AVG Secure/Safe Search and AVG Security Toolbar Malware/Foistware

Norton Security | Norton Internet Security
1

AVG Secure/Safe Search and AVG Security Toolbar - Malware/Foistware

 

Can the latest releases of Norton Security products block these ....... pieces of malware?

 

On new build I let my one month trial of Norton Internet Security lapse while trying to decide between that and Norton 360.

I now find that I have this crap AVG software installed and there were traces of it widespread throughout the system under all accounts and throughout the registry. I didn't ask for it it was just there.

While I have been very careful where I went on the net since Norton internet Security expired (basically just researching Norton security products and some Facebook) I assumed somewhere in that post expiry period this foistware was thrust upon me. That's what I assumed, but I was wrong. From the datestamps I see it downloaded and self-installed 3 days before Norton Internet Security expired.

 

I recommend you block all software from this company. Everything about AVG smells of trouble. For example, I found they downloaded a program to a temporary folder and created a task in Windows task scheduler to run it every time any user logs on. No wonder there are so many complaints on the internet from people unable to permanently delete the software - they delete and it comes back next time they log on. LOL, they should have been suspicious with that behavior and checked the startup items and task scheduler.

 

I deleted every AVG file I could find from every account and removed all traces it from the registry. I had to boot into safe mode to remove some of the services and and registry entries. There is one remaining registry entry that I can't delete "LEGACY_AVGTP". Anyone have any advice on how to kill this?

 

System seems to be better now - except that Internet explorer ignores the right-click-open-in-new-tab request the first time I clicka link and instead opens the link in the current tab. After the first time it works as it should - perplexing.

 

On the Norton front I'm thinking I will get INTERNET SECURITY for anti-viral/ anti-malware and SYMANTEC SYSTEM RECOVERY for backups and disc imaging. I still have questions though: Are the UTILITIES in NORTON 360 as good as/as comprehensive as those in the NORTON UTILITIES product? Does Norton 360 support UEIF and GPT drives?

 

So it comes down to NIS + SSR + NU - OR - N 360 possibly with SSR added for disc imaging. Opinions please ....

 

I'm worried I may have missed something so I think I'm going to copy all the user data directories I know are safe (i.e. nothing created by the system itself like common files etc) and then reinstall windows from scratch. Then I will replace the data files and then immediately create a disk image on the fresh install using the inbuilt windows utilities until I have one of the above products installed.

 

Please add all AVG software to the list of unsafe programs if you have not already done so - I'm really put off by this piece of malware getting through three days before the IS trial expired.

 

Cheers and someone please reply.

2

AVG is legit, and not malware   They do have a toolbar users can have with there AV products, but not needed with Norton

 

 

Quads

3

Re Quads: "AVG is legit, and not malware  "

 

Then:

 

  • Why the can't-be-permanently-deleted tactics?
  • Why the sneaky hidden installation files?
  • Why the self reinstalling tricks (following auto or manual deletion) when any user logs on?
  • Why the faulty/incomplete uninstall program that so many have complained about online?
  • Why the: "You will use me whether you like it or not and even if you close or don't start my toolbar I will still be there watching, manipulating, redirecting and you can't get rid of me - mwahahaha" behavior?

It doesn't sound like legit practices to me.

It doesn't sound like a company with a reputation to protect - they do have an online reputation though, a bad one.

4

But is you

 

The toolbars are legit  But not needed with Norton

 

Quads

5

Legit or not, it behaves like Malware and many people consider it to be malware - look on the net for yourself.

Not needed but Norton should block it from downloading and from installing automatically.

 

Also there are many complaints of it slowing down users systems. According to some sites it also frequently comes with a host of other foistware products.

 

I want to be sure it never gets anywhere near my system again. I did not ask for it or know it was downloaded this time so they were sneaky about it. I want Norton to block it or I  want some other security system that will block it.

6

I have looked it up, and it is legit and won't be detected it is actually a more harmless PUP than some PUP's  there is no need to automatically bloock or delete it by Norton or other AV.

 

Safe Search, Secure Search and Link Scanner     

 

There are programs that during install, install the toolbar if the user does not untick /uncheck  the boxes.

 

Quads

7
GTF wrote:

Not needed but Norton should block it from downloading and from installing automatically.

This toolbar, like many others, rides along with other software that a user is downloading and installing.  Like most bundled software, it does not install automatically.  It installs with permission from the user.  If you don't opt out, you get the toolbar.

 

Why do security programs not block these installations?  Well, let's say you want to install free program ABC.  ABC is offered free because part of the cost is defrayed by software company XYZ, who pays company ABC to bundle their XYZ Toolbar in the download.  As long as the software is legitimate and users have the option of not installing the extra program, an antivirus company really has no business interfering in this business arrangement just becuase some users might not want the other software - and in fact, doing so would possibly adversely affect a lot of free programs that are supported in this manner, including Java, Adobe Flash Player, and many others.  If you are downloading and installing a free product, it really is up to you, the user, to read the explanatons of what is being installed, and to opt out of anything that you do not want.

8

SendOfJive  writes: "It installs with permission from the user."

                        and: "If you don't opt out, you get the toolbar."

 

Those two statements are not equivalent. I have researched this now and it seems many of these sites/installations pre check the options for you or only provide an opt out option which they leave unchecked and/or they hide or distract you from these options. That being the case they don't really have the user's permission. Oversight is not permission, clicking a button that is misleading by wording or positioning is not permission.

 

Any software that purports to provide online security should block or at the very least warn users of sites and downloads that use such practices. Deception is not a legitimate business practice.

 

Real world example: I place 10 pieces of candy on plates along a table near a children's play area, and one of these is laced with Campylobacter jejuni - guaranteed to make whoever eats very sick. At the end of the table I also place a small cage with the most adorable puppy inside. Low down on the back of the cage I place a small note warning that one of the candy pieces contains Camplylobacter. Have I done anything wrong? Should I be stopped? Should I go to jail when someone gets sick? I would say Yes, Yes and YES.

 

For starters, many would not know what Campylobacter jejuni was and not know that they don't real want it and that it would make them sick, even if they saw the note (just like these unwanted destructive foistware products). How many would see the note? Not many, most people will be distracted by the candy and/or the puppy and never notice it, so they haven't consumed it knowing there was a risk of getting something extra.

 

Back to Foistware/Malware

They are using as aspect of human cognition commonly called 'Inattentional blindness' or 'perceptual blindness' against consumers. The human mind can only perceive so many things at the one time. They take advantage of this to distract consumers into accepting things they don't want. Magicians do this all the time, it's how they make living. When a magician shows you how a trick is done you wonder how you were ever fooled, it's blindingly obvious and right under your nose - yet you didn't see it at the time.

 

These foistware products are no different.

If this is legal, it should not be. As a consumer you are not a consenting participant in a contract if you didn't know there was a contract because the provider intentionally distracted you from seeing it.

 

SendOfJive writes: "ABC is offered free because part of the cost is defrayed by software company XYZ, who pays company ABC to bundle their XYZ Toolbar in the download.  As long as the software is legitimate and users have the option of not installing the extra program, an antivirus company really has no business interfering in this..."

 

I disagree, how is XYZ profiting from this? If their toolbar is going to replace your current search provider or otherwise alter/redirect searches then any site supplying it is behaving in less than an upfront fully disclosed manner and should be blocked. Users should be made aware beyond doubt what are getting and exactly what it will be doing once it's on their system and what it will remove or replace.

 

A company's reputation is no better than the lowest lowlife they associate with.

 

SendOfJive writes: " ...doing so would possibly adversely affect a lot of free programs that are supported in this manner, including Java, Adobe Flash Player, and many others. "

 

So it should if they are going do it in such underhanded ways. Freeware obviously comes at price (nothing is truly free) but consumers should know exactly what that price is in each specific case; it should not be a gamble, it should not be dangerous.

Adds are fine as long as they don't follow you around the screen forcing you to acknowledge them before you can get on with whatever brought you to the site. Popup adds should have an easy and unmistakable easy way to close them that will not initiate any further action, e.g. no acceptance buttons disguised as close buttons. Acceptance boxes should not be checked for the user; if the user didn't check the acceptance box for each and every addon then the user didn't request it.

 

OK, said my peace, monologue finished.

9

P.S. Fresh installation of everything and windows and explorer are running nicely. It took all night but now no trace of AVG left anywhere. Now to take a disk image so I don't have to go through that again in this ever happens again.

 

I suppose it should go without saying (but how many do it? I know I haven't) but Always do take a disk image after windows installation and another after all primary software has been installed before you download anything from other internet sights and even before you start browsing the web. Lesson learnt.
Also get into the habit of checking the startup menu and task scheduler regularly for unsolicited changes.

 

10

SendOfJive  writes: "It installs with permission from the user."

                        and: "If you don't opt out, you get the toolbar."

 

 Is correct to those who understand, if the box is ticked / checked  then the user has given permission and have not opted out so the installer also installs the toolbar, It doesn't matter if the box is automatically ticked / checked to start with without the user manually doing so.  The program (installer) still sees the option selected so the user has given permission and have not opted out.

 

Quads

 

 

11

Quads writes: "Is correct to those who understand"

 

To those who understand what's happening and what they are getting maybe, not for those who don't.

Not to those who understand human biology and human cognition. It is scaming. The whole practice relies on the users not knowing what's happening, it wouldn't work for them otherwise.

 

Would you like the other party to sign a contract on your behalf and just leave it to you to pop it in the envelope and mail it? It wouldn't be legal and either should this be.

12

"Would you like the other party to sign a contract on your behalf and just leave it to you to pop it in the envelope and mail it? It wouldn't be legal and either should this be."

 

It can be legal if the a letter is sent out worded differently,  I have seen them  Where the letter to you states if you do not fill out the bottom of the letter ticking the box to "opt out, by acertian date then you will be automatically opted in.

 

Quads

13

^^^ I would dispute it in court.

I've done it and I won - well actually they backed down so it never got that far. A pity really, but they could see the where it was going.

14

If something is legal then it is legal, sometimes only if certian groups do it, like spying and hacking, but still legal.

 

Quads 

15

Or it just hasn't been tested in court yet. That's why so many of these disreputable business people back down when it comes to going to court. They don't want a precedent set, they don't want a verdict that says they were in the wrong because then they will have to change. They may even threaten court action themselves but it's all bluster, court is the last thing they want.

 

16

Good Luck taking Govts to court

 

Quads

17

When you have to resort to using human cognitive biology against them you must know you are doing something wrong. If you're above board you would not be resorting to trickery.

18

Quads has distracted me away from my primary point here which is that Norton and over internet secuirty providers should block or at the very least warn users if the site they are visiting is known for foisting foistware or malware on unwary customers. They should warn users if the sight has confusing and/or intentionally misleading button positioning, etcetera etcetera etcetera and so on an do forth.

19

If the site does not have Malware then no need to warn,   PUP's are not Malware,  otherwise on your idea even security websites will be listed  That would include AVG and Symantec because of the AVG toolbar and Norton with Ask.  Then Cnet and other popular sites would have to be included.  hmmmmm thinking  Flash includes the McAfee Security Scan for free ( or did)  anyone else want to give examples. of if sites that have downloads with PUP's included  would be blocked (or a warning).

 

These sites are not detected as there is no malware but at times only PUP's.

 

Quads

20

Quads has distracted from primary message here which is that Norton and all others who claim to provide security on the web should be blocking, or at least warning, users when they enter a site that foists foistware or malware on unsuspecting customers and visitors. Warn them that they need to look for prechecked check boxes or implied acceptance of unrequested software downloads. Warn them that the site has misleading buttons. Warn them that the page may redirect them to some other site or open other sites in new but in the background windows. Warn them that site has hidden hotspots or even page wide invisible hotspots. Warn them that the site will try to stop them from leaving the page once they have entered it. Warn them of anything undesirable the site may be doing whether it it is doing it legally or not. Give users the option to permanently block such sites.