Normally rouges try to make money straight ahead but the producer of this rouge is trying an other way. The producer is using the same tactic that nprotect uses (nprotect is a legal company and provides protection). Nprotect gives reatime protection for free but you need to buy their services in order to repair the malware that was found during a scan. You have to google for more info.
I knew Spyware Doctor did that. I swear Spyware Doctor put tracking cookies into their updates, because even on a clean PC with no contact with the internet seems to have a tracking cookie on it.
Strange marketing technique, because otherwise you would just go to the file in windows explorer and make the AV clean up anyway. It’s a dangerous tactic, but really effective in the end.
this way the rouge will be harder to find out as rouge; it looks “legal” for someone who has no knowledge about security software. If you go to the website of the rouge you will see that it’s strange (at least I find the website that way).
Try to spread this info to all that you know.
(I thank all that have looked at this topic and hopefully spread it to the rest of the world! Thanks once again)
While i do agree with what your suggesting Valentinchen, i also think that caution must be used in such a list. The trouble is that putting the websites/names of these rogues in one place on this forum could lead to all sorts of problems, rogues being wrongly identified to name just one!
Ill bring this up in the mod board and see what the other mods think but i wouldnt get your hopes up, there are plenty of sites which list known rogues, if CNet is hosting one then they need to made aware that things are slipping through the net and more safeguards need to be put in place.
Hope you understand the immediate situation…
I’m afraid that what you described does not fit the definition of rogue.
Yes, that could be a tactic /marketing /etc., but that is not a rogue if the detections are genuine (even including FPs as a matter of fact).
So basically you (we) may not like it, when you cannot remove the alleged infection using free version, but that’s it.
Such subjective judgments can create much more problems rather than provide any solutions.
Therefore I totally agree with what Matty_R posted.
When the rogue was identified by the specialists and proven being a rogue – that’s a different story.
I compared to what strategy a legal company, nprotect, has. If you go to the website you will understand that I find the product unsafe (hxxp://www.preedasoftware.com/). It looks to much kaskpersky and we know that a software that is copy righted may not be copied. I haven’t installed it on my computer so i don’t know all the details. I will eventually do that once on virtual machine. And for being a AV it’s way to little (the setup(msi file) itself is 10Mb).
Just edited the link to preedasoftware to make it non clickable (if anyone wishes to go there replace the xx with tt). Im not sayiing its a dodgy link, but, well hopefully you understand Matty_R