance is bliss - and my ignorance of cookies makes for a less worrying life and a lack of the paranoia that has beset some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb Posted December 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 Are you saying that tracking cookies are only activated when you visit the site they were originally planted by. When you browse elsewhere they are dormant.Not exactly. The same cookie may be placed and examined and update by thousands of different websites that just want to know if they are getting first-time visitors or repeat-visitors. These information are collected and fed back to the companies that purchase these services. They may even share information that this visitor also has visited this and that other website.At the end, all these companies get are statistical information. Nothing personal, no IP address, just statistics that may show that a certain ad campaign may be more successful than other means of advertising.It doesn't really bother me, as I am caught in dozens of statistics every day. The guy who is sitting at a street corner with hand-click counters, counting the number of people walking from left-to-right, and the people from right-to-left. Should I ask him to respect my privacy and not count me?Cleaning of cookies is done very effectively by CCleaner. A software that claims that it has just eliminated 28 "theats" from my computer may make me feel better, but the statement is simply not a fact when it was in fact just a few cookies.[edit] P.S.Are you saying that tracking cookies are only activated when you visit the site they were originally planted by. When you browse elsewhere they are dormant.In fact some sites use their own cookies, and then this statement is perfectly true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanHo Posted December 7, 2006 Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 Than you Pat - that's useful stuffYou've put my mind at restI will continue not to worryI think it's for the bestI use Crap Cleaner weeklyAnd other malware fightersWhich look for all the nastiesAnd eliminate the blighters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted December 7, 2006 Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 I have no objection to first party cookies. for one thing they remove the necessity to constantly log on on various sites. I do however object to third party and tracking cookies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanHo Posted December 7, 2006 Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 I still say that too much emphasis is put upon the so-called dangers of cookies.Having said that - I read some time ago about someone nearly choking on one that had been baked with some string in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb Posted December 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 I have no objection to first party cookies. for one thing they remove the necessity to constantly log on on various sites. I do however object to third party and tracking cookies.First party cookies are indeed very convenient; they can keep all kinds of information - preferences, login info, etc. And of course they can be used to do exactly the same thing as the evil tracking cookies: follow you on every step through on every visit to their website. Of course they are not spying on you; it is just that webmasters want to know: how often does a visitor return? Where do visitors usually go first? How long do visitors stay on the website? Do they look at the ads on the website? Etc., etc.So if a company does the "spying" itself, then it is perfectly acceptable, but if they let another company do it, then it is objectionable?And again: the 3rd-party cookie is perfectly free to do what it is supposed to do - all day long, until you run the anti-spyware that deletes the cookies at the end of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korgg Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 First of all ! Hello ! Long time no see ! Busy at work as hell. Where's the poll so I can vote a definetly Useless for Windows Defender ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted December 8, 2006 Report Share Posted December 8, 2006 First of all ! Hello ! Long time no see ! Busy at work as hell. Where's the poll so I can vote a definetly Useless for Windows Defender ?No poll, just say it on here, most of us have. Pat likes it though, bless him. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted December 15, 2006 Report Share Posted December 15, 2006 I am satisfied in my own mind that I have settled this argument once and for all. This morning, in addition to tracking cookies, SUPERAntiSpyware found four Trojans. I closed down the program and ran A Squared with a similar result, and again closed the program down without deleting the malware. I then reinstalled Windows Defender and ran it. It found PRECISELY NOTHING. Naturally I uninstalled it for the last time and ran SUPERAntiSpyware again, and got rid of the Trojans. As far as I am concerned this matter is resolved, in as much as Windows Defender is seemingly USELESS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 I note that Pat is still informing us of updates to this program. Is anyone apart from Pat still using it, and has it EVER found any Malware on their computer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurlyWhirly Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 Is anyone apart from Pat still using it, and has it EVER found any Malware on their computer?I still use it and in answer to your query it hasn't ever found any malware on my PC but it was the same with ad-aware so I uninstalled it and use Windows Defender in it's place.What I like about Windows Defender is that it offers realtime protection against spyware.I personally like the idea that I have no malware on my PC as it could be due to the fact that Windows Defender is doing it's job in keeping my PC clean but, like you, I would like to know if it really is effective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamb Chop Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I dont use it and will not as it is totally not finding things that others do.I installed SuperAnitSpyware when 'ansome did, it finds tracking cookies, and WD didnt, nor did Ad aware actually or Spybot come to that, so SuperAntispyware is No 1 for me.I have AVG 7.5 Antispyware working and its yet to find anything.Ive unstalled Spyguard, but kept Spyware Blaster. Ive also changed over my antivirus, to Avast which immedieately found several nasties on its first run, which AVG Free had missed.By the way its the Guardian Newspaper that is one of the places those tracking cookies come from Happy New Year to all :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Is anyone apart from Pat still using it, and has it EVER found any Malware on their computer?I still use it and in answer to your query it hasn't ever found any malware on my PC but it was the same with ad-aware so I uninstalled it and use Windows Defender in it's place.What I like about Windows Defender is that it offers realtime protection against spyware.I personally like the idea that I have no malware on my PC as it could be due to the fact that Windows Defender is doing it's job in keeping my PC clean but, like you, I would like to know if it really is effective? From posts a few days ago on the other place. No one on there has ever had it find anything. Combined with the experiment that I tried when A Squared and SUPERAntiSpyware found Trojans and WD did not. It seems pretty obvious that it is just clutter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb Posted December 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2006 WD has become useless to me too, at last. The beta has expired today, and the new version won't install on my Win2K machines.I am now going to try a few of the apps I have heard so much about in this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 WD has become useless to me too, at last. The beta has expired today, and the new version won't install on my Win2K machines.I am now going to try a few of the apps I have heard so much about in this forum.SUPERAntiSpyware Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deuces wild Posted January 1, 2007 Report Share Posted January 1, 2007 WD has become useless to me too, at last. The beta has expired today, and the new version won't install on my Win2K machines.I am now going to try a few of the apps I have heard so much about in this forum.SUPERAntiSpywareThat program never found anything on my computers either. I could never figure out what was so super about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb Posted January 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 That program never found anything on my computers either. I could never figure out what was so super about it.Installed it, updated the definitions, then ran a full scan. It ran for 1½ hours and found 4 adware cookies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cozofdeath Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 Yikes, do you have a lot of files on your computer? Or is that just how defender is? Spyware doctor takes about 5 min on mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panarchy Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 I dont use it and will not as it is totally not finding things that others do.I installed SuperAnitSpyware when 'ansome did, it finds tracking cookies, and WD didnt, nor did Ad aware actually or Spybot come to that, so SuperAntispyware is No 1 for me.I have AVG 7.5 Antispyware working and its yet to find anything.Ive unstalled Spyguard, but kept Spyware Blaster. Ive also changed over my antivirus, to Avast which immedieately found several nasties on its first run, which AVG Free had missed.By the way its the Guardian Newspaper that is one of the places those tracking cookies come from Happy New Year to all :DAd-Aware is a good program if you have the Pro version of it. Because the Pro version has Ad-Watch.And Windows Defender sucks.The only thing it is useful at is the Vista genuine thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 WD has become useless to me too, at last. The beta has expired today, and the new version won't install on my Win2K machines.I am now going to try a few of the apps I have heard so much about in this forum.SUPERAntiSpywareThat program never found anything on my computers either. I could never figure out what was so super about it.Probably because at that time there was nothing to find. Did you read my post about A Squared and SUPERAntiSpyware both finding several Trojans, which I left on the computer and ran W D, which failed to find them? Proof enough for me. I don't think that you have to worry too much about time taken during scans, as you can still use the computer at the same time. THOROUGHNESS is the criteria, when it finds things that are there, and NOT speed finding nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wane Posted January 2, 2007 Report Share Posted January 2, 2007 i had wd but thought it to be not very good took ages to scan and found nothing thanx to post on this forum ,i downloaded superantispyware,it found heaps including a trojan so to me there is no comparison superantispyware yes windows defender no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.