?? Newsdgroup Cookie Dropper ??

[Casey Wilson]

This applies to rec.aviation.piloting because this is where I seem to
be picking up a "cookie" from time to time. My, albeit limited, knowledge is
that cookies come from websites, not newsgroups.
I have a software package called SpyBot that seeks out adware, cookies,
spyware and that sort of stuff. I ran SpyBot a couple days ago and it picked
up a cookie from =Avenue A, Inc.= I dutifully commanded it to disappear,
then it occurred to me that I had not been on the internet to visit any
websites that morning. Now, yesterday, before I went on-ine, I ran SpyBot
and got a 'clean' report. Right after I skimmed through and read a few
posts, I went off-line and immediately ran SpyBot.
Well, up popped Avenue A, Inc., again. Same thing this morning, same
sequence, same cookie.
I has to be coming from here, since the other two newsgroups I subscribe
to were empty on both days and in both cases, I did not connect to any
website.
Has anybody else noticed this? Am I going bonkers?

Casey Wilson
Freelance Writer and Photographer

[Aardvark]

Casey Wilson wrote:

> This applies to rec.aviation.piloting because this is where I seem to
> be picking up a "cookie" from time to time. My, albeit limited, knowledge is
> that cookies come from websites, not newsgroups.
> I have a software package called SpyBot that seeks out adware, cookies,
> spyware and that sort of stuff. I ran SpyBot a couple days ago and it picked
> up a cookie from =Avenue A, Inc.=

Google "Avenue A, Inc." cookie
Many ways you can get it :(

> Casey Wilson
> Freelance Writer and Photographer
>
>
>

[Jose]

> I have a software package called SpyBot that seeks out adware, cookies,
> spyware and that sort of stuff. I ran SpyBot a couple days ago and it picked
> up a cookie from =Avenue A, Inc.= I dutifully commanded it to disappear,
> then it occurred to me that I had not been on the internet to visit any
> websites that morning. Now, yesterday, before I went on-ine, I ran SpyBot
> and got a 'clean' report. Right after I skimmed through and read a few
> posts, I went off-line and immediately ran SpyBot.
> Well, up popped Avenue A, Inc., again. Same thing this morning, same
> sequence, same cookie.
> I has to be coming from here, since the other two newsgroups I subscribe
> to were empty on both days and in both cases, I did not connect to any
> website.

To my knowledge, cookies do not come from newsgroups, however depending
on the newsreader you use, you could get cookies from that program. For
example, if you use google, you would be using a web browser to access
the groups, and that browser is what is accepting the cookie requests
(which probably come from advertising sites attached to the web site).

If you are connected to the internet in =any= form, it is possible for
rogue programs to communicate with the outside world. You may have such
a program residing undetected on your machine.

Google
"Avenue A, Inc." cookie
and the first two links will give you some info. It comes from a Vonage
ad and generates popunders.

You can opt-out of it by getting an "opt out" cookie which is available
on their site. (atlasdmt.com) It's basically a cookie that says "keep
out". It is possible that the opt-out cookie will be detected by your
spy program as an intrusion because it doesn't know the difference - if
this is true, ignore the warning.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John T]

Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> I has to be coming from here, since the other two newsgroups I
> subscribe to were empty on both days and in both cases, I did not
> connect to any website.

Avenue A appears to be an online ad delivery mechanism.
http://www.avenuea-razorfish.com/

I seriously doubt Outlook Express is putting this cookie on your machine.
Are you *certain* that no browser was opened during your test?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Cockpit Colin]

Spybot is great, but you need to use it in conjunction with Ad-Aware
(www.ad-aware.com).

They each pick up many things that the other misses.

(note: it's www.ad-aware.com - not www.adaware.com)

[Jose]

> (note: it's www.ad-aware.com - not www.adaware.com)

Actually the company that makes it is lavasoft. The second link sends
me to lavasoft.com, the first one sends me to snapfiles.com. I got mine
from lavasoftusa.com, referred by a link in PCWorld.

Jose
--
Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> Has anybody else noticed this? Am I going bonkers?

I also have Spybot, which I run every two or three weeks. The last two times I
ran it, my computer came up clean. Since I am also under the distinct impression
that you don't pick up cookies from usenet, I firmly believe you're getting
yours from somewhere else.

I think you have a "Trojan Horse" running on your box. I would suggest you
download a virus checker called "AVG." They have a free version that Jim Fisher
told me about, and I think it's great. Download that and run it, and I'll bet
it'll find you have equine problems. It will automatically fix them.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Casey Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Has anybody else noticed this? Am I going bonkers?
>
> I also have Spybot, which I run every two or three weeks. The last two
times I
> ran it, my computer came up clean. Since I am also under the distinct
impression
> that you don't pick up cookies from usenet, I firmly believe you're
getting
> yours from somewhere else.

And use Spyware Blaster to keep them off your system between Spybot scans.

http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/index.html

[lowflyer]

According to the latest issue of PC WORLD, Spybot and Ad-Aware are only 54%
and 65% efficient respectively at eliminating adware and spyware.


"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Casey Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Has anybody else noticed this? Am I going bonkers?
>
> I also have Spybot, which I run every two or three weeks. The last two
times I
> ran it, my computer came up clean.

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> And use Spyware Blaster to keep them off your system between Spybot scans.

If that keeps the system clean, would there be any need to use Spybot?

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[John T]

lowflyer wrote:
> According to the latest issue of PC WORLD, Spybot and Ad-Aware are
> only 54% and 65% efficient respectively at eliminating adware and
> spyware.

For those who don't subscribe, what package was most effective?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[William W. Plummer]

lowflyer wrote:
> According to the latest issue of PC WORLD, Spybot and Ad-Aware are only 54%
> and 65% efficient respectively at eliminating adware and spyware.

Percent of what? What does this mean?

[Peter Duniho]

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
...
>> For those who don't subscribe, what package was most effective?
>
> The most effective was Sunbelt Software CounterSpy 1.0 with 85%
> effectiveness, but it costs 20 bucks.

Did the article happen to mention that the MOST effective anti-spyware
strategy is to not run your computer in a configuration that allows software
to be installed in the first place?

It's great protection against viruses too.

If not, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the PC World article was
designed simply to generate interest in the market for anti-spyware
software. After all, what other reason would they have for failing to point
out that the most effective anti-spyware tool is simply configuring your
operating system correctly? No need to install ANY additional software.

Pete

[lowflyer]

The most effective was Sunbelt Software CounterSpy 1.0 with 85%
effectiveness, but it costs 20 bucks. Also, they mentioned a new Microsoft
product, Windows Antispyware, that impressewd them, but it wasn't directly
compared to the other programs because it was apparently just released.

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> lowflyer wrote:
> > According to the latest issue of PC WORLD, Spybot and Ad-Aware are
> > only 54% and 65% efficient respectively at eliminating adware and
> > spyware.
>
> For those who don't subscribe, what package was most effective?
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>
>

[Roger]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:08:04 -0500, "William W. Plummer"
> wrote:

>lowflyer wrote:
>> According to the latest issue of PC WORLD, Spybot and Ad-Aware are only 54%
>> and 65% efficient respectively at eliminating adware and spyware.
>
>Percent of what? What does this mean?

It means they only find about that % of spyware what with all the new
stuff showing up on a regular basis.

It MS program also seems to work well and is free..

Basically, load, install, and run 'em all.

BTW, if you newsreader opens links it can pick up cookies from them
..depending on where they go.

Good luck

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[lowflyer]

To quote them: "Denotes each application's overall success rate in
eliminating our 81 test examples of adware and spyware infections."

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message
...
> lowflyer wrote:
> > According to the latest issue of PC WORLD, Spybot and Ad-Aware are only
54%
> > and 65% efficient respectively at eliminating adware and spyware.
>
> Percent of what? What does this mean?

[lowflyer]

For info on the Microsoft product, go to www.microsoft.com/downloads. Look
under "Windows AntiSpyware." PC WORLD says it's 91% efficient.


"lowflyer" > wrote in message
...
> The most effective was Sunbelt Software CounterSpy 1.0 with 85%
> effectiveness, but it costs 20 bucks. Also, they mentioned a new Microsoft
> product, Windows Antispyware, that impressewd them, but it wasn't directly
> compared to the other programs because it was apparently just released.
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ...
> > lowflyer wrote:
> > > According to the latest issue of PC WORLD, Spybot and Ad-Aware are
> > > only 54% and 65% efficient respectively at eliminating adware and
> > > spyware.
> >
> > For those who don't subscribe, what package was most effective?
> >
> > --
> > John T
> > http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> > http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> > ____________________
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[lowflyer]

The article does not discuss configuring one's computer to avoid spyware.
They do imply it's not always possible to avoid it. I don't know what their
motives are. How does one configure his computer to avoid spyware?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "lowflyer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> For those who don't subscribe, what package was most effective?
> >
> > The most effective was Sunbelt Software CounterSpy 1.0 with 85%
> > effectiveness, but it costs 20 bucks.
>
> Did the article happen to mention that the MOST effective anti-spyware
> strategy is to not run your computer in a configuration that allows
software
> to be installed in the first place?
>
> It's great protection against viruses too.
>
> If not, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the PC World article was
> designed simply to generate interest in the market for anti-spyware
> software. After all, what other reason would they have for failing to
point
> out that the most effective anti-spyware tool is simply configuring your
> operating system correctly? No need to install ANY additional software.
>
> Pete
>
>

[John T]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> People are getting infected through
> normal user activities (mostly going to web sites that propogate the
> spyware, either surreptitiously or through by fooling the user into
> installing something they shouldn't have).

Ditto that. System configuration is a good way to prevent infection, but a
little forethought of action would go a long way to preventing infection,
too.

"But the web site said I needed to install something called 'GAIN'..."

Doh!

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[lowflyer]

Your answer points out why a lot of us still need anti-spyware. I for one
wouldn't have the confidence to do whatever you are describing. I am not
doubting you; I just don't have the know-how to agree, disagree, or follow
your directions. But I am able to download anti-spyware :-)

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "lowflyer" > wrote in message
> ...

> Basically, use the security built into the OS. Use the NTFS file system
> (because it provides for file-level security), and log into the operating
> system as a restricted user account.
>
> It is true that because software authors (especially those specializing in
> Windows software) are still unaccustomed to dealing with not having carte
> blanche over the computer, occasionally some special handling is required.
> This includes setting access privileges for the registry or the program's
> install directory to lower than is normally wise, or (for especially
poorly
> written software) using the "Run As..." feature to run *that program only*
> with administrator privileges.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"lowflyer" > wrote in message
...
> Your answer points out why a lot of us still need anti-spyware. I for one
> wouldn't have the confidence to do whatever you are describing. I am not
> doubting you; I just don't have the know-how to agree, disagree, or follow
> your directions. But I am able to download anti-spyware :-)

Well, the "special handling" I mentioned is really just one-time stuff. If
you don't have the expertise to do them, then you likely have someone in
your life (either friendly or paid) who takes care of system administration
stuff like that. The solution would be to just have them do the "special
handling" for you, in the instances it shows up.

Nevertheless, my main question was with respect to what PC World wrote
about. Regardless of what's practical, locking down the system is a nearly
100% solution for preventing spyway from being installed in the first place,
and is much more effective than even the best anti-spyware software out
there. PC World should have at least mentioned that, even if they do agree
with you that using the built-in security features is impractical.

Pete

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > And use Spyware Blaster to keep them off your system between Spybot
scans.
>
> If that keeps the system clean, would there be any need to use Spybot?
>

Cross check and verification.

In the two or three years since we've loaded it on all our networked systems
we have not had a single piece of spyware get in. IOW, Spybot has been 100%
redundant. I now do a Spybot check only about every three or four months.

Interestingly, the one site that has attempted to load spyware, which was
blocked before it could load (I turned on the annuciator just to see if it
was really working), was WSJ's Opinion Journal which attempted to load
"Avenue-A".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Cockpit Colin]

I must confess that I haven't tested the 2nd for a while - I used to type it
in by mistake and it used to take me to a site for Ada Ware - looks like
it's been changed. Snap files is one of the OK distributors of it, so no
worries their either. And of course, nothing wrong with the Lavasoft site
either!


"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
> > (note: it's www.ad-aware.com - not www.adaware.com)
>
> Actually the company that makes it is lavasoft. The second link sends
> me to lavasoft.com, the first one sends me to snapfiles.com. I got mine
> from lavasoftusa.com, referred by a link in PCWorld.
>
> Jose
> --
> Math is a game. The object of the game is to figure out the rules.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Brian Burger]

Best way to stop getting spyware: Stop using Internet Explorer.

Here's the last thing you should ever do with IE: go to www.opera.com and
download a much better browser.

Then don't ever start IE again, expect perhaps for Windows Update. It's a
garbage browser anyway...

Brian
www.warbard.ca/avgas/

[Peter Duniho]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
a.tc.ca...
> Best way to stop getting spyware: Stop using Internet Explorer.

Anyone who blames IE for spyware is an idiot.

The VERY best way to stop getting spyware is to turn off your computer and
never turn it back on. That doesn't mean it's your computer's fault that
you get spyware.

Pete

[Brian Burger]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Brian Burger" > wrote in message
> a.tc.ca...
> > Best way to stop getting spyware: Stop using Internet Explorer.
>
> Anyone who blames IE for spyware is an idiot.

Anyone who still runs IE is an idiot.

Would "Best way to lessen your chances of getting spyware" get a more
polite response from you?

Seriously, running Opera I've (deliberately, at times) visited sites that
IE-users claim flood their computer with spyware, and gotten no infections
at all. None.

I've got SpyBot & AdAware, run them every month or so (or after
experimenting with 'sypware infested' websites) and I think I've had
them kill ONE 'bot in the last year. That one likely arrived on some
shareware I installed, and I don't think it was able to communicate
outward - ZoneAlarm never noticed it, anyway.

Opera, ZoneAlarm, SpyBot, AdAware - I run a fairly secure PC, but Opera is
the first line of defence, and it seems to work very well.

IE is a waste of HD space.

Brian
www.warbard.ca/avgas/

[Doug Carter]

Brian Burger wrote:
> Best way to stop getting spyware: Stop using Internet Explorer.
>
> Here's the last thing you should ever do with IE: go to www.opera.com and
> download a much better browser.
>

or Firefox http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ or just about
anything except IE.

After going through the usual cycle of updating all the virus, adware,
spyware and malware protection and eradication programs and databases
about two years ago, I switched to Mac OS X for laptop and FreeBSD for
servers. Also, all open source applications (Firefox, Thunderbird,
etc.) and I disable HTML in email & newsgroup message display and run
ipfw (firewall) on all the machines.

For the two years since the switch the result has been 100% uptime and
zero virus and spyware problems. I keep a packet sniffer monitoring all
inbound and outbound TCP and UDP flows; nothing in or out that is not
supposed to be, period.

I feel for those in corporate environments that require MS. It sure
creates a lot of extra work and frustration.

[Peter Duniho]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> [...]
> Seriously, running Opera I've (deliberately, at times) visited sites that
> IE-users claim flood their computer with spyware, and gotten no infections
> at all. None.

Maybe only users who are idiots need to run Opera.

I use IE exclusively, and have never had any spyware, virus, etc.

I guess Opera is probably the right browser for you.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Anyone who blames IE for spyware is an idiot.

Ever run an install of Spybot Search & Destroy or Adaware on a new install?

> The VERY best way to stop getting spyware is to turn off your computer and
> never turn it back on. That doesn't mean it's your computer's fault that
> you get spyware.

Not if its in there to begin with, its already too late...