<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Out Damned Spyware, Out!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.livedigitally.com/2006/11/02/out-damned-spyware-out/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.livedigitally.com/2006/11/02/out-damned-spyware-out/</link>
	<description>Reviews and opinions about consumer technology, gadgets, Websites, new media, services, and more.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:02:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: infotewl</title>
		<link>http://www.livedigitally.com/2006/11/02/out-damned-spyware-out/#comment-114227</link>
		<dc:creator>infotewl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:31:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.livedigitally.com/2006/11/02/out-damned-spyware-out/#comment-114227</guid>
		<description>I don't think all spyware hits need to be equal, rather it should get them all.
Frankly I don't put any confidence in Windows defender as it is a band-aid for the problems MS should not have allowed to persist.

Any time someone tries to claim IE or OE are a source of most infections, someone else will come along as mention "it must've been the user's fault" as if that dismisses all the other times too which it does not.  MS needs to stop trying to thrust advanced features on users that don't expressly need them and tighten down these two primary point of infection by removing the ability to run the code, not trying to side-step around the problem instead.

I don't want to find a virus the system has already caught, I want the mechanism (feature) used to get infected in the first place to be shut off, not a temporarily patch which will only stop that one exploit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think all spyware hits need to be equal, rather it should get them all.<br />
Frankly I don&#8217;t put any confidence in Windows defender as it is a band-aid for the problems MS should not have allowed to persist.</p>
<p>Any time someone tries to claim IE or OE are a source of most infections, someone else will come along as mention &#8220;it must&#8217;ve been the user&#8217;s fault&#8221; as if that dismisses all the other times too which it does not.  MS needs to stop trying to thrust advanced features on users that don&#8217;t expressly need them and tighten down these two primary point of infection by removing the ability to run the code, not trying to side-step around the problem instead.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t want to find a virus the system has already caught, I want the mechanism (feature) used to get infected in the first place to be shut off, not a temporarily patch which will only stop that one exploit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.livedigitally.com/2006/11/02/out-damned-spyware-out/#comment-72230</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:35:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.livedigitally.com/2006/11/02/out-damned-spyware-out/#comment-72230</guid>
		<description>I should probably point out that when I say "the only thing it tends to find is Tracking Cookies" in regards to Spybot S&#38;D, I mean the over and above Windows Defender. By itelf, Spybot does an admirable job of finding spyware. I just find it unfair to judge antispyware based on purely on total number of items found as not all spyware "hits" are equal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should probably point out that when I say &#8220;the only thing it tends to find is Tracking Cookies&#8221; in regards to Spybot S&amp;D, I mean the over and above Windows Defender. By itelf, Spybot does an admirable job of finding spyware. I just find it unfair to judge antispyware based on purely on total number of items found as not all spyware &#8220;hits&#8221; are equal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.livedigitally.com/2006/11/02/out-damned-spyware-out/#comment-72081</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:16:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.livedigitally.com/2006/11/02/out-damned-spyware-out/#comment-72081</guid>
		<description>I run Windows Defender as well as Spybot S&#38;D. I just wanted to point out that Spybot's results can be a little deceiving. The only thing it tends to find is Tracking Cookies, albeit it does find between 15-20 of them each time I run it on my computer (about once a month). Then again, I don't run my machine as an Admin, so I don't get infected with the real nasty items. Running as a limited user is the real way to protect your computer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I run Windows Defender as well as Spybot S&amp;D. I just wanted to point out that Spybot&#8217;s results can be a little deceiving. The only thing it tends to find is Tracking Cookies, albeit it does find between 15-20 of them each time I run it on my computer (about once a month). Then again, I don&#8217;t run my machine as an Admin, so I don&#8217;t get infected with the real nasty items. Running as a limited user is the real way to protect your computer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
