please don't destroy my computer

[al]

I'm wondering

8 days ago I posted a message about the fact that the anti
spyware program doesn't erase cookies or temporary
internet files.

The response,from someone, was that this is a known bug in
the program. The tracks eraser doesn't work.

But I can't find anything about bugs in the program on
Microsoft's anti-spyware beta web site.

This is scary. If the program doesn't erase cookies, and
if microsoft doesn't warn about this defect, then the net
effect is to leave cookies, that the user wishes to erase,
unerased.

In other words, the program, to this extent, is assisting
entities that place unwanted spyware on computers.

Is there more?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

It is well known that this does not erase cookies.
This is not a bug but by design at this point.
It is possible cookies may or may not be detected in future versions.

You can easily delete cookies your self or have another program do it for
you.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

There are bugs in the program, but the cookie removal issue isn't one of
them. This was an intentional decision about this particular release of
beta code. As Jupiter Jones' notes, this functionality may be available in
a future release.

As with any system involving definitions for sets of entities, there may be
room for something to be missed--every antivirus program has the same issue.
And there is room for arguments about what constitutes spyware and what does
not. There have been some such arguments in these groups.

Microsoft has published a KB article which gives some clear guideance about
what kinds of applications will be brought to the attention of the user via
this program:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892340
Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware (Beta)
identifies a program as a spyware threat (Listing criteria and Dispute
process)

I believe that is a fair statement of the intent. If you've got evidence of
things that fit those defininitions but aren't brough to the attention of
the user, or successfully removed, they would like to know about it.

One way to do that is to submit a Tools, suspected spyware report, from a
machine with the item in place that you believe should be reported and/or
cleaned.

 

[al]

Well known by whom? The program claims to erase cookies.
It also claims to empty the recycle bin,but doesn't,
unless perhaps after a restart

 

[Guest]

This answer is irrelevant,immaterial and inconsequential.
The tracks eraser claims to erase cookies but does not
erase them. If It'ds an intentional decision why is the
option to erase cookies offered, and why does it make no
dfifference whether or not the option is selected.

The same applies to temporary files, and, from what I can
tell, the recycle bin

 

[al]

I know that I can easily delete cookies and was doing so
until I installed the Beta. I saw no reason to delete them
twice, until I found out that the program was not deleting
them.

What is the purpose of stating that cookies are deleted
when it is known that cookies are not deleted?

"It is possible cookies may or may not be detected in
future versions" -- until which point they should remove
the "ccokie" option from the program so as not to assist
entitities who are placing unwanted cookies

"This is not a bug but by design at this point." In other
words, the program is designed to make people think it's
deleting cookies when in fact it's not. I don't care as
long as my computer is running, but I just wonder why
Microsoft is saying that this program does stuff that it
doesn't do.

I've learned not to believe liars. One lie is usually
enough

I realize that I don't have to use the program, but it
gives me something to do while not working, and the
computer seems to run at least as good and possibly better
than before. So I have no complaints. I know, however,
that the effect benefits "cookie bakers", I like
cookies, however, especially chocolate chip.

-----Original Message-----
It is well known that this does not erase cookies.

 

[al]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892340
Thanks

-----Original Message-----
There are bugs in the program, but the cookie removal issue isn't one of
them. This was an intentional decision about this particular release of
beta code. As Jupiter Jones' notes, this functionality may be available in
a future release.

As with any system involving definitions for sets of entities, there may be
room for something to be missed--every antivirus program has the same issue.
And there is room for arguments about what constitutes spyware and what does
not. There have been some such arguments in these groups.

Microsoft has published a KB article which gives some clear guideance about
what kinds of applications will be brought to the attention of the user via
this program:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/892340
Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware (Beta)
identifies a program as a spyware threat (Listing criteria and Dispute
process)

I believe that is a fair statement of the intent. If you've got evidence of
things that fit those defininitions but aren't brough to the attention of
the user, or successfully removed, they would like to know about it.

One way to do that is to submit a Tools, suspected spyware report, from a
machine with the item in place that you believe should be reported and/or
cleaned.
--
FAQ for Microsoft Antispyware:
http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm




.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Well known to everyone who reads these newsgroups.
These newsgroups are specifically mentioned on the home page for Microsoft
AntiSpyware Beta:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx
Anyone running a Beta product should be familiar with the support options.
That is part of the nature of Beta.
Most if not all of your concerns are answered once you realize this is a
Beta.

Also it can be debated if cookies are actually spyware.
Since cookies are nothing but a text file, and do nothinh, some say they are
not.
Just because the major spyware removal tools identify them as such does not
make it so.
Part of their advertising depends on identifying as much as possible and if
non spyware such as cookies gets caught, that is good for their statistics
but not much else.

Microsoft routinely reads these groups for comments on possible
improvements.
If none of that suits you, perhaps Beta is not for you.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

I hate to do this, but I'm gonna lean on the "it's a beta" crutch. They did
make an intentional decision to not look at cookies. I don't know why they
did it, and I also don't know why they didn't list it among the known issues
at the download site.

The many issues with the tracks eraser I've never even bothered to try to
follow. This isn't an area of the product I've ever paid attention to, I'm
afraid

I certainly agree that it should do what you expect it to. It needs to be
trustworthy and meet the expectations of the user. I'd be willing to commit
to testing it more carefully once another beta build is released.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

This is Beta.

 

[al]

Yes Mr Sanderson. This is the correct answer. I have no
complaint about the program, or Cookies. It's just a
question of credibility. Beta or not, the program does,
beyond any doubt, assist, to a degree, entities who place
unwanted cookies.

The only issue is Microsoft's credibility

Thank you

 

[Guest]

I don't care about anything within the framework of this
thread, except Microsoft's credibility

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

What do you mean by "I don't care about anything within the framework of
this thread"
If you are Al, you started this thread, if not??

I would be more inclined to agree there is a credibility problem if this
were not a Beta, but it is.
Beta whether it is Microsoft or another, should NEVER be counted on for
anything.

Part of the purpose of Beta is to locate and fix problems.
It is usually not a good idea to make a final judgement about a product
based on the Beta.
As it is it seems to perform very well within the current specifications.

 

[John]

That statement reveals what little you understand about a BETA program and
this is one of the reasons most companies refuse to allow the general public
to participate in a beta program. However, MS believes despite these kinds
of reactions and comments, more can be learned in an open beta program.

Your dramatic jump from a general user question to a very pointed attack on
MS's credibility would lead me to believe you are a newsgroup troll fishing
for reactions. This is the wrong place for you to play that game.

Regardless of status, whether distraught novice or indiscriminant troll,
Cookies, invented by Netscape, will not destroy your computer, they are text
files that YOU allow to be written on your computer, knowingly or
unknowingly. Cookie controls are built into IE and you can configure them
to your hearts content.

MSAS does indicate that there are functions which actually do not work even
though they may appear to do so.

HOWEVER - YOU allowed the cookies to be written to your computer, therefore
the danger to your computer is you, not MSAS. Might I recommend
www.anonymizer.com and some tin foil?

Welcome to the MSAS Beta Newsgroups!

 

[Guest]

To question one's credibility is not to attack it. It
could even be to re-inforce it, if the "question" is
suitably addressed.

I understand that participants in Beta programs would be
expected to point out problems in the program.This would
include documentation that is or is not included with the
program. It might also be to suggest changes in the
documentation. Without "drama", or "attack", I suggest
that a sentence be added to the spy-ware home page, saying
that the Tracks Eraser doesn't erase cookies, and other
things that's it's purported to erase.

"whether distraught novice or indiscriminant troll," --
Not a novice, and not distraught or indiscriminate.
Whats's a Troll?

"Cookie controls are built into IE and you can configure
them to your hearts content". You really believe this?

-----Original Message-----
That statement reveals what little you understand about a BETA program and
this is one of the reasons most companies refuse to allow the general public
to participate in a beta program. However, MS believes despite these kinds
of reactions and comments, more can be learned in an open beta program.

Your dramatic jump from a general user question to a very pointed attack on
MS's credibility would lead me to believe you are a newsgroup troll fishing
for reactions. This is the wrong place for you to play that game.

Regardless of status, >Cookies, invented by Netscape,

will not destroy your computer, they are text

 

[Guest]

agreed

-----Original Message-----
What do you mean by "I don't care about anything within the framework of
this thread"
If you are Al, you started this thread, if not??

I would be more inclined to agree there is a credibility problem if this
were not a Beta, but it is.
Beta whether it is Microsoft or another, should NEVER be counted on for
anything.

Part of the purpose of Beta is to locate and fix problems.
It is usually not a good idea to make a final judgement about a product
based on the Beta.
As it is it seems to perform very well within the current specifications.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/





.

 

[plun]

I hate to do this, but I'm gonna lean on the "it's a beta" crutch. They did
make an intentional decision to not look at cookies. I don't know why they
did it, and I also don't know why they didn't list it among the known issues
at the download site.

The many issues with the tracks eraser I've never even bothered to try to
follow. This isn't an area of the product I've ever paid attention to, I'm
afraid

I certainly agree that it should do what you expect it to. It needs to be
trustworthy and meet the expectations of the user. I'd be willing to commit
to testing it more carefully once another beta build is released.

You have "friendly" useful cookies and you have real pain
cookies.

MS have obligations to other commercial interests so
therefore they
maybe dont want to clean up cookies ?

--

 

[A McGuire]

I think that would be a stretch of the imagination - the probably don't
remove your cookies because it's simply next to impossible to detect which
ones you want or which ones you don't want. Cookies simply are not
harmful - they are 1K text files that keep certain information about my
visit to a site so I don't have to continually remember it - and so they
remember me. If cookie detection were part of a newer release, I would hope
I can disable this. I will clean them up manually.

 

[plun]

I think that would be a stretch of the imagination - the probably don't
remove your cookies because it's simply next to impossible to detect which
ones you want or which ones you don't want. Cookies simply are not
harmful - they are 1K text files that keep certain information about my
visit to a site so I don't have to continually remember it - and so they
remember me. If cookie detection were part of a newer release, I would hope
I can disable this. I will clean them up manually.

I dont want any "Ad Big Brother" who tracks me.

Latest removal with Ad-aware.

ArchiveData(auto-quarantine- 2005-02-09 12-32-37.bckp)
Referencefile : SE1R27 05.02.2005
======================================================

TRACKING COOKIE
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
@servedby.netshelter.net/
@jnova.cjt1.net/HTM/721/0
@versiontracker.com/
@advertising[2].txt
@atdmt[2].txt
@cgi-bin[1].txt
@doubleclick[1].txt
@mediaplex[1].txt
@servedby.advertising[1].txt
@tradedoubler[2].txt
@ads.x10[1].txt
@adtech[2].txt
@advertising[1].txt
@adx.adhostcenter[2].txt
@as1.falkag[2].txt
@atdmt[2].txt
@cgi-bin[2].txt
@cgi-bin[3].txt
@doubleclick[1].txt
@gator[1].txt
@instadia[1].txt
@n3sport.adhostcenter[2].txt
@serving-sys[2].txt
@specificclick[1].txt
@statcounter[2].txt
@tradedoubler[2].txt
@tribalfusion[2].txt
@valueclick[1].txt
@ad-logics[1].txt
@ads.pointroll[1].txt

 

[John]

You like to play the semantics game too don't you?

In the phrase, "what was your question?" the word question is not an attack.
In the phrase, "I question your ability to use your brain for more than
space filler." the word question is an attack.

Since MSAS is in a beta program currently, the MS website does everything it
needs to do - point you to the discussion areas where people are working
with this application to find the good, the bad, and the ugly so that a
quality, compatible product can be brought forward by MS quickly. Just
because you think they need to post this particular problem in bold red
letters on the homepage of the website does not mean that MS is not
providing that information and does not provide a legitimate argument for
questioning anyone's credibility.

All the information you are whining about IS provided by MS, in the
newsgroups they setup and allow us to use. There are many things they would
have to put on the homepage for MSAS if they were to approach bugs and
program sections that are currently disabled for now.

Yes, I do believe you can control cookies at will with IE's controls because
I do it right now. No cookie gets written that I don't know about. Of
course I'm not afraid of a cookie either. If you are so worried about a
cookie, let me suggest that you investigate the problem of weakly
radiaoctive strontium 90 isotope created by UV radiation that is present in
the milk you drink. there are a lot more important things to worry about
than a string of text YOU allowed on your computer.

A troll is someone who enters into conversations in newsgroups and blogs
with the sole purpose of stirring up trouble, discontent, and fear just for
fun. Like when Linux fans stop be here and blast MS and call MS software
users names.

I suggested that you might be a troll because only a troll or an extremely
limited thinking person would think MS has a credibility problem because a
current disabled function discussed ad nauseum in the newsgroups was not
prominently posted on the AntiSpyware web page for you to read there instead
of where MS provided a place to read about it.

Any questions?

Thanks!