some observations on MAS (oh... and the tracks eraser doesn't work properly)

[GT]

Hi all...

I came here to see if I can find any info on why the
tracks eraser on MAS seems so ropey. Some options seem to
work but try as I might, with the latest build, I simply
can't get it to delete the contents in my temporary
internet files folder... which I find pretty surprising,
as I can't believe it's that difficult to do (from a
coding perspective).

Anyone else having this problem?

However, since sifting through the various postings to
find if others have had the same problem, it's becoming
clear that there are quite a lot of issues with MAS...
which bothers me, since MS have released this software to
help people protect themselves, and frankly it sounds
like it doesn't help too much.

I know it's a beta but surely beta releases are where the
software works fundamentally and it's about ironing out
the final creases - it doesn't seem like that from what
I've read. Everything from detecting but not removing...
to simply missing items altogether... and that's on top
of facilities simply not working properly.

I'm sorry but it's pretty poor that MS have put their
name to this software... when its quality is
questionable... and we're talking about security-related
coding, which should be even more robust than software
designed for non-risk work.

I'm not trying to provoke people if there are fans out
there... but I'm just genuinely curious to hear some
opinions, as there's quite a lot of negative feedback in
this particular community forum.

My advice to all, in the fight against malware, is to get
a decent firewall, ideally sitting on a NAT router - you
won't be invincible but you should be vastly less
vulnerable. Oh... and get a decent virus checker. I know
from personal experience that I just don't seem to get
spyware (that's assuming that scanning with MAS, Adaware
& Spybot will at least detect all the stuff, even if they
can't necessarily clean the stuff up). Be sensible &
prepared... and you shouldn't have any problems


G

 

[Ron Chamberlin]

Hi GT,
First of all, let me congratulate you on being about the only person who has
bothered to read previous posts.

I'm not here to quibble with you either, and you make excellent points about
a current, up to date AV, firewall, router etc. I would like to add Windows
Update and common sense to that recipe.

The program is truly in a Beta stage. There have been probably a tad over
20 million downloads of it since it went public in January. When one
considers the number of posts in here, and the relative ease of getting
here, by http or NNTP, I think the numbers are pretty good.

My guesstimation is that, by the time this goes to Beta 2 (and I've not a
clue when that will be) there will be a different product looking at you.
Don't give up hope on it just yet.

Ron Chamberlin
MS-MVP

 

[Vanguard]

I know it's a beta but surely beta releases are where the
software works fundamentally and it's about ironing out
the final creases - it doesn't seem like that from what
I've read. Everything from detecting but not removing...
to simply missing items altogether... and that's on top
of facilities simply not working properly.

You do know that this product is just a rebranded and slightly modified
version of the Antispyware product that was produced by Giant and that
Microsoft bought Giant, right?

I'm sorry but it's pretty poor that MS have put their
name to this software... when its quality is
questionable... and we're talking about security-related
coding, which should be even more robust than software
designed for non-risk work.

Microsoft could have removed the Giant product from public availability
until they had fixed all the bugs, some of which are rather stupid
oversights and some because Giant really didn't target their product for
non-admin users or non-USA hosts (Giant's market and customerbase was a
lot smaller than Microsoft's). Would you have preferred Microsoft to
yank the product and it disappear for 2 years until Microsoft rewrote
almost the whole product? Or would you prefer the product remain
available during the rewrite phase? It is a *beta* version and as such
you agree to become an voluntary beta tester with all the shortcomings
of using a beta version product. However, considering the amount of
fixes needed to Giant's code, calling it a beta version is a bit of a
stretch (i.e., it should be called a public alpha version). There are a
lot of stupidities and shortcomings in the Giant code that Microsft will
have to fix. In fact, so much will need to be rewritten that they
probably ended up just buying the "technology" aspect of the product
rather than its code.

I'm not trying to provoke people if there are fans out
there... but I'm just genuinely curious to hear some
opinions, as there's quite a lot of negative feedback in
this particular community forum.

Microsoft got the product from Giant. Before Microsoft bought Giant,
Sunbelt bought a codebase branch from Giant to produce their CounterSpy
product, so MSAS and Counterspy are sister products (but the codebase
for each varied after the branch point after which Sunbelt bought it).
So it would be interesting if someone that has MSAS and Counterspy could
indicate if a problem that exists in MSAS also exists or doesn't exist
in CounterSpy. A lot, if not all, of the problems in MSAS was Giant's
fault, and if CounterSpy has fixed them then obviously Microsoft can fix
them, too.

As for negative feedback, users aren't going to visit a support group or
forum when everything is working okay without any configuration or usage
issues. So obviously a huge majority of the posts will be complaints.
Basing your opinion of a product based on the post means you are
generating an opinion on severely biased experiences.

 

[GT]

Thanks Ron for the general endorsement of my comments.

I second your points about windows updates (which will
generally improve your situation... and therefore should
be pursued... but with precautionary use of the system
restore, in case of issues arising from the updates) and
common sense.

The only problem is making sure that users of all levels
can be forewarned about best practise on the Net - not
just the more IT literate amongst us.

I will have to concede that I've perhaps been a bit
harsh - I wasn't aware of the size of distribution of
MAS... but at the same time, it isn't just about
percentages... it's also about the type of problem, and I
hope you can agree with me that there are a range of
problems being experienced by users that indicate that
MAS is flawed in a number of different areas... which
does reflect on the general quality of the product being
released, which, in-turn, cannot be afforded in a product
which people are being encouraged to use to protect
themselves from online 'abuse' of privacy, fraud & worse.


G

 

[GT]

Hi Vanguard.

In response to your reply.

Firstly, I will be repeating some of my comments, from my
reply to Ron Chamberlin, because they're applicable to
this message... so excuse me for duplication.

Yes, I do know that it's a 3rd party product, that has
been purchased indirectly, through the acquisition of
Giant software... but don't understand what bearing that
has on the quality of software which MS has 'released' to
the general public (even as a beta)... and released as a
branded MS product (mind you, it's their PR which'll get
damaged, not Giant's... because most users won't care
about the source of the code, only that it's got MS's
name on it, it doesn't work properly and MS knowingly
released a product with flaws in it).

Also, I simply can't see that a re-release of someone
else's code, can legitimise a product's seemingly
considerable failings... and considering the diversity of
problems cited here (which I must agree could be partly,
but certainly not all, down to user error or
incompatibilities with other installed software), it's
got more holes than a teabag.

I must agree with your observations about my sampling of
problems and generalising on the basis of the forum
content - it does skew the results... but there's
certainly enough people in the internet community for a
segment to be prepared to endorse and applaud a product
when it works well... yet I've not seen anything positive
to be said about MAS.

Also, as already stated, it's not just a few issues which
are constantly re-occurring. There's a whole load of
different problems, which, honestly, casts doubt on the
general integrity of the program.

In response to your comments about fixing the product
before release...

1. MS could have bought a mature product, which would
have been the most appropriate course of action, if they
were serious about helping users to better protect
themselves against Spyware... but they didn't. Presumably
that would have been too costly.

2. MS have embarked on, with the release of SP2,
something of a crusade to 'clean up' users' experiences,
in terms of PC & Internet security. There's been a
considerable drive to get users up-to-date with system
fixes, because certainly some lapses in PC security are
down to holes in OS code, and malicious activity can be
stopped at source by sealing this holes. The provision of
the windows firewall (and the security centre as a whole)
was another attempt to reduce the incidence of security
issues. Spam, spyware, viruses... they're all the same as
goes negative IT experiences... and cover a range of
problems, from just the inconvenience of system slow-down
(from loads of processes which shouldn't be running at
all) to fundamental computer instability, not to mention,
criminal activities like password snatching, phising,
fraud and the real damage of data loss, that can come
from viruses with active payloads.

So, in this context, it seemed entirely appropriate to
provide some form of protection to users, at least for
dealing with spyware, etc. But instead of releasing
something which was mature, reliable and stable, which
would have made consumers feel safer and more secure,
bearing in mind, the current vogue of internet computing
not being safe, MS released a product, that you admit
yourself is more aligned to an alpha stage of development
than anything else.

I'm obviously not sure on the proportions of basic level
users to those who are competent / power-users, etc
etc... but I've worked with a lot of home users and some
are ok and others have no knowledge at all (a lady I met
actually asked me how a mouse works). When one is talking
about security and reinforcing a culture of cautionary
behaviour, because of a minority who are destructive in
their behaviour, it's just NOT good enough to release a
product that's a bit of a mess. That's like saying:

"Hey people, we've got a big problem out there. You need
to watch out for invisible individuals who are dumping
programs, without your knowledge or consent, onto your
PC, which could do anything from stealing your
confidential data (passwords etc) to hijacking your PC to
suit their own, potentially, criminal ends... but it's ok
because here's a program that'll go some way to
protecting you... but actually it doesn't work properly,
so much so in fact, it can't really give you peace-of-
mind because with all the problems it has, you can't
really be certain whether it's actually doing anything
useful or that it's reliably blocking malware... but
nevermind, you'll find the bugs for us and help us fix
the program because we couldn't be bothered to spend the
money on getting a decent piece of software to protect
you with".

So yes... MS should have put more resources into cleaning
the product up before release. I don't believe it would
have taken 2 years... even 2 or 3 months would have had
it in vastly better shape, which would have improved user
experience, their security and not leave people
frustrated and confused.

You must remember that this is a piece of software that
people are supposed to put their faith into; that they
can forget about having to worry about people sneaking
malicious code onto their PCs. You must also appreciate
that there's a range of user ability which means that
it's more important to have a robust product, because
some people will be relying on it to do it's job properly
because they're not (and shouldn't need to be) IT gurus,
with the ability to anticipate / block / not get into a
situation in the first place that leaves them vulnerable
to spyware, etc... and if that does happens, to be able
to fix these problems themselves.


Regards,

G

PS sorry about the long posting

PPS I'm not here to just bash MS - I've an MCSE status
and use winXP with pleasure. I just don't think MS have
conducted themselves well, with MAS.

 

[Vanguard]

Hi Vanguard.

In response to your reply.

Firstly, I will be repeating some of my comments, from my
reply to Ron Chamberlin, because they're applicable to
this message... so excuse me for duplication.

Yes, I do know that it's a 3rd party product, that has
been purchased indirectly, through the acquisition of
Giant software... but don't understand what bearing that
has on the quality of software which MS has 'released' to
the general public (even as a beta)... and released as a
branded MS product (mind you, it's their PR which'll get
damaged, not Giant's... because most users won't care
about the source of the code, only that it's got MS's
name on it, it doesn't work properly and MS knowingly
released a product with flaws in it).

Also, I simply can't see that a re-release of someone
else's code, can legitimise a product's seemingly
considerable failings... and considering the diversity of
problems cited here (which I must agree could be partly,
but certainly not all, down to user error or
incompatibilities with other installed software), it's
got more holes than a teabag.

I must agree with your observations about my sampling of
problems and generalising on the basis of the forum
content - it does skew the results... but there's
certainly enough people in the internet community for a
segment to be prepared to endorse and applaud a product
when it works well... yet I've not seen anything positive
to be said about MAS.

Also, as already stated, it's not just a few issues which
are constantly re-occurring. There's a whole load of
different problems, which, honestly, casts doubt on the
general integrity of the program.

In response to your comments about fixing the product
before release...

1. MS could have bought a mature product, which would
have been the most appropriate course of action, if they
were serious about helping users to better protect
themselves against Spyware... but they didn't. Presumably
that would have been too costly.

2. MS have embarked on, with the release of SP2,
something of a crusade to 'clean up' users' experiences,
in terms of PC & Internet security. There's been a
considerable drive to get users up-to-date with system
fixes, because certainly some lapses in PC security are
down to holes in OS code, and malicious activity can be
stopped at source by sealing this holes. The provision of
the windows firewall (and the security centre as a whole)
was another attempt to reduce the incidence of security
issues. Spam, spyware, viruses... they're all the same as
goes negative IT experiences... and cover a range of
problems, from just the inconvenience of system slow-down
(from loads of processes which shouldn't be running at
all) to fundamental computer instability, not to mention,
criminal activities like password snatching, phising,
fraud and the real damage of data loss, that can come
from viruses with active payloads.

So, in this context, it seemed entirely appropriate to
provide some form of protection to users, at least for
dealing with spyware, etc. But instead of releasing
something which was mature, reliable and stable, which
would have made consumers feel safer and more secure,
bearing in mind, the current vogue of internet computing
not being safe, MS released a product, that you admit
yourself is more aligned to an alpha stage of development
than anything else.

I'm obviously not sure on the proportions of basic level
users to those who are competent / power-users, etc
etc... but I've worked with a lot of home users and some
are ok and others have no knowledge at all (a lady I met
actually asked me how a mouse works). When one is talking
about security and reinforcing a culture of cautionary
behaviour, because of a minority who are destructive in
their behaviour, it's just NOT good enough to release a
product that's a bit of a mess. That's like saying:

"Hey people, we've got a big problem out there. You need
to watch out for invisible individuals who are dumping
programs, without your knowledge or consent, onto your
PC, which could do anything from stealing your
confidential data (passwords etc) to hijacking your PC to
suit their own, potentially, criminal ends... but it's ok
because here's a program that'll go some way to
protecting you... but actually it doesn't work properly,
so much so in fact, it can't really give you peace-of-
mind because with all the problems it has, you can't
really be certain whether it's actually doing anything
useful or that it's reliably blocking malware... but
nevermind, you'll find the bugs for us and help us fix
the program because we couldn't be bothered to spend the
money on getting a decent piece of software to protect
you with".

So yes... MS should have put more resources into cleaning
the product up before release. I don't believe it would
have taken 2 years... even 2 or 3 months would have had
it in vastly better shape, which would have improved user
experience, their security and not leave people
frustrated and confused.

You must remember that this is a piece of software that
people are supposed to put their faith into; that they
can forget about having to worry about people sneaking
malicious code onto their PCs. You must also appreciate
that there's a range of user ability which means that
it's more important to have a robust product, because
some people will be relying on it to do it's job properly
because they're not (and shouldn't need to be) IT gurus,
with the ability to anticipate / block / not get into a
situation in the first place that leaves them vulnerable
to spyware, etc... and if that does happens, to be able
to fix these problems themselves.


Regards,

G

PS sorry about the long posting

PPS I'm not here to just bash MS - I've an MCSE status
and use winXP with pleasure. I just don't think MS have
conducted themselves well, with MAS.

Yet peculiarly the Giant product was reviewed by many and mentioned as a
top anti-spyware product. But when it got rebranded as Microsoft then
it becomes the worst? Shows what users have come to expect for quality
from Microsoft versus what they'll endure from other software vendors.
I would agree when Microsoft acquired the software that it should have
immediately been classed as alpha software and been available for
testing only by screened and qualified users. However, I think it was
only a month after the acquisition when Microsoft put it out there for
free to the public. Alpha test would not have been just a couple months
but more like 6 to 8 months, or even longer considering that Microsoft
wants to also develop an enterprise version of the product.

 

[Bill Sanderson]

As Vanguard says--forums are where people come when they have a problem. If
the product is good, it both gains positive reviews (and this one has--in
terms of actual cleaning capabilities)--and also regular volunteers--and
we've got a pretty good collection of those.

This is a very unusual beta. Microsoft made available, within a few weeks
of their acquisition of Giant, this beta product as a public service, and
to keep the public aware of their efforts in this area. They've announced
that the feature set in this beta will continue to be available without
additional charge.

They've announced that this feature set will be part of both a corporate
product which will not be free, and a subscription product involving
antivirus capabilities and backup, as well, which also won't be free.

The eventual product, which we'll see as beta2, will be quite different, I
suspect, from what we are seeing now in the code inherited from Giant. It
has to be, even if simply from the standpoint of regionalization and
accessability.

The development effort is going into the beta2 release, and not into
refining the product as it currently exists.

Ron's download stats are what I've heard, and while I agree that there is a
lot of teeth-gnashing and lament (from Kazaa users!) in these forums, there
are also many millions of entirely satisfied users. In the 36 or so office
installs that I've done, I've heard nearly no feedback at all about the
operation of the product. For many people, it is just another protection
point that they are glad to have, and nothing that causes any problem.