Forum
Comments:
-
- on Wed 24 Sep 2008
- 09:57:32 PM UTC
More on the topic, another
More on the topic, another site this time. Logica bad? Former WM-data (Finns know the company). No comments there but yellow overall with red vendor/privacy/child safety? Eh ... Last time I checked they didn't deal pr0n.
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/logica.fi
"Men make good pets."
-
- on Wed 24 Sep 2008
- 10:14:00 PM UTC
Re: More on the topic
I'm guessing someone had a really bad customer experience back when we didn't have the scorecard...
-
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 12:08:34 PM UTC
Lets correct...
I've added a new green rating to counter, and
asked red raters to document their claims.
Also requested a comment... -
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 12:11:09 PM UTC
Sony DRM - old news.
Sony DRM is a sore point with many people.
By definition, anything put on a computer without the owners knowledge or consent, or, where such consent would certainly NOT be given, is malware by definition.
The worst kind of malware is the rootkit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Protect and Surf. -
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 12:26:59 PM UTC
/agree logicman
I have them rated at 1 for trustworthiness, reliability and privacy...
The software is stealth installed.
It's impossible to get support when it breaks things.
It phones home without asking for permission. -
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 12:22:16 PM UTC
New news..?
Ok, I had momentarily forgotten about the rootkit scandal.
But isn't that history now? Is SONY a read company now?Thanks for the first link in this case; a bit of context makes it less weird.
But what's the present news..?
-
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 12:38:22 PM UTC
Re: But what's the present news..?
Their software is used for DRM in Spore and has been in the news on various gaming sites over the past few weeks. This is probably why it's seen the activity.
EA, who produce Spore have already backed down on the severity of their DRM restrictions on the game twice.
Edit to add:
Cnet news story on a class action suit over the inclusion of SecuROM in the game. -
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 02:34:50 PM UTC
Perhaps all things about
Perhaps all things about SecuROM are valid, but how can anyone rate the technical/marketing site for it bad?
There are no downloads available as far as I can see. THIS SITE CAN NOT INFECT ANYONE :)
Instead go rate the websites of those game manufacturers who choose to use SecuROM and distribute it willingly with their games.
As far as I can see, the securom(dot)com site is safe and clean.
"Men make good pets."
-
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 06:22:46 PM UTC
Re: rating the root.
The best way to deal with something that people agree to be a bad thing is to complain about its source. This rootkit DRM rubbish is used in CDs and DVDs from a large number of sources. We would have to rate the movie company, the movie publisher, the distributor and the DVD manufacturer.
btw I haven't rated the DRM production site. Yes, I think it's garbage, but no, I don't think it's any danger to the average consumer. Yes, it can 'phone home', but no, it doesn't phone Alex Polyakov.
http://spamtrackers.eu/wiki/index.php?title=Alex_P.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Protect and Surf. -
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 07:20:03 PM UTC
SA 2.8 meets the definition of malware then
If logicman's definition of malware is spot on: "By definition, anything put on a computer without the owners knowledge or consent, or, where such consent would certainly NOT be given, is malware by definition." . . . and I do indeed think it is . . . then SA version 2.8 that was PUSHED out by McAfee FITS that definition.
With the exception of using a HIPS to block the update, users had no control over whether or not the update was done. They simply turned on their machines one time, and there it was. Many didn't even know they had the update until their machines began to malfunction . . . it was a buggy update.
I have no idea if it's still pushed or buggy, since I switched to WOT because of that experience and because McAfee DID NOT respond to my repeated queries about it (and I was a McAfee Volunteer Moderator too . . . obviously that doesn't count for a whole lot of weight with McAfee).
Not bashing McAfee here . . . in fact, I liked SA 2.6 and a lot of their other products.
-
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 07:27:37 PM UTC
Hmmmm . . . now this looks
Hmmmm . . . now this looks WAY off topic. Sami, can you move this kind of stuff to it's own topic or do I need to redo this??
-
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 07:44:40 PM UTC
Re: Hmmmm . . . now this looks
I don't think going a bit off topic is that serious, but if you'd prefer to start a new topic, that's fine too.
-
- on Thu 25 Sep 2008
- 10:27:09 PM UTC
Not fully in agreement.
Yes, BobJam, that specific SA upgrade did annoy a lot of people. However, in fairness, when I am offered an upgrade for trusted software like Firefox, WOT, SA, AVG etc I usually allow it. If the SA upgrade was offered, i would have taken the offer, so it doesn't fit my definition of malware. However, if you want to call that specific SA version number 'paininthebuttware' you'll get no argument from me.
:-)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Protect and Surf. -
- on Sun 28 Sep 2008
- 09:45:57 PM UTC
More of the same or not..?
I think BobJam has a point here, concerning "that specific SA upgrade".
But we have also entered a grayzone: Normally I would only recommend auto update, especially if it's a critical part of the system. Then again, "update" normally means 'more of the same', not something completely different...PS: I guess this particular SA 'upgrade' partially looked as a 'downgrade' to most...
Can SecuROM site really be called malicious?
Yes it's DRM and all but yellow with "malicious content" comments. This is a Sony website ... hard to believe such a site would spread malware.
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/securom.com
We are not talking about Starforce here which was an entirely different case IMHO.
"Men make good pets."