How can I stop Defender from allowing certain Startup items (FOR G

[Guest]

Defender seems to be built on a list of applications that have been deemed
safe / unsafe, and this is causing me some problems. For example, Defender
is happy to let Windows Messenger, Java Scheduler, Real Player Helper,
Quicktime Helper and many more add themselves to the Startup applications. I
DON'T WANT ANY OF THESE LOADED!

How can I *PERMANENTLY* disable all the items in the list above?

I think we - the users - should be able to choose which applications are
allowed onto the "don't prompt" list, or allow us to mark items as "never
allow".

Most of the items in the above list do not respect the users choice. They
install themselves without asking, and will re-install themselves if they
find their Startup item is missing. I - and I'm sure I'm not alone - find
this unacceptable!

Jon

 

[Bill Sanderson]

It is extremely easy to permanently disable all the items you've listed.
Each of them is listed in Add or Remove programs--simply remove them. This
mechanism is already provided in Windows, and the vendors, being reputable,
have provided the uninstall choices needed--go ahead and use them!

 

[Guest]

Any sensible replies?

It is extremely easy to permanently disable all the items you've listed.
Each of them is listed in Add or Remove programs--simply remove them. This
mechanism is already provided in Windows, and the vendors, being reputable,
have provided the uninstall choices needed--go ahead and use them!

 

[Bill Sanderson]

You are asking for functionality that Microsoft Antispyware simply isn't
designed to provide.

This isn't an infrequent request--I think I see it at least once a week
here. A knowledgable user finds that software that he/she has intentionally
installed, has aspects or parts or behaviors that they dislike. They want
Microsoft to provide something that will allow them to arbitrarily block
those executables or behaviors.

Microsoft Antispyware (or Windows Defender, as the name will be) is about
blocking software that transgresses a defined set of rules---classing it as
spyware, or potentially unwanted software, or any of several other terms.
It isn't a general purpose uninstaller or blocker.

--

 

[JoeM]

The real answer is Not At this time. This suggestion has been made several
times by myself and other (hope MSFT adds this feature)

 

[Guest]

You're right, actually. The real answer is to request Real, Apple, Sun and
of Microsoft to be more 'respectful' of the User's preferences. Quicktime is
a classic example... the number of times I've had to re-remove qttask.exe is
just crazy. This is after setting the preference to turn off the Tray Icon.

Real is perhaps the worst offender - their Message Centre is truly a virus.

Anyway... I guess my original message should be more of a "please could it
do this in the future" than a support request on the current version.

Jon

 

[Bill Sanderson]

It's a logical feature request, for sure. I don't think you are going to
see this from Microsoft--they are about building a platform that supports
everybody equally.

It is possible via group policy settings to block a specific executable--I'm
tempted to try that out for qttask.exe

OK--I've run (on XP Pro--I think this isn't available on XP Home)
secpol.msc, and under Security Settings, Software Restriction policies,
Additional Rules, I've added a path rule specifying \program
files\quicktime\qttask.exe.

If this is the right place, I suspect this will be effective. However, it
may also completely prevent Quicktime from working, which isn't my aim, or,
I presume, yours..

Hmm - did two tests. I went to apples site, quicktime tab, and picked the
latest ipod commercial--on the left. I got a bit of music, but a blank
window, and IE locked up solid.

I then went to My Documents and grabbed gertie.MOV--the movie of the Tacoma
Narrows bridge collapse--and that opened in the player and worked fine.

I then removed the rule (using gpupdate /force between changes)

Galloping Gertie continued to work fine, and the commercial now prompted me
to acquire an additional piece of quicktime, which I declined.

So--I consider this test equivocal--but that (policy rules) is one angle you
can choose to go at this kind of issue, if you've got the pro Windows
versions.


--

 

[Gunilla]

Hi Jon.

Why don't you get Real Alternative and QuickTime Alternative instead? You
will not be bothered with qttask.exe and Real's Message centre.
Here you have them...
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/QuickTime_Alternative.htm

Kind regards...Gunilla.

You're right, actually. The real answer is to request Real, Apple, Sun
and
of Microsoft to be more 'respectful' of the User's preferences. Quicktime
is
a classic example... the number of times I've had to re-remove qttask.exe
is
just crazy. This is after setting the preference to turn off the Tray
Icon.

Real is perhaps the worst offender - their Message Centre is truly a
virus.

Anyway... I guess my original message should be more of a "please could
it
do this in the future" than a support request on the current version.

Jon

<Snipped>

 

[JoeM]

Some programs require real and quicktime (example: America Online and
others)

 

[Gunilla]

Okay, I see but does it requires the original programs? The other
ones are, from what I understand, just as suiteable but I may be
wrong.

Regards...Gunilla.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

I suspect those alternatives do work in most situations. However, I see
some problems with them. They need to use Apple's and Reals code in order
to do what they do. I'm not sure that the licensing requirements for that
code are being properly handled. (I.e. are these things really "legal?"

Secondly, any code that runs binary objects from the Internet is a
significant security risk--an MP3 is a large binary that many people think
nothing of grabbing from an unknown source and running on their machine.
Security vulnerabilities and exploits of the MP3 format and in specific
player modules have been found and or published. So--it is important to
keep these modules up to date. In a situation where you are running the
"alternative" wrapper around Real or Apples basic code--will you be notified
and become aware of a need for a security patch or revised version of that
piece of Apple or Real code?


--

 

[Gunilla]

Hi Bill.

Oh yes, I guess you have a point here below. Thanks.

Best regards,

Gunilla.

"Bill Sanderson" <[email protected]> skrev i
meddelandet