Apropos not being identified correctly

Discussion in 'Security Signatures' started by Guest, Jul 1, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ok, I'm sure some of you have heard of spyware called
    Apropos.

    Unfortunately for me I have software from an actual
    company called Apropos (www.apropos.com). It's a call
    center package so I know it's totally legitimate
    software. The problem is that when I run a scan the
    Apropos registry entries are being identified as spyware,
    which they clearly aren't.

    To me it looks like when search for the spyware called
    Apropos the software is just looking for the name, and
    not validating if it is the actual spyware. I hate to
    think about rolling this out to my users because if it
    was found and removed they wouldn't be able to answer the
    phones anymore, all just because of lazy coding.
     
    Guest, Jul 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Mikolaj Guest

    > Ok, I'm sure some of you have heard of spyware called
    > Apropos.
    >
    > Unfortunately for me I have software from an actual
    > company called Apropos (www.apropos.com). It's a call
    > center package so I know it's totally legitimate
    > software. The problem is that when I run a scan the
    > Apropos registry entries are being identified as spyware,
    > which they clearly aren't.
    >
    > To me it looks like when search for the spyware called
    > Apropos the software is just looking for the name, and
    > not validating if it is the actual spyware. I hate to
    > think about rolling this out to my users because if it
    > was found and removed they wouldn't be able to answer the
    > phones anymore, all just because of lazy coding.


    Tell the Apropos company to contact Microsoft and report false positive.
    Take a look here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892340

    --
    Pozdrawiam serdecznie / Kind regards
    Mikolaj Kaminski
    MS-MVP, Poland
     
    Mikolaj, Jul 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    All of the detection purely by path or name should be
    wiped out of the defintion files.


    >-----Original Message-----
    >> Ok, I'm sure some of you have heard of spyware called
    >> Apropos.
    >>
    >> Unfortunately for me I have software from an actual
    >> company called Apropos (www.apropos.com). It's a call
    >> center package so I know it's totally legitimate
    >> software. The problem is that when I run a scan the
    >> Apropos registry entries are being identified as

    spyware,
    >> which they clearly aren't.
    >>
    >> To me it looks like when search for the spyware called
    >> Apropos the software is just looking for the name, and
    >> not validating if it is the actual spyware. I hate to
    >> think about rolling this out to my users because if it
    >> was found and removed they wouldn't be able to answer

    the
    >> phones anymore, all just because of lazy coding.

    >
    >Tell the Apropos company to contact Microsoft and report

    false positive.
    >Take a look here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892340
    >
    >--
    >Pozdrawiam serdecznie / Kind regards
    >Mikolaj Kaminski
    >MS-MVP, Poland
    >.
    >
     
    Guest, Jul 1, 2005
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Morten

    Emule identified as spyware

    Morten, Jan 6, 2005, in forum: Security Signatures
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    5,618
    Bill Sanderson
    Jan 10, 2005
  2. Jerry Ham
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,752
  3. Thomas
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,996
    Thomas
    Jan 6, 2005
  4. soe

    TightVNC is identified as spyware

    soe, Jan 7, 2005, in forum: Security Signatures
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,259
    Walter Clayton
    Jan 7, 2005
  5. David Jones

    Spyware not identified?

    David Jones, Apr 22, 2005, in forum: Security Signatures
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,401
    Bill Sanderson
    Apr 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page