HOSTS Spybot F-Secure BackWeb

[Jari Lehtonen]

(I'm not sure about the retail versions but you can opt not to install
Backweb in the enterprise versions.)

Yes it does, but it install also a iadhid.dll (or like that) which is
meant to suppress the ads.

Jari

 

[donutbandit]

The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it
causes SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves
F-Secure to the dark side.

Perhaps you are over reacting. However, I would not want someone installing
what amounts to a backdoor on my box even if it WAS to install automatic
updates.

That's why I stay away from any such applications. I prefer to go and get
my own updates.

 

[Charles Otstot]

<snip>

Ron,

I won't speak to Adaware, since your posting is based on your SpyBot
experience. SpyBot does NOT remove backweb automatically by default. If you
will notice the results of your SpyBot scan, you'll find that BackWeb is
identified by name (along with it's registry keys, etc.) You will also find
that *none* of the BackWeb entries are marked for removal. You, as the
user/administrator of the system, must intentionally opt to have those
components removed, either by selecting the individual components or (most
likely in your case) by choosing "Select All" from SpyBot's sub-menu and
then choosing to remove the components.

Why would SpyBot opt to only flag BackWeb as found and NOT flag it for
removal? The answer is obvious; the application (BackWeb) is used by
legitimate applications as well as illegitimate applications. SpyBot is
warning that you *may* have something malicious, but it is at least as
likely that BackWeb is installed legitimately. It is up to you to either
know it's origin or to investigate the origin *prior* to telling SpyBot to
remove the application.

You asked for and have received other legitimate installations of BackWeb, I
will toss yet another into the ring. Compaq Presarios a couple of years ago
(I cannot confirm if they still do) used BackWeb to permit home users to
allow Compaq technical support to assist customers with home systems and
update drivers, etc. in the background.

As to your specific complaints against F-Secure...which appear to be:
1) BackWeb was installed without your knowledge
This has been answered by several F-Secure users who indicate that
F-Secure's documentation clearly states that BackWeb gets
installed with their product. RTM appears to be the answer here.

2) F-Secure's installation of BackWeb broke your system because SpyBot
tried to remove it.
As noted above, had you investigated the origin of BackWeb *prior*
to selecting the removal option, and had you better
understood the behavior of your applications (i.e. SpyBot and
F-Secure), you would have avoided your problems entirely.

Conclusion:
Your problems resulted more from a lack of effort and understanding
on your part. You should either:
1) Gain a clearer understanding of your system (Get training, read
manuals, etc) or
2) Have a competent technical person on retainer to assist you with
your system maintenance.

 

[Jeffrey A. Setaro]

(Sorry for the 'followup-to: poster' in my previous reply - it was
inadvertent.)



I'm not responsible for advising the Spybot team on how they should
handle or not handle BackWeb. Nor do I particularly care. Since
you are the one who ran into trouble using Spybot, perhaps you
should contact them about it.


You gotta get over your worship of the authority of Spybot and
Ad-aware if you want to be able to think through this.

FWIW... AdAware 6.0.181 DOES NOT flag F-Secure Backweb on my system.

[Snip]

 

[FromTheRafters]

The presence of BackWeb in the F-Secure download and the fact that it causes
SpyBot to hang an XP system is simply unconscionable and moves F-Secure to
the dark side.

It's presence means nothing of the sort, and the XP hang
was likely caused by your meddling and not reading the
Spybot Search & Destroy literature.

http://spybot.eon.net.au/index.php?lang=en&page=knowledgebase/threats/spybots-backweblite

or any of the references therein.

http://www.cexx.org/dlgli.htm

...I am not affiliated with any computer related organization,
and couldn't care any less about which program you use. I
am unbiased in this respect.

 

[FromTheRafters]

FWIW... AdAware 6.0.181 DOES NOT flag F-Secure Backweb on my system.

Hmmm...must be defective, or they're in cahoots...
....there oughta be a law...

To the OP:

Put down Debbies book and RTFM.

 

[BoB]

<
There will always be someone who considers any given app intrusive,
malicious, or harmful. Expecially any app that tries to connect to a
server to pull updates for itself.

This discussion sounds very similar to one in Nov '02.

Many readers know that Akamai is one of the infamous ad servers
and have seen certain Akamai sites listed in hosts files, etc.
Many readers use or have heard of AVG. Here's a similar exchange:

-------------------
"AKAMAI operates large distributed network that guarantees the client
gets the file from the geographically or network-wise nearest site.
For details see www.akamai.com. Many companies use AKAMAI for providing
static data or streams. The only difference is in the URL, where the
client number is embedded. So it doesn't make any sense to block the
akamai.net site.

To the adware allegation, GRISOFT wasn't, doesn't and won't ever include
any spy- or ad-ware with the AVG."
--------------------

AVG uses Akamai services. Blocking 'all' Akamai sites makes it difficult
to update AVG.

BoB
For the duration of Swen, my address is inoperative.

 

[Randall Bart]

'Twas Sat, 27 Sep 2003 06:23:43 -0400 when all alt.privacy.spyware stood

To the adware allegation, GRISOFT wasn't, doesn't and won't ever include
any spy- or ad-ware with the AVG."

AVG uses Akamai services. Blocking 'all' Akamai sites makes it difficult
to update AVG.

Akamai is in the business of helping make the Internet worse. Akamai was
party to crashing my browser thousands of times. I realize that lots of
sites have crashed my browsers over the years, but in the era when I was
crashing over a dozen times every day, over 75% of the crashes were served
up by Akamai. They showed no concern for their victims. Akamai should
have quality control over what they are serving up.

If AVG is allied with Akamai, they are part of the problem not part of the
solution.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ (e-mail address removed) (e-mail address removed)
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ http://RandallBart.com/ Ånåheim Ångels 2002 World Chåmps!
a |/ Multiple sclerosis: http://www.cbc.ca/webone/alison/
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:[email protected]

 

[Jay T. Blocksom]

I find that most your post was jibber.

[snip]

Actually, that was precisely the reaction I had to your original incoherent
rant which started this thread.

No reputable computer security company should be including ANYKIND of
adware/spyware code in there downloads.

[snip]

True enough; but you've not established that the fine folks at <f-prot.com>
did anything even remotely approaching that. Here, this might help:

I say blacklist F-Secure for so
doing.

[snip]

I'm sure you do.

Both Adware and Spybot remove BackWeb...therefore BackWeb is bad stuff!

[snip]

Your logic engine is obviously VERY broken. Perhaps the hamster died?

Tell me, if you're *so* concerned about security and privacy, why do you
even permit on your system, let alone *use*, Windows XP, MSIE and Outleak
Excuse -- the Unholy Trinity of big-time malware?

*And* you're a top-posting twit.

*plonk*

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[BoB]

'Twas Sat, 27 Sep 2003 06:23:43 -0400 when all alt.privacy.spyware stood



Akamai is in the business of helping make the Internet worse. Akamai was
party to crashing my browser thousands of times. I realize that lots of
sites have crashed my browsers over the years, but in the era when I was
crashing over a dozen times every day, over 75% of the crashes were served
up by Akamai. They showed no concern for their victims. Akamai should
have quality control over what they are serving up.

If AVG is allied with Akamai, they are part of the problem not part of the
solution.

What can I say. Backweb and Akamai are in business to make money.
Ad serving is profitable. I choose not to use programs that are
supported by displaying ads. If I can't find freeware, I buy the
programs I need to avoid ads, so haven't had these kinds of
problems.

I ran AVG for two years without problems on my Win98FE. But neither
have I ever re-installed windows while using 3.11, FE or SE. I also
never added a single MS update during those 6 years. I don't fix
what ain't broken.

BoB
For the duration of Swen, my address is inoperative.