Comments:

2. 

   • IssViews (Gold) on Mon 01 Mar 2010
   • 08:37:47 PM UTC

   A good idea but not one that

   A good idea but not one that will be easy to achieve as they pay good money to the tv companies and you will have to convince them that they are advertising crimeware. In the UK there is the Advertising Standards Authority and other bodies which may be interested but it will need a lot of complaints to get the ball rolling. The same may apply in in the US and other countries.

   Perhaps the best people to initiate this action would be the experts tahe compile blogs of their dirty deeds such as hpHosts and others. Maybe they could get this looked into and stopped, if they have time ofc.

   www.issviews.com for views and news of the starte of digital security. Add your comments/.feedback on your existing security software to help others choose what's right for them and what isn't. Read up on the latest rogue software and threats too.

   •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • BobJam (Platinum) on Mon 01 Mar 2010
  • 09:34:27 PM UTC

  Echo

  On "A good idea but not one that will be easy to achieve as they pay good money to the tv companies and you will have to convince them that they are advertising crimeware"

  Plus, WOT is not in the business of actually trying to shut these morons down. WOT users just rate sites for trustworthiness . . . that's basically it.

  I do indeed sympathize with you on their obnoxious commercials. Makes me angry every time I hear them, and I know they dupe a lot of noobs. What really angers me is that I know they made enough money to pay for all those TV spots by scamming noobs.

  To actually shut them down, you would have to have it done by either their webhost ( http://www.omnisnetwork.com/ ) or their ICANN Registrar ( http://he.net/ ).

  •  Login or Register to post comments
3. 

   • Satchman (Silver) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
   • 05:12:10 AM UTC

   Shutting Down Finally Fast.com Because of Fraud and Deception Ad

   Thanks Echo and everyone for this,

   But I think the least we can do is to contact the powers that be as suggested above. WOT has MILLIONS of users who work very hard to keep the Internet a safe place. Maybe through thousands and thousands of people going through the proper channels, something CAN be done. There are wonderful technology people on here and resources of help. We know that FinallyFast.com is a fraud, a sham and a scam.

   I am going to help WOT the best I can because every time I see that commercial I am going to search for this thread and report to our community the station that it is on and any updates on resources to help computer users avoid that site. Maybe it won't matter much, but the WOT community and this amazing software continues to grow by the HOUR and that's got to mean something!

   I'd rather be doing this than going over to Site Advisor where the damn CEO at FinallyFast.com was trying to trick people into using it!!! Can you believe this? He got McAfee Site Advisor to change that Red Site back to green!!!! UNREAL!!! In fact, it was that very movie that was the last straw for me with McAfee Site Advisor. Making Finally Fast.com GREEN!!!????? WTF???!!!! I reported it to McAfee and they did nothing! Worse, Site Advisor calls Ascentive Software, the bastard child host of FinallyFast.com "Microsoft Certified!!"

   You can read about some of the reviews of Ascentive Software and Finally Fast.com here: This company is just sickening! Just sickening!

   http://www.coolcomputing.com/d/ascentive-software....

   Satch

   •  Login or Register to post comments
4. 

   • g7w (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
   • 07:45:02 AM UTC

   ascentive.com

   Ripoff Reports
   PissedConsumer
   BBB report

   activeprivacy.com
   ascentive.com
   ascentive.net
   diskbooster.com
   diskrocket.com
   finallyfast.com
   72.52.104.104
   liveprivacy.com
   ramrocket.com
   schran.com
   surfcatch.com
   winrocket.com
   winrocket.net

   subdomains:
   access-2.ascentive.com
   access.ascentive.com
   access3.ascentive.com
   ascenti1.ascentive.com
   ascenti3.ascentive.com
   envoy-2.ascentive.com
   envoy.ascentive.com
   envoy1.ascentive.com
   envoy3.ascentive.com
   keystone.ascentive.com
   springgarden.ascentive.com
   stage5.ascentive.com
   stage6.ascentive.com
   stage9.ascentive.com

   There are many more...
   these are all I could dig up at the moment, anyone care to list more?
   -------
   WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
   WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
   Thank you all
   - G7W

   •  Login or Register to post comments
5. 

   • BobJam (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
   • 09:24:42 AM UTC

   Tests just for the heck of it . . .

   While I'm stating the obvious here, and as the OP said, "FinallyFast.com is one of the most fraudulent, horrible, and deceptive websites out there", I nevertheless was curious if they had the "standard" rogue tactics. I found out that not only do they have these criminal tactics, but they've added one to the book (at least my book).

   So, in my sandbox and VM within Linux, I ran a Finally Fast.com scan.

   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.

   (Some of you may recognize some of this, because I cut and pasted portions . . . NOT the CCleaner and Auslogics screenshots . . . from this previous post of mine).

   OK, here goes . . . the results.

   First, I ran two highly regarded reg cleaners: CCleaner and Auslogics.

   The CCleaner scan results:

   

   ZERO errors.

   Next, the Auslogic scan:

   

   24 trivial errors.

   Now for the fun.

   First, the Finally Fast.com scan is called "SpeedScan".

   Finally Fast.com/SpeedScan found a whopping . . . get this . . . 457 errors. Not only that, but Finally Fast told me that ALL 457 were "SEVERE":

   

   I've said this many times before . . . if you had 457 "Severe" errors in your registry, you likely wouldn't even be able to boot.

   OK, so that part dupes noobs into going further (and makes it scareware to begin with).

   Now here's the part that puts Finally Fast.com in the top ten rogues hall of shame, and is why I say "they've added one to the book".

   When you right click on the SpeedScan icon in the systray and then click on "Exit", this is what you get:

   

   This little trick would convince a noob that they either must "fix" the "errors", or scan again . . . NO other options. You can't exit the darn thing.

   Well . . . if you click on "Alert Settings" in small print down in the lower right corner, it will take you to this gem:

   

   Notice the first two default selections. The thing will always start up with Windows (not unusual for a lot of software, but this setting is obscure and a noob might not find it), and those SCAREWARE warnings will always show.

   So a noob would get in an endless loop in this thing (thinking it was impossible to exit WITHOUT "fixing") and out of frustration click on the "fix" button.

   Slick . . . and criminal as far as I'm concerned.

   Now for the "final" insult. The "fix" button takes you to the classic rogue tactic:

   

   Yes, you're going to have to pay to remove all those 457 FP's!!

   (And BTW, that "Microsoft Certified Partner" nonsense, as many of you know, is nothing more than a marketing ploy to make noobs think Microsoft vouches for the product. NOT SO. All that means is that Microsoft has provided the vendor with access to a Microsoft coding database. It does nothing for the end user!)

   So, with that "Exit loop" trick (I got out of it, BTW, by simply closing my VM session, but a noob would have to stop the task and also uncheck that "start with Windows" obscure selection . . . something that noobs would be unlikely to either know or know how to do), Finally Fast.com has added a criminal twist to "standard" rogue tactics.

   Other rogues do something similar, making you think that you can't leave until you "fix" it, but connecting it to the "Exit" selection makes it particularly ominous. Maybe not a new concept, but devious nonetheless.

   So, Satchman, while I'm just confirming "what we all know", the details are particularly alarming, especially since we have these annoying reminders on TV ads.

   However, I think IssViews is correct. As long as these morons are paying bucks for their TV ads, the networks will continue to accept the revenue and run them. And as long as they're paying their webhost and renewing their registration by paying up, my suspicion is that this may not be an avenue to shut them down.

   (BTW, I'm not "Echo", I'm "BobJam")

   •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • IssViews (Gold) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 03:02:38 PM UTC

  Great post BobJam :D Any

  Great post BobJam :D Any objection to me blogging it and using screenshots?

  www.issviews.com for views and news of the starte of digital security. Add your comments/.feedback on your existing security software to help others choose what's right for them and what isn't. Read up on the latest rogue software and threats too.

  •  Login or Register to post comments
6. 

   • BobJam (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
   • 03:47:29 PM UTC

   I guess not

   @IssViews,

   I really don't know the "rules" of blogging. I was going to blog it on the TechJaws.com site, but I guess it's OK for you to do it also. (In fact, you may very well get around to it before I do . . . may take me a few days to do mine anyway . . . even though it's just a simple cut and paste mostly . . . have other things higher on my priority list.)

   If you're asking about lifting it, that's fine with me . . . I don't have any pride of authorship. And the more widespread the word gets on this scam, the better as far as I'm concerned.

   So, yes, I "authorize" it (as long as blogging it myself doesn't "violate" the "rules" of blogging . . . which, as I said, I'm totally ignorant of).

   Your call, just let me know what you decide.

   (And thanks for the kind words, BTW)

   •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • IssViews (Gold) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 03:51:44 PM UTC

  Cheers :) I wan't aware

  Cheers :) I wan't aware there was any hardened blogging rules other than normal common sense. Should you ever determins what they are, would be interested in knowing more.

  Will start writing up the blog in about 5.4.3.2.1 minute ;) LOL

  www.issviews.com for views and news of the starte of digital security. Add your comments/.feedback on your existing security software to help others choose what's right for them and what isn't. Read up on the latest rogue software and threats too.

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • BobJam (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 04:27:18 PM UTC

  Blogging "rules"

  Don't misunderstand . . . there may not be any such thing as "blogging rules". I was just saying that if there is, I have no idea what they would be.

  You are probably right . . . "common sense" should prevail.

  Plus, being a real blogger yourself (I just use Frank J's TechJaws site now and then, so I'm a "faux" blogger), you would know better than I.

  And Dave (g7w) is more knowledgeable on this stuff than I am, so his remarks carry more weight there . . . though his suggestion to wait until I post on TechJaws may have you waiting longer than you wish. (As I said, you will get around to this well before I do . . . and with your "5.4.3.2.1" looks like you have already. And, BTW, thanks for the consideration of "checking" with me.)

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • evilfantasy (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 05:31:55 PM UTC

  Blogging rules

  Don't copy paste without giving credit to the author with link(s) to the original. But if you wrote it then you can do as you please.

  There are hundreds/thousands of blogs out there that never post original content. They prefer to re-post. Most bloggers don't mind a bit as long as they are credited and you give a link to their work.

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • IssViews (Gold) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 06:50:08 PM UTC

  Blogged here BobJam abd g7w:

  Blogged here BobJam abd g7w: http://issviews.com/blog/?p=270

  Let me kniow if there is anything you feel unhappy about and will change it.

  www.issviews.com for views and news of the starte of digital security. Add your comments/.feedback on your existing security software to help others choose what's right for them and what isn't. Read up on the latest rogue software and threats too.

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • g7w (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 03:58:31 PM UTC

  stipulation

  always give credit where credit is due...

  I agree with Bob's "OK" as long as IssViews declares "original work by WOT member: BobJam" with a link back to this thread. Or wait until the TechJaws blog is posted and link back to it.

  just a thought ...

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • IssViews (Gold) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 04:20:24 PM UTC

  Indeed, I always link back

  Indeed, I always link back to source material and give credit where due. It is common curtesy and saves future problems. :D

  Can anyone tell me where these adverts are being shown?

  www.issviews.com for views and news of the starte of digital security. Add your comments/.feedback on your existing security software to help others choose what's right for them and what isn't. Read up on the latest rogue software and threats too.

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • BobJam (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 05:17:28 PM UTC

  TV?

  "Can anyone tell me where these adverts are being shown?"
  Here in the US (you're a UK guy/gal, aren't you? Or am I confusing you with someone else?), they're usually on late night/early morning broadcasts on some networks (I'm assuming that's because the ad cost is cheaper at those times . . . I don't think I've seen them in prime time).

  (BTW, I see you tweeted it and linked back . . . kewl! Went to your twitter profile . . . and I see you are indeed a UK person . . . so that may be why you're not seeing them).

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • shazza (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 05:26:10 PM UTC

  TV? -

  Yes - we have our own version here - finallyfast.co.uk
  
  finallyfast.co.uk
  

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • g7w (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 05:53:53 PM UTC

  re: FinallyFast adverts

  This article had a YouTube link:
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10278274-2.htm...

  but Ascentive had it "pulled" for copyright violation.
  Buried at YouTomb:
  http://youtomb.mit.edu/youtube/l3YRBzz_4Hg

  Wonder why they don't want their commercials on a popular video sharing site?
  Maybe because their products are scams?
  They do have a site that offers the ads along with link to get FinallyFast - one of their own - though they are ashamed and hide the whois behind a proxy service:
  hxxp://www.finallyfastcommercials.com/

  Ascentive blames Google for their products "bad reputation" and sues - Federal court docket PDF

  lol

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • BobJam (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 06:48:09 PM UTC

  Finally Fast Person?

  Geeee . . . do you think a Finally Fast marketing person might pop in here to the Lion's Den like that ParetoLogic1 person did on RegCure? (Never heard from him/her again after the "second" round of testing with their protocol).

  Would welcome the opportunity. C'mon Finally Fast . . . this is an invitation/dare. We'll be fair, but rigorous. Care to make some assertions on a public forum?

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • BobJam (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
  • 07:11:25 PM UTC

  Rogue versus Rogue

  Interesting, I just did a quick scan of the Ascentive suit against Google (.pdf file you linked to), and nearest I can tell (trying to translate all that legalese), an element of the suit claims that other rogues on Google are stealing business from Finally Fast . . . which is of course a rogue itself. So basically, we have Rogue against Rogue. Or the "pot calling the kettle black".

  I hope there are some geeks on the jury (no doubt Ascentive will use voire dire to keep as many off as they can), or if it's a "Judge only" trial, I hope the Judge has some geek advisors.

  In any case, if the Google attorneys are worth their salt, they'll move to have the thing thrown out as frivolous and capricious.

  •  Login or Register to post comments
7. 

   • phantazm (Platinum) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
   • 04:50:23 PM UTC

   Wiki..?

   I see no problems in publishing the same warning in different places.
   Especially if each author/editor adds more context and background...

   Linking to the original source should of course be done any time.

   Perhaps it would be an idea to add this topic to WOTs wiki, and link to that.
   Then we could have the advantage of shorter, but different blog-versions.
   Plus a more central wiki-source, if readers wanted the loong story...

   Several links to the same page would also help,
   if someone googled "finally fast"...

   •  Login or Register to post comments
8. 

   • Satchman (Silver) on Tue 02 Mar 2010
   • 06:52:42 PM UTC

   I just wanted to say Thank

   I just wanted to say Thank You to everyone for spreading the word about this POS software! You are a great help! And please try to get this information out to as many people as possible. The stations, the web-servers hosting this, whatever WOT uses can do to make others aware and informed about scams like this!

   I think if this can be extended even beyond WOT's community that will also be a great service to everyone. As users have said, the more people who know about the scams of FinallyFast.com, the better.

   Satch

   •  Login or Register to post comments
9. 

   • nettodo (Rookie) on Wed 03 Mar 2010
   • 02:13:53 AM UTC

   Thank YOU!!!

   FinallyFast seems like the most scammy thing ever. You may want to file a report with the FTC and (if you can) the FCC. The FTC will pick a bone with that company and the FCC could take those ads off. Forever. And Ascentive could be SHUT DOWN. Finally! The most public scamware company could be eliminated.

   •  Login or Register to post comments
10. 

    • Satchman (Silver) on Wed 03 Mar 2010
    • 05:12:40 AM UTC

    Websites That May Help Shut Down This Company

    Here are some websites where complaints could be filed. You would want to file grievances against BOTH FinallyFast.com and its parent company Ascentive Software against both domains ascentive.com AND ascentive.net. So many thousands of people have had their computers damaged or destroyed because of these scams that this is really an area where users like the WOT community can make the web safer for everyone.

    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

    http://www.ftc.gov/

    And the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

    http://www.fcc.gov/

    Satch

    •  Login or Register to post comments
11. 

    • Pendo8550 (Rookie) on Wed 31 Mar 2010
    • 04:03:53 AM UTC

    Thank You WOT!

    Oh my God! I am the luckiest person I know! If I knew the person that came up with WOT, I would pay them some cash for saving my @$$ from Finally Fast! I saw the advertisement on television and my mom told me "I don't trust them..." and I just figured: "Hey! They're on TV! They can't by lying... Can they?" Anyways, WOT stopped me dead in my tracks with that pop-up of theirs. "This Site Has a Poor Rating! WARNING.", man I am so happy. I just got this $700 HP laptop a few weeks ago. Would hate to lose it so soon... Thank you Firefox and thank you WOT! :D

    •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • BobJam (Platinum) on Wed 31 Mar 2010
  • 04:22:47 AM UTC

  Satisfying

  Very satisfying to see something like this. Thanks for taking the time on it.

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • g7w (Platinum) on Wed 31 Mar 2010
  • 06:18:05 AM UTC

  re: Thank You WOT

  I would pay them some cash

  There is the Contribute button on the Firefox Add-on page
  ;-)

  Welcome to WOT Forum

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • ARGΗ (Platinum) on Wed 31 Mar 2010
  • 10:40:57 AM UTC

  Payment

  If I knew the person that came up with WOT

  It´sTimo Ala-Kleemola and Sami Tolvanen.I think they´ll appreciate your payment:)

  Blueberrycake Level Member of the WOT Community

  •  Login or Register to post comments
• 

  • Pendo8550 (Rookie) on Wed 31 Mar 2010
  • 10:55:06 PM UTC

  Alright, thanks

  I shall pay as much as my paypal will allow! :D
  Though, I am 14 years old. xD

  •  Login or Register to post comments