Question to my fellow experts and admins

[nosirrah]

Does anyone else like the idea of splitting "newest rogue threats" into two categories ?

1. Rogues advertised by or installed by spam , trojans , exploits or other malicious means .

2. Rogues that are without question rogue but require the user to intentionally download the software and the advertising for the rogue is at least semi legit .

At the very least it would help prioritize what order in which rogues should be added into RR defs .

[Hardhead]

I think thats an excellent idea. :=)

[MysteryFCM]

Sounds good

[AndyAtHull]

Sounds great Bruce.

I have plans in place to have a similar category at my forum. If MB and all those involved with RR wish, you can work in there aswell for any new rogues that may get picked up.

There are more details about it, but untill a decision is made those will remain private.

Let me know.

[JeanInMontana]

Good idea Bruce. Some things are much more dangerous.

[Eric the Red]

Good idea Bruce. Some things are much more dangerous.

I concur

[dvk01]

good idea in theory but in practice very difficult

the rogues change from day to day & what was a "good" rogue ( one you believe the advertising but the product is as useful as a chocolate fireguard) can overnight change & be advertised by or installed by spam , trojans , exploits or other malicious means

[John L. Galt]

I have to agree with dvk01 - today it might be just installed by a product that you have toe manually download, but what if tomorrow someone else incorporates it into random websites?

[SpySentinel]

I agree

[JeanInMontana]

good idea in theory but in practice very difficult

the rogues change from day to day & what was a "good" rogue ( one you believe the advertising but the product is as useful as a chocolate fireguard) can overnight change & be advertised by or installed by spam , trojans , exploits or other malicious means

This doesn't mean the rogue won't get added it was for prioritizing testing. If you note this thread is nearly 6 months old.

[Guest remixed]

Removed

[JeanInMontana]

I am tempted to suggest a 3rd category ;'Crapware'. Security software which is legitimate in so much as it is neither rogue or malicious

but fully meets the definition of 'chocolate fireguard'. I can think of quite a few 'Big' names but on this occasion it's probably best to

excercise self-censorship. Any suggestions??

I could come up with a list of well known names also that I certainly don't recommend to users. Prime example are the recent toolbar additions to AVG, and ZoneAlarm, WebRoot has gone down a dark path too. Then there are the Spyhunters and Cyberdefender types that walk a slippery slope just a half step this side of full blown rogue.

Marcin and Jack have a set of rules to define what gets included and what doesn't. None of the programs I named make the cut. This also keeps RR a reputable program with integrity.

Opinions expressed by me are mine and mine alone.