Spyware installed with Q2005

[Double Dumbass On You]

I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed by
Quicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true?

Gil Grissom wrote: I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed by Quicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true?

Where did you hear this? I have not heard of it, nor have I
experienced it.

--
John Pollard
First Last at Bellsouth dot net
Please reply to newsgroup

[Clark W. Griswold, Jr.]

"Gil Grissom" <spam_me_gently_with_a_chainsaw@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed byQuicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true?

No.

[John Blaustein]

Gil,

I've been using Quicken since 1991 and have never found that to be the case.
I've seen nothing in Quicken 2005 H&B that would qualify as either "a ton of
crap" or "spyware."

Perhaps you could be more specific in describing just what "extras" are
installed with Quicken.

John

"Gil Grissom" <spam_me_gently_with_a_chainsaw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10q4prk9pcd0r4d@news.supernews.com...I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed by Quicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true?

[Doug Ellice]

Gil Grissom wrote: I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed by Quicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true?
I know that it is NOT true.
Doug

[Double Dumbass On You]

This is precisely what I am trying to ascertain. So, no, I can't really be
more precise as to what because it could be ANYTHING.

By "ton of crap" I am implying that Quicken has possibly become bloatware
(http://www.webopaedia.com/TERM/b/bloatware.html)
and that some of this condition might be a side-effect of included spyware
(http://www.webopaedia.com/TERM/s/spyware.html)


This is just a rumor I heard circulating around the web. I was looking for
potential positive responses. Like if someone said "Oh yes, it installs
blah blah blah into the %SystemRoot%\system32 directory which does <blank>"
I could install it on a test machine and verify this. And then I would
probably avoid installing it on my primary machine at home, which is my
secure machine.

It's like when I ask my coworkers via Email if anyone has seen the hole
punch that is normally in the media room. I am not looking for 100 "No, I
haven't seen it." answers. I am looking for the one potential "Yes, I have
it and I am still using it." answer.

-GG


"John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:GqKdnXIOcJQq5D_cRVn-rQ@lmi.net... Gil, I've been using Quicken since 1991 and have never found that to be the
case. I've seen nothing in Quicken 2005 H&B that would qualify as either "a ton
of crap" or "spyware." Perhaps you could be more specific in describing just what "extras" are installed with Quicken. John "Gil Grissom" <spam_me_gently_with_a_chainsaw@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:10q4prk9pcd0r4d@news.supernews.com...I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed
by Quicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true?

[Double Dumbass On You]

And your source is?

"Doug Ellice" <DouglasSpamNotEllice@Comcast.NotSpam.net> wrote in message
news:4PadneD2W_O9AD_cRVn-vw@comcast.com... Gil Grissom wrote: I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed
by Quicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true? I know that it is NOT true. Doug

[John Blaustein]

Gil,

I was trying to be helpful. In your original post, you did not say: "I am
not looking for 100 "No, I haven't seen it." answers." If you had said
that, I and (perhaps) others would not have bothered to reply.

It sounds to me as though the rumor you heard is just that, a rumor. If you
find some concrete evidence of bloatware or spyware coming with Quicken,
perhaps you'll be kind enough to let us know on this newsgroup.
Incidentally, many users feel that over the years Intuit has added so many
features to Quicken that they now consider it to be bloatware. For the
other users who use the "extras," it isn't bloatware at all.

John


"Gil Grissom" <spam_me_gently_with_a_chainsaw@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10q7dts96lvoefc@news.supernews.com... This is precisely what I am trying to ascertain. So, no, I can't really be more precise as to what because it could be ANYTHING. By "ton of crap" I am implying that Quicken has possibly become bloatware (http://www.webopaedia.com/TERM/b/bloatware.html) and that some of this condition might be a side-effect of included spyware (http://www.webopaedia.com/TERM/s/spyware.html) This is just a rumor I heard circulating around the web. I was looking for potential positive responses. Like if someone said "Oh yes, it installs blah blah blah into the %SystemRoot%\system32 directory which does <blank>" I could install it on a test machine and verify this. And then I would probably avoid installing it on my primary machine at home, which is my secure machine. It's like when I ask my coworkers via Email if anyone has seen the hole punch that is normally in the media room. I am not looking for 100 "No, I haven't seen it." answers. I am looking for the one potential "Yes, I have it and I am still using it." answer. -GG "John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message news:GqKdnXIOcJQq5D_cRVn-rQ@lmi.net... Gil, I've been using Quicken since 1991 and have never found that to be the case. I've seen nothing in Quicken 2005 H&B that would qualify as either "a ton of crap" or "spyware." Perhaps you could be more specific in describing just what "extras" are installed with Quicken. John "Gil Grissom" <spam_me_gently_with_a_chainsaw@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:10q4prk9pcd0r4d@news.supernews.com...I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed by Quicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true?

[Doug Ellice]

Gil Grissom wrote: And your source is?


I have the best possible source - myself. I've installed Quicken 2005
on several computers on which I also regularly run programs to detect
spyware and adware. Quicken loaded none. I also use a 2-directional
firewall, and there's no trace of any spying.

But surely you, and everyone else who reads these messages, ALSO
regularly run software to detect spyware and adware, and ALSO use a
firewall.

Because if someone does NOT, then they have to wonder whether or not to
believe the crap they hear fourth-hand, instead of having confidence
that they KNOW what their computer is doing.

Doug

[John Blaustein]

Gil,

I neglected to add in my previous posts what Doug just said. That is, I
regularly run Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D (latest versions with updates applied)
and neither has ever found anything Quicken-related. Naturally, I also run
AV software and have a hardware firewall -- all of which makes me feel quite
confident in my security.

For what it's worth, I think you can feel comfortable running Quicken. It
will help you keep track of your money, but won't do much more -- good or
bad.

John



"Doug Ellice" <DouglasSpamNotEllice@Comcast.NotSpam.net> wrote in message
news:huWdnTlnU7peQj7cRVn-ig@comcast.com... Gil Grissom wrote: And your source is? I have the best possible source - myself. I've installed Quicken 2005 on several computers on which I also regularly run programs to detect spyware and adware. Quicken loaded none. I also use a 2-directional firewall, and there's no trace of any spying. But surely you, and everyone else who reads these messages, ALSO regularly run software to detect spyware and adware, and ALSO use a firewall. Because if someone does NOT, then they have to wonder whether or not to believe the crap they hear fourth-hand, instead of having confidence that they KNOW what their computer is doing. Doug

[David H. Lipman]

Well there 'ya go.

While I don't have Q'2005 ( I use Q'2003) I knew someone would step up and state they use
SpyBot or Adaware SE or some other malware scanner and knew that Quicken adds no malware.

Dave




"John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message news:suudnVmNhPA9eT7cRVn-1A@lmi.net...
| Gil,
|
| I neglected to add in my previous posts what Doug just said. That is, I
| regularly run Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D (latest versions with updates applied)
| and neither has ever found anything Quicken-related. Naturally, I also run
| AV software and have a hardware firewall -- all of which makes me feel quite
| confident in my security.
|
| For what it's worth, I think you can feel comfortable running Quicken. It
| will help you keep track of your money, but won't do much more -- good or
| bad.
|
| John
|
|
|
| "Doug Ellice" <DouglasSpamNotEllice@Comcast.NotSpam.net> wrote in message
| news:huWdnTlnU7peQj7cRVn-ig@comcast.com...
| > Gil Grissom wrote:
| >> And your source is?
| >
| >
| > I have the best possible source - myself. I've installed Quicken 2005 on
| > several computers on which I also regularly run programs to detect spyware
| > and adware. Quicken loaded none. I also use a 2-directional firewall,
| > and there's no trace of any spying.
| >
| > But surely you, and everyone else who reads these messages, ALSO regularly
| > run software to detect spyware and adware, and ALSO use a firewall.
| >
| > Because if someone does NOT, then they have to wonder whether or not to
| > believe the crap they hear fourth-hand, instead of having confidence that
| > they KNOW what their computer is doing.
| >
| > Doug
|
|

[John Blaustein]

Dave,

So we're clear here, all I'm claiming is that I do my best to monitor and
protect my own system. Furthermore, the tools I use have never detected
anything unwanted that is Quicken-related. I acknowledge that Quicken might
have installed something that Ad-Aware and Spybot can't find, but my level
of protection if comfortable to me, so I use Quicken with complete
confidence.

Others may have different experiences.

John


"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:jPRod.2675$6m2.1654@trnddc04... Well there 'ya go. While I don't have Q'2005 ( I use Q'2003) I knew someone would step up and state they use SpyBot or Adaware SE or some other malware scanner and knew that Quicken adds no malware. Dave "John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message news:suudnVmNhPA9eT7cRVn-1A@lmi.net... | Gil, | | I neglected to add in my previous posts what Doug just said. That is, I | regularly run Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D (latest versions with updates applied) | and neither has ever found anything Quicken-related. Naturally, I also run | AV software and have a hardware firewall -- all of which makes me feel quite | confident in my security. | | For what it's worth, I think you can feel comfortable running Quicken. It | will help you keep track of your money, but won't do much more -- good or | bad. | | John | | | | "Doug Ellice" <DouglasSpamNotEllice@Comcast.NotSpam.net> wrote in message | news:huWdnTlnU7peQj7cRVn-ig@comcast.com... | > Gil Grissom wrote: | >> And your source is? | > | > | > I have the best possible source - myself. I've installed Quicken 2005 on | > several computers on which I also regularly run programs to detect spyware | > and adware. Quicken loaded none. I also use a 2-directional firewall, | > and there's no trace of any spying. | > | > But surely you, and everyone else who reads these messages, ALSO regularly | > run software to detect spyware and adware, and ALSO use a firewall. | > | > Because if someone does NOT, then they have to wonder whether or not to | > believe the crap they hear fourth-hand, instead of having confidence that | > they KNOW what their computer is doing. | > | > Doug | |

[Rick Hess]

"John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote

(snip)Furthermore, the tools I use have never detected anything unwanted that is Quicken-related.
(snip)

I wanted to ask this the first time you said it, but better late than never:
How do you know?

I run Ad-Aware and Spybot every few days and usually SOMETHING turns up. I
can guess the origination, but I can never be positive.

Unless you ran the detection tools immediately before installing Quicken,
found nothing, then ran the detection tools immediately after installing
Quicken (and found nothing) then how can you be certain that Q is innocent?
Have you done this?
--


Rick Hess
New Orleans
To reply, eliminate All_Spammers

[John Blaustein]

Rick,

You are correct. I do not know with absolute certainty that Quicken is
innocent. I stand corrected. In fact, I apologize for posting potentially
misleading reports of my experience with Quicken on my computer.

John


"Rick Hess" <RHess51295All_Spammers@aol.com> wrote in message
news:30jeunF30hqugU1@uni-berlin.de... "John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote (snip)Furthermore, the tools I use have never detected anything unwanted that is Quicken-related. (snip) I wanted to ask this the first time you said it, but better late than never: How do you know? I run Ad-Aware and Spybot every few days and usually SOMETHING turns up. I can guess the origination, but I can never be positive. Unless you ran the detection tools immediately before installing Quicken, found nothing, then ran the detection tools immediately after installing Quicken (and found nothing) then how can you be certain that Q is innocent? Have you done this? -- Rick Hess New Orleans To reply, eliminate All_Spammers

[Doug Ellice]

John Blaustein wrote:
Rick, You are correct. I do not know with absolute certainty that Quicken is innocent. I stand corrected. In fact, I apologize for posting potentially misleading reports of my experience with Quicken on my computer. John


Sometimes no amount of debunking is sufficient to overcome the power of
an Internet rumor....
Doug, spyware free with Q2005

Rick Hess wrote: "John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote (snip) Furthermore, the tools I use have never detected anything unwanted that is Quicken-related. (snip) I wanted to ask this the first time you said it, but better late than never: How do you know? I run Ad-Aware and Spybot every few days and usually SOMETHING turns up. I can guess the origination, but I can never be positive. Unless you ran the detection tools immediately before installing Quicken, found nothing, then ran the detection tools immediately after installing Quicken (and found nothing) then how can you be certain that Q is innocent? Have you done this?

I thought the original question was bogus; the onus is on those
who were "heard" to say spyware was installed to provide
evidence, and people making such claims should be willing to
have their names associated with their claims. But since the
thread has moved to some more specific thoughts, I have a
comment or two (only the next paragraph pertains to your post,
Rick).

I think your test is a bit too rigid to cover all situations; if
I install Quicken without pre-cleaning my pc, and three days
later I run every known spyware detector in the world and no
trace of spyware is detected, can I not be reasonably certain
that none was installed with Quicken?

As far as I know, no defense is impregnable (pc, personal
physical security, military, etc.); one who is determined enough
and who has enough time and resources can breach virtually any
defense. Is someone expecting the impossible by seeking an
answer to this type of thread/question? And asking that a
negative be proved, namely: is there a way to guarantee 100%
that no unwanted software has been installed on your computer?
Can anyone prove absolutely that because they did not find
spyware, none exists? If not, what is the standard for being
able to answer the question: does Q2005 install spyware? We
certainly have no answer regarding the standards used by those
who started this rumor (or even whether such people exist,
though it is not difficult to imagine them), or the one who is
passing it along.

My suspicion is that if such spyware were being installed by
Q2005, there would have been no need for this thread; it would
long since have been established beyond doubt, and it would have
appeared in this group.

--
John Pollard
First Last at Bellsouth dot net
Please reply to newsgroup

[Rick Hess]

"John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote
You are correct. I do not know with absolute certainty that Quicken is innocent. I stand corrected. In fact, I apologize for posting
potentially misleading reports of my experience with Quicken on my computer.


John,

I didn't mean to put you on your defensive. I was just trying to expand on
your good idea that Ad-Aware or Spybot might find spyware if Quicken
installed it.

In my experience, I can't think of even one instance when I have run
Ad-Aware (except consecutively) and not found something. And, unless you
run it after each time you access a site or application, I am uncertain how
anyone can conclude what installed the "hits".

After I re-reading Doug Ellice's second post, I am under the impression that
he actually did check his system before and after installing Q. So, it
appears that your conclusion -- "you can feel comfortable running
Quicken" -- may be correct.
--


Rick Hess
New Orleans
To reply, eliminate All_Spammers

[John Blaustein]

Rick,

Thank you for your follow-up.

I didn't feel "attacked," and didn't mean to sound defensive (if that's how
it sounded). The fact is that you were right -- I don't have proof positive
that Quicken/Intuit isn't spying on me, so I should not have made that
claim.

I have the same experience with Ad-Aware and Spybot as you -- they always
find something. Ad-Aware always finds some cookies and Spybot always finds
some IE registry entries (I can't remember the exact name). I've never done
a before/after test with Quicken -- run Ad-Aware & Spybot, clean whatever
they find, run Quicken and do online banking updates, then re-run Ad-Aware &
Spybot. Nor have I done the before and after installing Quicken test.
Might be interesting.

For better or worse, I begin with the premise that Intuit is a good and
honorable company that respects my privacy and does its best to provide an
excellent product for the task of helping me manage my money. Nothing in
the past 14 years since I started using Quicken has discouraged me from
feeling that way. I am not suspicious that they are trying to spy on me.
(OK guys... I know lots of you will jump down my throat here, calling me
naive and perhaps other things. Please respect my right to feel this way!
<g>)

One interesting thing I noted in Q2005 H&B: Edit>Preferences>Online
Updates>Connection>Quicken usage study -- this item on the dialog has a
checkbox for: "Send anonymous product usage data during One Step Update.
Intuit uses this data to improve Quicken. For more information, click
Help." (I have this checkbox turned off.)

John Pollard... good point in your post that "if such spyware were being
installed by Q2005, there would have been no need for this thread; it would
long since have been established beyond doubt, and it would have appeared in
this group." One of the things I like about this NG is that a substantial
number of the "regulars" seem to be very sophisticated PC users and are on
top of things like this.

Let's hope for a good Thanksgiving for all.

John



"Rick Hess" <RHess51295All_Spammers@aol.com> wrote in message
news:30k4jpF31vinvU1@uni-berlin.de... "John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote You are correct. I do not know with absolute certainty that Quicken is innocent. I stand corrected. In fact, I apologize for posting potentially misleading reports of my experience with Quicken on my computer. John, I didn't mean to put you on your defensive. I was just trying to expand on your good idea that Ad-Aware or Spybot might find spyware if Quicken installed it. In my experience, I can't think of even one instance when I have run Ad-Aware (except consecutively) and not found something. And, unless you run it after each time you access a site or application, I am uncertain how anyone can conclude what installed the "hits". After I re-reading Doug Ellice's second post, I am under the impression that he actually did check his system before and after installing Q. So, it appears that your conclusion -- "you can feel comfortable running Quicken" -- may be correct. -- Rick Hess New Orleans To reply, eliminate All_Spammers

[Mike B]

John Blaustein <nomail@nomail.com> wrote: Rick, Thank you for your follow-up. I didn't feel "attacked," and didn't mean to sound defensive (if that's how it sounded). The fact is that you were right -- I don't have proof positive that Quicken/Intuit isn't spying on me, so I should not have made that claim.

What? You've never seen that pair of eyes following your cursor everywhere
it goes on the screen? Look over your shoulder next time you have Quicken
open. ;-)

--
Mike B

[Rick Hess]

"John Pollard" <johnpollard@bellsouth.net> wrote

(snip) I thought the original question was bogus; the onus is on those who were "heard" to say spyware was installed to provide evidence, and people making such claims should be willing to have their names associated with their claims.
(snip)

(snip) My suspicion is that if such spyware were being installed by Q2005, there would have been no need for this thread; it would long since have been established beyond doubt, and it would have appeared in this group.


IMO, the most sagacious thoughts in this thread.
--


Rick Hess
New Orleans
To reply, eliminate All_Spammers

[Rick Hess]

"John Pollard" <johnpollard@bellsouth.net> wrote
I think your test is a bit too rigid to cover all situations; if I install Quicken without pre-cleaning my pc, and three days later I run every known spyware detector in the world and no trace of spyware is detected, can I not be reasonably certain that none was installed with Quicken?

Of course -- at least as certain as the effectivity of all of those
detection tools, which, of course, you address in your next paragraph.

But using mode you describe above, if one does find spyware then did Q put
it there or was it pre-existing? This is why I suggested running the
spyware detectors before installing Q, and then again afterwards.

As far as I know, no defense is impregnable (pc, personal physical security, military, etc.); one who is determined enough and who has enough time and resources can breach virtually any defense. Is someone expecting the impossible by seeking an answer to this type of thread/question? And asking that a negative be proved, namely: is there a way to guarantee 100% that no unwanted software has been installed on your computer? Can anyone prove absolutely that because they did not find spyware, none exists? If not, what is the standard for being able to answer the question: does Q2005 install spyware? We certainly have no answer regarding the standards used by those who started this rumor (or even whether such people exist, though it is not difficult to imagine them), or the one who is passing it along.

--


Rick Hess
New Orleans
To reply, eliminate All_Spammers

[Steven Latus]

John Pollard wrote:

I thought the original question was bogus; the onus is on those who were "heard" to say spyware was installed to provide evidence, and people making such claims should be willing to have their names associated with their claims. But since the thread has moved to some more specific thoughts, I have a comment or two (only the next paragraph pertains to your post, Rick).

Exactly right.

How do I know there aren't Martians under my sofa? Maybe they make
themselves invisible whenever I look for them.

But it's not up to me to prove they aren't there. The burden of proof is
on the person claiming that they are there.

Steve

Rick Hess wrote: But using mode you describe above, if one does find spyware then did Q put it there or was it pre-existing? This is why I suggested running the spyware detectors before installing Q, and then again afterwards.

Your point was absolutely correct (and still is :)) : I did not
mean to suggest I disagreed with it. I was trying suggest that
there was a specific situation (probably a very rare situation)
where you could prove (by the so-far agreed standards) that you
had no spyware without testing immediately before and after a
Quicken installation. And having no spyware at all after a
Quicken installation (no matter how long after) would, by
inference, prove that Quicken did not install spyware. (I am
waiting - with no trepidation - for someone to suggest that the
spyware could have been installed during the Quicken
installation, done some sort of alleged dirty work, then
uninstalled itself before my later spyware test ...).

Your test would be as definitive as as I can imagine and I await
anyone to suggest a better one. When it comes to the details of
the subject of this thread, I confess ignorance of the
methodology, so I can not comment on whether there is some
better approach to finding the alleged "spyware"
..

--
John Pollard
First Last at Bellsouth dot net
Please reply to newsgroup

Steven Latus wrote: How do I know there aren't Martians under my sofa? Maybe they make themselves invisible whenever I look for them.

Damn, you mean they might not be there? I have been leaving
food out for them at night.

--
John Pollard
First Last at Bellsouth dot net
Please reply to newsgroup

[David H. Lipman]

You left the wrong food !

Dave



"John Pollard" <johnpollard@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Kqcpd.43003$jE2.13484@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
| Steven Latus wrote:
| > How do I know there aren't Martians under my sofa? Maybe they
| > make themselves invisible whenever I look for them.
|
| Damn, you mean they might not be there? I have been leaving
| food out for them at night.
|
| --
| John Pollard
| First Last at Bellsouth dot net
| Please reply to newsgroup
|
|

[John Blaustein]

I think I'll attach a pair of rear view side mirrors to my monitor.

John
What? You've never seen that pair of eyes following your cursor everywhere it goes on the screen? Look over your shoulder next time you have Quicken open. ;-) -- Mike B

[I live on Outlook]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:14:55 -0500, Doug Ellice
<DouglasSpamNotEllice@Comcast.NotSpam.net> wrote:
Gil Grissom wrote: And your source is?I have the best possible source - myself. I've installed Quicken 2005on several computers on which I also regularly run programs to detectspyware and adware. Quicken loaded none. I also use a 2-directionalfirewall, and there's no trace of any spying.

Which programs do you use for this purpose?
But surely you, and everyone else who reads these messages, ALSOregularly run software to detect spyware and adware, and ALSO use afirewall.

Yup.Because if someone does NOT, then they have to wonder whether or not tobelieve the crap they hear fourth-hand, instead of having confidencethat they KNOW what their computer is doing.Doug

[speedlever]

"John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in
news:IfidnWC_3KegfjncRVn-2g@lmi.net:

snip I have the same experience with Ad-Aware and Spybot as you -- they always find something. Ad-Aware always finds some cookies and Spybot always finds some IE registry entries (I can't remember the exact name). I've never done a before/after test with Quicken -- run Ad-Aware & Spybot, clean whatever they find, run Quicken and do online banking updates, then re-run Ad-Aware & Spybot. Nor have I done the before and after installing Quicken test. Might be interesting.

snip

John,

I haven't thought about this until I read your post above. I have been
using Firefox (in multiple iterations from 0.7 to 1.0 release) for
several months now. I rarely use IE any more.

I keep my Spybot, Spywareblaster and Ad-Aware SE updated. I run ZAF
(updated) and NAV 2003 (updated). I also have a NAT router (HW
firewall). My XP/sp2 firewall is disabled (as is the Security Center).

I cannot remember the last time Spybot reported finding anything. And
AASE only finds a few tracking cookies (less than 10). I infrequently
run the anti-spyware programs... maybe twice a month or so.

I wonder if that has anything to do with using Firefox rather than IE as
my browser?

I may run Rick's test as I anticipate taking Staples up on their buy TT
and get Q2005D free (with rebates) offer.

I don't expect to find anything. ;)

I could be wrong. :D

[Rick Hess]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote You left the wrong food !
"John Pollard" <johnpollard@bellsouth.net> wrote | Steven Latus wrote: | > How do I know there aren't Martians under my sofa? Maybe they | > make themselves invisible whenever I look for them. | | Damn, you mean they might not be there? I have been leaving | food out for them at night.


That's correct. You need to feed them lies and rumors; that's all they
need to survive.
--


Rick Hess
New Orleans
To reply, eliminate All_Spammers

[David H. Lipman]

And the occasional side dish of innuendo.

Dave



"Rick Hess" <RHess51295All_Spammers@aol.com> wrote in message
news:30m710F324877U1@uni-berlin.de...

| That's correct. You need to feed them lies and rumors; that's all they
| need to survive.
| --
|
|
| Rick Hess
| New Orleans
| To reply, eliminate All_Spammers
|
|

[AK]

There was a problem like this a few years ago with TurboTax, and I suspect
what you have picked up is some distorted version of that issue.


"Doug Ellice" <DouglasSpamNotEllice@Comcast.NotSpam.net> wrote in message
news:4PadneD2W_O9AD_cRVn-vw@comcast.com... Gil Grissom wrote: I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed by Quicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true? I know that it is NOT true. Doug

[David H. Lipman]

Are you referring to C-Dilla ?
C-Dilla was called SpyWare but it isn't. It is a copy protection scheme.

Dave




"AK" <a.kolnik@delete-123-nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Odnpd.9186$ld2.4145@trnddc05...
| There was a problem like this a few years ago with TurboTax, and I suspect
| what you have picked up is some distorted version of that issue.
|
|
| "Doug Ellice" <DouglasSpamNotEllice@Comcast.NotSpam.net> wrote in message
| news:4PadneD2W_O9AD_cRVn-vw@comcast.com...
| > Gil Grissom wrote:
| >> I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed
| >> by
| >> Quicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true?
| >>
| >>
| >>
| > I know that it is NOT true.
| > Doug
|
|

[Han Broekman]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in news:Cinpd.9188
$ld2.6964@trnddc05:
Are you referring to C-Dilla ? C-Dilla was called SpyWare but it isn't. It is a copy protection scheme. Dave

And (IMO) a particularly bad one, since it writes to a sector on the hard
drive beyond normal access rules (at least that is what I understood.
Caveat: I am a biochemist, so really I should not understand).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[John Blaustein]

speedlever,

When I run Spybot, it finds DSO Exploit -- 5 registry keys "Data source
object exploit."

I use XP Home, SP2, IE with all patches and updates applied. I have a
SonicWall firewall with the XP firewall disabled; AVG 7.0. So far, so
good -- at least as far as I know.

John

"speedlever" <speedlever@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AC3E66B22A8rradfordtriadrrcom@24.25.9.43... "John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in news:IfidnWC_3KegfjncRVn-2g@lmi.net: snip I have the same experience with Ad-Aware and Spybot as you -- they always find something. Ad-Aware always finds some cookies and Spybot always finds some IE registry entries (I can't remember the exact name). I've never done a before/after test with Quicken -- run Ad-Aware & Spybot, clean whatever they find, run Quicken and do online banking updates, then re-run Ad-Aware & Spybot. Nor have I done the before and after installing Quicken test. Might be interesting. snip John, I haven't thought about this until I read your post above. I have been using Firefox (in multiple iterations from 0.7 to 1.0 release) for several months now. I rarely use IE any more. I keep my Spybot, Spywareblaster and Ad-Aware SE updated. I run ZAF (updated) and NAV 2003 (updated). I also have a NAT router (HW firewall). My XP/sp2 firewall is disabled (as is the Security Center). I cannot remember the last time Spybot reported finding anything. And AASE only finds a few tracking cookies (less than 10). I infrequently run the anti-spyware programs... maybe twice a month or so. I wonder if that has anything to do with using Firefox rather than IE as my browser? I may run Rick's test as I anticipate taking Staples up on their buy TT and get Q2005D free (with rebates) offer. I don't expect to find anything. ;) I could be wrong. :D

[David H. Lipman]

DSO Exploit -- is a False Positive declaration by SpyBot and indicates you have not applied
the update
or patch that stops the False Positive declaration.

Dave



"John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message news:ZsOdnVKHe9lTljvcRVn-sg@lmi.net...
| speedlever,
|
| When I run Spybot, it finds DSO Exploit -- 5 registry keys "Data source
| object exploit."
|
| I use XP Home, SP2, IE with all patches and updates applied. I have a
| SonicWall firewall with the XP firewall disabled; AVG 7.0. So far, so
| good -- at least as far as I know.
|
| John
|
| "speedlever" <speedlever@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:Xns95AC3E66B22A8rradfordtriadrrcom@24.25.9.43...
| > "John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in
| > news:IfidnWC_3KegfjncRVn-2g@lmi.net:
| >
| > snip
| >>
| >> I have the same experience with Ad-Aware and Spybot as you -- they
| >> always find something. Ad-Aware always finds some cookies and Spybot
| >> always finds some IE registry entries (I can't remember the exact
| >> name). I've never done a before/after test with Quicken -- run
| >> Ad-Aware & Spybot, clean whatever they find, run Quicken and do online
| >> banking updates, then re-run Ad-Aware & Spybot. Nor have I done the
| >> before and after installing Quicken test. Might be interesting.
| >
| > snip
| >
| > John,
| >
| > I haven't thought about this until I read your post above. I have been
| > using Firefox (in multiple iterations from 0.7 to 1.0 release) for
| > several months now. I rarely use IE any more.
| >
| > I keep my Spybot, Spywareblaster and Ad-Aware SE updated. I run ZAF
| > (updated) and NAV 2003 (updated). I also have a NAT router (HW
| > firewall). My XP/sp2 firewall is disabled (as is the Security Center).
| >
| > I cannot remember the last time Spybot reported finding anything. And
| > AASE only finds a few tracking cookies (less than 10). I infrequently
| > run the anti-spyware programs... maybe twice a month or so.
| >
| > I wonder if that has anything to do with using Firefox rather than IE as
| > my browser?
| >
| > I may run Rick's test as I anticipate taking Staples up on their buy TT
| > and get Q2005D free (with rebates) offer.
| >
| > I don't expect to find anything. ;)
| >
| > I could be wrong. :D
|
|

[John Blaustein]

Thank you, Dave. Glad to know those are false positives.

I've applied all Windows Updates and also "check for updates" whenever I use
Spybot. I assume the patch you refer to is for Spybot, so I'll check their
Web site.

John


"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:4wopd.7187$Nh1.6033@trnddc09... DSO Exploit -- is a False Positive declaration by SpyBot and indicates you have not applied the update or patch that stops the False Positive declaration. Dave "John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message news:ZsOdnVKHe9lTljvcRVn-sg@lmi.net... | speedlever, | | When I run Spybot, it finds DSO Exploit -- 5 registry keys "Data source | object exploit." | | I use XP Home, SP2, IE with all patches and updates applied. I have a | SonicWall firewall with the XP firewall disabled; AVG 7.0. So far, so | good -- at least as far as I know. | | John | | "speedlever" <speedlever@yahoo.com> wrote in message | news:Xns95AC3E66B22A8rradfordtriadrrcom@24.25.9.43... | > "John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in | > news:IfidnWC_3KegfjncRVn-2g@lmi.net: | > | > snip | >> | >> I have the same experience with Ad-Aware and Spybot as you -- they | >> always find something. Ad-Aware always finds some cookies and Spybot | >> always finds some IE registry entries (I can't remember the exact | >> name). I've never done a before/after test with Quicken -- run | >> Ad-Aware & Spybot, clean whatever they find, run Quicken and do online | >> banking updates, then re-run Ad-Aware & Spybot. Nor have I done the | >> before and after installing Quicken test. Might be interesting. | > | > snip | > | > John, | > | > I haven't thought about this until I read your post above. I have been | > using Firefox (in multiple iterations from 0.7 to 1.0 release) for | > several months now. I rarely use IE any more. | > | > I keep my Spybot, Spywareblaster and Ad-Aware SE updated. I run ZAF | > (updated) and NAV 2003 (updated). I also have a NAT router (HW | > firewall). My XP/sp2 firewall is disabled (as is the Security Center). | > | > I cannot remember the last time Spybot reported finding anything. And | > AASE only finds a few tracking cookies (less than 10). I infrequently | > run the anti-spyware programs... maybe twice a month or so. | > | > I wonder if that has anything to do with using Firefox rather than IE as | > my browser? | > | > I may run Rick's test as I anticipate taking Staples up on their buy TT | > and get Q2005D free (with rebates) offer. | > | > I don't expect to find anything. ;) | > | > I could be wrong. :D | |

[Steven Latus]

John Pollard wrote:
Steven Latus wrote:How do I know there aren't Martians under my sofa? Maybe theymake themselves invisible whenever I look for them. Damn, you mean they might not be there? I have been leaving food out for them at night.

That PROVES they exist!

If the creatures were native to this planet, they would have eaten the
food. Since it was not eaten, it stands to reason they were Martian and
therefore not able to assimilate terrestrial tidbits.

I believe that I'm on to something here (or maybe I'm just on something...).

Steve

[Stewart Berman]

They are probably referring to IE 6 which Quicken 2005 requires. I
think that could be considered "a ton of crap".

Stu

"Gil Grissom" <spam_me_gently_with_a_chainsaw@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have heard there is a ton of crap including spyware that is installed byQuicken 2005. Anyone found that this is true?