Forum
Comments:
-
- on Thu 11 Feb 2010
- 12:29:28 PM UTC
They are rogue IMO.
I recently tested their registry cleaner, and it was easy to tell it was a baddie.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you find any discrepancies in my comments on site scorecards,
please leave a comment on my board and I will correct it if I am wrong.
You'll Never Walk Alone -
- on Thu 11 Feb 2010
- 01:05:54 PM UTC
Give them this link....
http://www.mywot.com/en/search/node/paretologic
BTW - they know exactly what's wrong with their software, they
designed it to mislead users into purchasing crapware they dont need! -
- on Thu 11 Feb 2010
- 05:35:03 PM UTC
Hi all
I sent quite a number of PMs like these out, so we may have a few more people responding with similar questions and comments.
I have indeed searched for ParetoLogic on WOT, and read over the complaints board. However, I found it difficult to find specific complaints or reasons for finding ParetoLogic software to be 'rogue' or otherwise unworthy.
This is why I've been messaging everyone, and getting more involved with the forums here. I want to better understand the specific, individual reasons for the complaints, so that I will know how to either - convince the user otherwise or - consider new upgrades to the software.
LiVeRpUdLiAn932, can you let me know why you thought RegCure to be a 'baddie?'
Shazza, can you let me know what kind of tactics you think are misleading?
Please help me out, and let me know your thoughts and impressions.
Cheers,
-
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 08:47:26 AM UTC
I figure it this way...
Paretologic is big with many software products...
I have always wondered why, if they feel their products are so reliable, that not 1 is used with Malware scan checks on www.VirusTotal.comA list of the companies that participate in VirusTotal with their antivirus engines.
I look at VT as doing a two-fold job.
1] it does a good job at detecting Malware, it also let's you "see" who the better AV products are.
2] If an AV is not listed, it's not worth mentioning to people.Also...
Why would a reputable company require so many domain names to peddle it's products?
Compare:- paretologic.com - whois
- Registrant Search: "Adrian Pereira" owns about 171 other domains
- symantec.com - whois
- Registrant Search: "Symantec Corp" owns about2 other domains
The BBB online report shows an A rating having over 206 complaints in the past 36 months, 126 of them during the past 12 months. One thing that is always misleading about BBB reports is that they only display complaints made to them - not everyone complains to the BBB.
- complaintsBoard.com
- Results 1 - 10 of about 1,790 from www.complaintsboard.com for paretologic complaint.
- ripoffreport.com
- Results 1 - 10 of about 53 from www.ripoffreport.com for paretologic complaint
Note: not everyone complains on either of these two websites...
A little bit about WOT.
Ratings are private - you can see comments, but leaving comments is not a requirement. Trying to convince a few people on these forums is not going to change the reputation Paretologic has acquired in how it's products work (or doesn't?), how they are marketed, etc.-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 12:54:10 PM UTC
G7W
G7W usually gives reasonable answers to questions posted on the forum, thus I hope the staff of Paretologic understands the reason why there are red comments on the page. I've removed my ratings anyway. Not that it makes such big a difference, but oh well.
"Devoted supporter of LiVeRpUdLiAn932"
-
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 05:57:42 PM UTC
You asked for it . . . you GOT it!
@ParetoLogic1
Your claim that Paretologic does not peddle rogues infuriates me.
Here are the specifics about ParetoLogic rogues . . . and for my example, I have chosen Paretologic's RegCure.
This effort was time consuming and tedious, and for me it was pretty much useless (since I already knew what the results would be), but it does indeed give you your "specifics" . . . which I suspect you'll be sorry you asked for here. You picked the wrong place to ask for "specifics".
And, since I spent so much time doing this . . . I don't want to "waste" my saved screenshots, so I'll be posting a version of this on a Security Blog. That will ensure this gets much wider dissemination than it would if it were just posted on this forum. As I said, you picked the wrong place to ask for specifics. As the title to this post says, "You asked for it . . . You got it!"
So, lets get into the details of this. First, I ran two highly regarded reg cleaners: Auslogics and CCleaner. After they made their scans and I "fixed" the detections so that there were no longer any detections, I ran RegCure and compared the results. As you will see, those results are revealing and is why so many people have called your product "rogue".
The Auslogics scan results:
146 errors
The Auslogics scan results AFTER fixing those errors:
ZERO errors.
The CCleaner scan results:
78 errors
The CCleaner scan results AFTER fixing those errors:
ZERO errors.
So now I've cleaned my registry with not one, but TWO cleaners, and BOTH have told me that my registry has NO errors.
So now lets take a look at RegCure, which I ran AFTER Auslogics and CCleaner indicated I had NO errors in my registry.
The Regcure scan results:
A whopping 364 errors AFTER Auslogics and CCleaner indicated ZERO.
At this point it would be enough even for a beginner to deduce that RegCure is a rogue. But wait . . . there's more.
When you click on the button for RegCure to fix those errors, this is what you get:
To fix those 364 . . . dubious . . . errors (and coincidentally, you can see that there were ZERO detections on errors that RegCure would fix for free . . . "Font Entries" and "File Associations" . . . convenient, huh?), you need to PURCHASE the "registered" version. Now if that doesn't fit the definition of "Scareware/Rogue", I don't know what would. When a noob sees that 364 errors were detected in their registry, they would likely be duped into paying to remove those "errors".
And I've said this many times before when it comes to 100's of detections. Unless these are trivial, and consequently don't need to be removed anyway (for a discussion of why, just look at this thread on the AumHa site: http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=28099&start=... . Scroll about 1/3 the way down to see the exchange between Bill Castner and Mark Russinovich), if you had 364 "serious" errors in your registry, you likely wouldn't even be able to boot.
Now I can envision a response you might make. You would say something like "RegCure is more thorough". I might be inclined to buy that, or at least consider it, IF the RegCure results were at wide variance with just ONE other cleaner. But two, and good ones at that? C'mon!
So there's your "specifics"!
Don't bother PM'ing me . . . if you have a response, post it here in this thread for all to see.
(BTW, I'll give you the link to that Security Blog posting I'm going to make when it gets published)
-
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 03:00:38 PM UTC
They did ask for it
But I doubt that they liked it; wonder if they'll be back after this...?
-
- on Sun 04 Apr 2010
- 10:47:30 PM UTC
Usual activity related to a
Usual activity related to a "Scareware".
-----
MF IT-UESC - Protecting your Digital Experience. Now. -
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 05:11:32 PM UTC
Further comments
It's not just users here who believe Paretologic to produce rogue software such as RegCure.
Take the following for example:
Domain Warning List: http://www.helpmyos.com/hmos-malware-domains-list-...
hpHosts: http://hosts-file.net/?s=regcure.comMicrosoft currently detects the installer as Program:Win32/RegCure.
Panda identifies the same installer as Suspicious.
See: http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/d830fc1df9e6896...Other AVs probably have detected it as fraudulent software, but, as is often the case with such software, the installer may have got re-compiled to prevent detection. There is likely nothing malicious within the program; it is, as BobJam demonstrates, the practices which earn the company a bad reputation.
-
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 07:58:52 PM UTC
interesting
Paretologic slaps that Microsoft Certified partner sticker on all their websites...
Yet Microsoft flags the product. *snickers*
-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 06:34:00 PM UTC
Free scan, pay for removal. U know what is it? It's a con!
Company PretoLogic and RegCure have bad reputation on Wot and many other websites. Check out opinions on SiteAdvisor: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/paretologic.com and http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/regcure.com
There are plenty of bad user reviews and experiences with programs from ParetoLogic (see CNET website). Also this CNET's froum: http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?thread... People there seems so "happy" that they wasted their money on your useless crap and many of them had damaged their OS because of RegCure! Of course there was no sign of help and support from ParetoLogic.
See also these reviews on You Tube and comments below the movies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brb9HO7U0w0 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FPwGfj2t0kYour company is one big scam, has bad reputation and will be red forever and that's only your fault!
-
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 06:30:53 PM UTC
Something about XoftSpy and ParetoLogic practices
Comment that says it all:
"XoftSpy was listed on this page because of concerns with false positives, questionable license terms and the use of aggressive and deceptive advertising, including exploitation of the name "spybot" by affiliates."
XoftSpy is no longer listed as a rogue on the Spywarewarrior web site, but Paretologic's aggressive marketing practices continue, including promotion of their affiliate programs (revenuewire.net) as well as the use of many different web sites promoting the same product, which are often clones of each other, in order to maximize their exposure.
In short, Paretologic's business plan is affiliate marketing, not the development of good utility software. You won't find reviews from reputable reviewers because perhaps those reviewers have deemed products like Regcure or Xoftspy not worthy of their time, or perhaps because Paretologic has not made their software available to reputable reviewers, fearing that they would not do well.
While you will see "free download" or "free scan" often on their web sites, this phrase is meaningless, because the trial downloads are crippled and you need to pay them some ridiculous price in order for the program to actually work as intended. The high prices are necessary in order to pay affiliates generous commissions. Thus, Paretologic lacks a true trial download policy. (And why? Why is that?!)
Products are available from reputable vendors with fully-functional trial downloads and many cost much less than any of Paretologic's products, without having to deal with affiliates. All of this adds up to a Bad Shopping Experience. Also see what the malware researchers at F-Secure had to say about the sale of security software through affiliate marketing:
"From the worst known offenders to questionable rogue antispyware software - affiliates trying to sell-by-any-means are the engine behind the problem. ... There's an incredible amount of just mediocre antispyware out there that isn't malicious, but they use the same marketing and sales techniques as the rogues. Lots of ads (paid for by commission seeking affiliates) - no trial period - offering a free scan - but if it finds something you then have to pay to clean it off your system. And they really get in your face about buying."
-
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 07:16:01 PM UTC
ParetoLogic is Microsoft Certified Partner? Really?!
So why Microsoft Security Essentials recognizes RegCure as a high level threat??? "Win32/RegCure is a program that is promoted as a system optimization tool. This program may display deceptive or fraudulent claims about files, registry entries and/or other items on the system." http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/Threat/En...
-
- on Fri 12 Feb 2010
- 07:31:09 PM UTC
Paretologic.
Looks like the Parrot is not saying pretty polly anymore :)
-
- on Sat 13 Feb 2010
- 12:30:41 AM UTC
Paretologic highlights AVIRA fake program
FYI: Whilst some of us are berating Paretologic's practice with RegCure, I've just come across a blog post by Tom Kelchner at Sunbelt giving credit to Jerome Segura at Paretologic for bringing people's attention to another rogue software that is trying to imitate AVIRA.
Hmm. Interesting.
On a side note, don't forget to rate security-antivirus-site.com if you haven't done so already. (Link takes you to scorecard.)
-
- on Sat 13 Feb 2010
- 02:58:23 AM UTC
Pointing . . .
I've seen the Avira knockoff before. Was it ParetoLogic that first exposed it?
I have no idea if this is the case, but it's entirely possible ParetoLogic is pointing the finger at somebody else just to take the heat off themselves, particularly if they were not the first to expose this.
Conspiracy theory "lite" maybe.
-
- on Sat 13 Feb 2010
- 07:52:09 AM UTC
MalwareDiaries
I visited your link on SunBeltBlog and clicked over to their referenced link on: blogs.paretologic.com
Here is what I find interesting, the final paragraph ends with:
It’s very sneaky and lame but when there is money to be made, unscrupulous people will try everything.I suppose you could include exaggeration on error reports from registry scanning software - aka Scareware - as being sneaky and lame by unscrupulous companies which deploy unethical marketing practices such as astroturfing ( a reason to have over 170 domains for example), and / or the use of shills (in the form of affiliate sites).
There is another, one could say controversial, site that offers an excellent resource of information with it's process library (processlibrary.com), but whose products engage the same exaggerated results and practice the same marketing schemes. liutilities.com
The difference between liutilities and paretologic is that liutilities is not flagged by Microsoft Security and paretologic is.
-
- on Sat 13 Feb 2010
- 03:54:14 PM UTC
Curiousity
The reason I find it curious is that Sunbelt, a respected security software company, is giving kudos to Paretologic who appear to be scrupulous in their practices. Surely Sunbelt must be aware of RegCure and its ilk?
-
- on Tue 16 Feb 2010
- 08:21:37 PM UTC
...
It seems they are. Detection for RegCure is in their database as of 14 Feb.
See: Sunbelt Security page for RegCure
I assume it's the same thing we're talking about.
-
- on Sat 13 Feb 2010
- 08:33:17 AM UTC
Private Messages
How exactly does one receive and send private messages?
-
- on Sat 13 Feb 2010
- 03:34:26 PM UTC
scorecard
scorecards are for websites
User Boards are for communication; aka PM'sUser profile [Board] write a message [public or check private box]
as long as the user has Profile -> Edit settings -> Privacy settings -> Allow others to write on my board checked.-------
WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
- G7W -
- on Sat 13 Feb 2010
- 04:21:30 PM UTC
Article published at Techjaws.com
Bob J,
Thank you for sharing this article and I am sure this will help others from being duped into buying this rogue software.
http://www.techjaws.com/paretologic-feigns-innocen...
Frank J
TechJaws.com -
- on Wed 17 Feb 2010
- 03:32:04 AM UTC
Where are you?
ParetoLogic1, where are you? I'm not "taunting" you or otherwise trying to start a flame war . . . I'm just genuinely curious to see "the other side of the story" (and there always is one).
I myself have made some serious accusations, and so also have some others. I'd like to see your detailed response to each of these accusations . . . maybe there's something we've all missed, though until I'm able to evaluate your responses, I seriously doubt it.
If you remain silent, then the community has no alternative but to put credibility to these accusations. OTOH, if you have some specific rebuttals, they can be evaluated.
The community, I'm sure, would like to make a full and fair evaluation. With only one side of the story, it looks pretty grim for ParetoLogic.
BTW, Frank J very kindly posted that link to the security blog posting I made. As I said, at the moment it looks pretty grim for ParetoLogic. Do you want to leave it that way?
(Oh . . . one more thing. Please don't give us a vague marketing speech as your response. We need to see specific rebuttals to the specific accusations.)
-
- on Mon 15 Feb 2010
- 12:00:53 PM UTC
Another side?
There has to be another side to this story seeing as Sunbelt give credit to Paretologic for highlighting the fake AVIRA program as I reported earlier. Are they trying to turn a new leaf or what?
I'm trying to get some response from Sunbelt on the matter.
-
- on Mon 15 Feb 2010
- 03:20:54 PM UTC
Why?
Just because Sunbelt said something favorable about ParetoLogic does not necessarily mean that there "has to be another side to this story". The two circumstances may be entirely unrelated.
If someone does something "bad" and then does something "good", the "good" thing does not all of a sudden make the "bad" thing non-existent.
"Turning a new leaf"? Maybe, but I would have to see an awful lot of evidence, like new owners, to make me trust ParetoLogic. If Sunbelt, or ParetoLogic for that matter, just said "They've (We've) turned a new leaf", that alone would not even be close to enough evidence.
Show me with actions, not words. So Sunbelt could say all they want that ParetoLogic has "turned a new leaf", but that wouldn't do anything for me (nor would the possibility that perhaps ParetoLogic has done something "good"). We need to hear from ParetoLogic, and they either need to rebut, specifically and reasonably, the accusations we have made, or else they need to present substantive evidence, not just words, that they've changed their ways.
-
- on Mon 15 Feb 2010
- 11:55:52 PM UTC
...
I'm entirely with you. I'm just trying to understand why Sunbelt are even bothering with the company if they're known to peddle such rogue software as RegCure.
Sunbelt classifies rogue software; they detect rogue software. They must know.
-
- on Mon 15 Feb 2010
- 08:56:38 PM UTC
Good question...
Maybe he prefers PM's..?
-
- on Mon 15 Feb 2010
- 09:37:36 PM UTC
Hmmmm . . .
I haven't gotten one . . . though I did tell this "ParetoLogic1" person not to bother PM'ing me and respond instead on this thread.
Guess, unless it's resurrected by this ParetoLogic1, the ballgame is over and ParetoLogic just flat out took three strikes. Game over . . . ParetoLogic is a scam as we had all suspected. We tried to be fair . . . so I'm satisfied that this is over.
If the topic comes up again in another thread, I'm just going to link back to this one (I think there are search links to others that shazza mentioned).
Received PM from Paretologic
I have received a personal message from Paretologic and I wonder how I should give him a reply.
Hi tomgagaga,
I read your comment about Paretologic.com recently, and I'd like to pick your brain about it, if I may. In your comment, you stated "This site may spread rogue software which may harm your computer" in the malicious content category.
Would you be willing to help me by providing further detail as to your concerns about ParetoLogic software? Are there any specific programs, or features of our programs, which convinced you that we were rogue?
We are continually trying to improve our software, and our company, and your assistance would really be appreciated. We take every care to ensure that our software provides reliable results, is installed only when the user requests, is completely removable, is bundled with no malware or viruses, and so on.
I look forward to hearing back from you.