Talk:MS Antivirus (malware)

Removal Section

Moved all of the Cyberdefender/Removal section discussion up here Matt (Talk) 00:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Cyberdefender bit (mostly)

The article on CNET cited does not contain any references to Cyberdefender, or it's supposed ability to remove Rogue software. This reference should be removed immediately. --121.44.33.148 (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that in the removal section it stated how the virus is regularily updated and most av's can't remove it, and then it said to contact cyberdefender technical support, stated their website link AND phone number, then added instrustions basically saying "Don't download any paid av's as technical support will help you" as if it were some kind of manual for using cyberdefender. THIS IS WIKIPEDIA NOT YOUR OWN ADSPACE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andokool12 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The bit on Cyberdefender is strait up advertising, a quick google search for antivirus 2009, will give pleanty of options for removing this virus, none of which I have seen this particular brand mentioned. this is advertising. This virus is perhaps the most rampant virus of the last year or so and looks to have a "promising future" in 2009 as well. ~~ Borsodas (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

MS Antivirus Ad

MS Antivirus is a %100 for real anti-virus scanner and remover. The trial version only scans, but the full version also removes. The full version costs $1.000.000. A small price to pay for your protection. RocketMaster (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're trolling or simply have mistaked this program for another (maybe there is a legitimate antivirus that is named MS Antivirus)... however this article deals with a malware program that is usually installed as a result of the zlob trojan. Regardless, please provide reputable sources that state otherwise. Keithieopia (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Saying that MS Antivirus is a legitimate antivirus program is like saying toasters fly. Dragon798 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research?

I can't believe I just saw that ad...

I am not seein any original research in the article, almost every section has at least one reference, which is respectable for a malware article. The majority of articles are going to be biased against the application, which limits the scope of the article. Theres not much information on these programs because they are designed to do one or two things, create revenue, and bog down a user's computer, to generate revenue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for protected article

As the authors of the malware, supposing Antivirus 2008 is such thing, may be editing this article in order to keep the business running, I suggest it to be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nattelsker (talk • contribs) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! LISTEN TO HIM! Dragon798 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Is there a link directing to the Antivirus 2009 website??? AndrewCrogonklol (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Section

IP 125.22.34.38 has been using this section as his own personal ad space for CyberDefender. Removing this entire section. If someone wants to post actual removal instructions that's ok, but I don't feel that promoting or burying AV or AS software is appropriate in this article. 98.162.150.29 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I added back in the removal section that was there before the guy spammed it up. Matt (Talk) 02:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh great, now it's an advertisement for Malware Bytes. Removing that too. Please don't put it back unless you can put up general removal instruction without relying on a particular product. OmnipotentEntity (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The way people generally remove rouge software is with removal programs, using the removal programs is the general way of removing rouge software, if we wanted to be more general we could write, "use removal programs" but that would be completely useless.--Arnos78 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not an advertisement. I have considerable experience with this problem. I have no financial relationship with Malwarebytes. In fact, the post suggests that an infected computer should wiped and the OS reloaded instead of wasting time and money on removal products. Malwarebytes is suggested only as temporary, emergency remedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.169.213 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Reformatting isn't recommended in the Bleeping Computer page that was sourced (as far as I can see D:). Malwarebytes is a reliable program that is recommended by online help sites for this infection. The section possibly needs rewording to include another couple of programs but I'm not sure if there are any that are used for this infection now. As far as I know there aren't any general removal instructions, a program is used. Matt (Talk) 00:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's better to have an expandable section that tells of one program that can be used to remove it then no section on how to remove it at all, I'm putting the removal section back in, if you are unhappy about there being only one program listed then find more, don't remove the only useful data on removal collected so far.--Arnos78 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Concur - agree with Arnos78. While I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia become a sales platform for ANYONE, I've been a computer tech for more years than I care to admit, and as of the end of 2008 Malwarebytes tool is THE most effective tool for removing this whole strain of malware. I've never had much luck with or cared for Cyberdefender, but perhaps it should be included. I don't believe it's intrusive or destructive, it's just that their line of tools are only trial versions that show you what you're infected with, you have to buy the product to actually remove the infections. As far as Instructions:

1. download
2. update
3. scan
4. click show results
5. click Remove Selected.

screen shots can be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched Davis (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 January 2009

Disagree - Wikipedia is not a guide book. This information belongs more as a link to Wikibooks than in a wikipedia article, if you create a wikibooks howto on howto remove MS Antivirus be my guest, but this is inappropriate material for an encyclopedia article. See ILOVEYOU, Code_red_worm, Nimda_(computer_worm), Sasser_(computer_worm), Netsky_(computer_worm), Vundo. OmnipotentEntity (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems not only reasonable for Wikipedia articles to document the bad stuff, but a responsible course of action to provide available methods of countering such garbage. If I seem passionate about this issue, it's because while these types of things provide income for me in the sense that people pay me to fix their computers, I've found the smitfraud, winfixer, vundo, and this whole strain of antivirus 2009 malware to be perhaps the most counter-productive use of computer knowledge and time that I've seen in many a year. My feeling is: "If you know enough to create this kind of crap, get your head out of that dark hole, and contribute to technology in a productive manner, instead of mucking it up for people just trying to get through their daily lives. Now I'm not going to get worked up over any wiki post or page, but I WILL defend the good guys! Sorry for the rant. Ched (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All due respect to those that feel Wikipedia is responsible for various and sundry things in the universe, but it's not. It's not even responsible for accurate content, that's why we have to have third-party sources. Wikipedia ia a community resource so suggesting that Wikipedia is responsible for something is akin to suggesting that either everyone is responsible for it or no one is. As for the removal instructions, if they were actual instructions that'd be appropriate. Seeing as they are not, they have become an advertisement. Padillah (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Padillah on it, sort of. As it currently stands, the article is serving as an advertisement for the software, and the removal information should be removed unless someone can provide some verifiable reliable sources that explain why that software is the best thing to use. Where Padillah wrote that "actual instructions" would be appropriate, I have to disagree. Per WP:NOTHOWTO, "Wikipedia is not a manual" and is not an instruction manual. Just like how recipes aren't allowed on Wikipedia, instructions on how to remove a virus by deleting files and cleaning up the registry and so on should not be included here. If you look at articles about viruses, such as ILOVEYOU and Koobface, they don't list removal methods. Other articles on rogue software mention the Malwarebytes software, but I'm wondering if someone had gone through the list and just added a link to all of them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I bow respectfully for reminding me of that, thank you. I recind that statement in light of now knowing what I'm talking about. Padillah (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have no problem what so ever with not including "How To" stuff. My text is only in support of providing "LINKS" to resolutions to the problems. You'll notice, I never tried to add said directions to the article. I was primarily defending the "LINK" to the malwarebytes thing, and any others if available. I understand that some things can not, and should not be included in articles. Legal, and medical items come to mind right off the bat. The article is for describing the malware. Should there not also be information, even if it is only providing a link or links, to items that can counter said malware? If one particular tool is a sticking point, meaning it's being seen as advertisement, perhaps a link to a third party site that is reputable in counter-malware information. bleepingcomputer, or other tech support forums?

Just out of curiosity, I looked at a non-related (diabetes) article, and see that common sense items such as eating right, watching blood pressure, not smoking, etc. are listed. I'm only suggesting that while we are describing aforementioned malware infection, we also provide a further reading direction for readers. Of course I will always adhere to guidelines, policy, and consensus, I only ask that consideration be given to both sides of this issue. Ched (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I would suggest something along the lines of "Several stand-alone virus scanners have been shown to remove this and many other forms of malware." You cite the article on diabetes, but it doesn't say how much of what to eat, it simply says "...exercising more, smoking less or ideally not at all, consuming an appropriate diet, wearing diabetic socks, wearing diabetic shoes, and if necessary, taking any of several drugs to reduce blood pressure." This is not nearly as specific as us trying to prescribe specific piece of software to solve the problem. I will say I feel kind of squishy about the lengths the diabetes article goes and will probably say something there as well. Even that is a little too much detail for me. If you can phrase it in a genral "helpiness" manner that's fine. It's the mentioning of specific names or specific steps that's off-limits. Padillah (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

sounds good to me. I'll see what I can conjure up. Maybe even an article about malware removal? ... might need some help with cite / ref. give me a day or two to get it worked out properly. thx. Ched (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Zlob Merge

This program can essentially be considered the zlob trojan, The article admits the program is downloaded by Zlob and the program is actually referenced on the Zlob page. Given the article's numerous problems, it would make sense just to merge this content with Zlob, and add a subsection for it; possibly a redirect from MS Antivirus to the Zlob page. Regardless, if it's decided the article is going to stay, it needs almost a complete rewrite: As discussed below there's Talk:MS Antivirus#To much use of "you" and "your", unreferenced material, and the page is almost written as a howto remove the program (which is already present in Zlob). Keithieopia (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree -Reasoning, Zlob is a trojan dropper, many rouge applications are dropped by Zlob and similar trojans, and adding a list of them onto each trojan article would soon have editors up in arms. Also, concidering that XP Antivirus is distuibuted by a seperate buisness corporation, it would not be smart to merge the two, IMO. Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know the list of malware that uses zlob is limited, can you provide sources that say otherwise (it would be beneficial to include them in the zlob article)? AFAIK MS Antivirus is uses zlob almost exclusively and hence the zlob article already discusses MS Antivirus. Thus, IMO no editors would become upset if more information is included about it in the zlob article. If anything the zlob article needs more information about MS Antivirus. I agree that in general including every malware program in trojan articles is a bad idea, but whereas MS Antivirus seems to use zlob extensively I feel no issues would arise. Thoughts? Keithieopia (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - This program can be downloaded separately and is not only dropped by Zlob. I would recommend adding information about MS Antivirus into the Zlob article, but a full merge seems out of question. Thoughts anyone? --blurpeace ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - I agree with Blurpeace meaning I disagree. Zlob can drop any number of Malware MS Antivirus just happens to be "hot" right now with a convincing GUI design. People can get this virus through phishing techniques such as pop ups saying "you are infected" or any number of ways, it has become rampant.

Disagree - There are too many different Viruses dropped by Zlop according to the version MS Antivirus is one of many, you can't list them all.

Disagree - This program is also delivered by other methods and is very common.

This should all be under "Antivirus 2009" because that is the most common manifestation of this problem. Antivirus 2009 is by far the #1 computer problem for home and small business users today and deserves its own category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.169.213 (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Antivirus 2009 has be redirected here. - RoyBoy 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much use of "you" and "your"

C'mon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andokool12 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

-- While it doesn't exactly bring the article up to Wikipedia's standards, I spent some time rewording the 'you' and 'yours' out of the article, and did a bit of cleanup, too. Hope that helps! 74.13.80.136 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Tanarus

Images and article expanded

I have expanded the article significantly and have added images to help the reader understand the virus, and further assisted the reader by adding more descriptions and links on how to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medessec (talk • contribs) 02:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed tags for rewrite and howto

The tag for "It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.Tagged since November 2008." is now deleted: it doesn't need a complete rewrite, just a minor cleanup. The tag for "It contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. Tagged since November 2008." is now deleted: now it doesn't have more than a little "Removal" section that is neutral. If you want you can delete that two, but that's all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nattelsker (talk • contribs) 03:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection

If you have any suggestions for this article that you cannot add, please add them here. - RoyBoy 09:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

MALWAREBYTES Removal program

Malwarebytes [1] info article.

There should be a removal section in this article, there is only one vague link now at the bottom, with no indication of which technique works for this specific threat. It is quite silly it seems to me to for this article to have detailed descriptions of the infection symptoms as well as arcane details such as the income derived from the malware by the criminals, yet have NO discussion whatsoever about the remedy for the average user, who is probably looking at this article for just this info, regardless of the editorial anality dogma / policy statement that 'Wikipedia is NOT a XXX (howto/user manual/cookbook/get rich quick scheme/weight loss program/substitute for a good lawyer/witch doctor/shaman / etcetc)'.

I have tried Malwarebytes several times and it does work. There is much misinformation out on the web with elaborate registry editing schemes that dont always work, and finding a simple solution like Malwarebytes is still not obvious judging by the top search returns from Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.80 (talk • contribs) 18:49, January 7, 2009

No. Wiki is not a how-to. There's a whole Internet out there where you can publish your info - this just isn't one of those places. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that protection should be covered. But it needs to be done properly, as pointed out above, so that wikipedia is not endorsing or promoting any one solution. Also, it's felt that "How To" isn't the proper type of text to put into the article. I'm sandboxing something here, and have noted this which is already available on wikipedia. I'm not going to lose sleep over any particular page on the internet, but I also believe this is an important topic to get right. While I don't wholly agree with HelloAnnyong in totality, I accept (we have to accept) the guidelines and policy of Wikipedia in not being a "How To" guide. I'm not sure I go along with it being a sundry topic, but I do concede that it's not the most important thing in the world. To that end, I'll work on a point / counter-point approach, and try to provide both sides of the topic at hand. If information is proposed in an encyclopedic manner, I think we can provide information to the general public that makes Wikipedia useful as well as informative. I'd welcome any assistance on this ;). All I ask is that you indulge me for a bit, look at what I come up with, and we'll go from there. If it fails, so be it, and I'll move on to another topic, or at least change directions. Ched (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, after stepping away and thinking things through, I came back and started at the wikipedia article malwarebytes. To be honest, it is foolish to post a link here to a site that can't stand on its own within wikipedia. The article was and perhaps still is on the verge of being deleted, so I attempted to improve THAT article a bit. After dropping my defensive "but it's a good program" mindset, (and too many hours of research), I have to admit that Padillah and HelloAnnyong have some very valid points that may be difficult to overcome. It may be sad to say, but perhaps malwarebytes, while a good program, may only be a footnote in the Computer Security world. If (and that's a big if at the moment) I can produce better documentation of the company, then maybe we can include an internal link to this tool. If anyone still feels it should be included, feel free to leave me a link, or information at my talk page, and I'll do the best I can with it. Ched (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC) And honestly.. if you check the references, you can find what you want to know about removal. Ched (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) OK .. how about this. Could we post a link to the Reference Desk / Computing? Ched (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC) ... nevermind, it appears I'm fighting an uphill battle on this one. Ched (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FTC Restraining Order

Perhaps the restraining order requested by the USA FTC and approved in court should be mentioned. Details are here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/12/winsoftware.shtm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.10.55 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur - I'd like to second this thought. Having some information on the FTC and court's involvement seems like valuable information. - Thalfon (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion: It should be added that you can keep the annoying pop-up warnings by going to control panel and clicking on stop a program from running at startup, and then disable yyy20178.exe and ~tmpd. that's what I do, but the program is stil on my comuter. 75.175.121.146 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Stub to Start

How close is this article getting to start class? Just curious. — Ched (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

can some one suggest how to remove antivirus 360?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.108.105 (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

These pages are generally more for discussing the articles rather than discussing the how to issues. I may prefer a particular package, but you'll probably get the most objective advise at our Reference desk for computers. You're also welcome to drop me a line on my talk page and I'll try to help more. — Ched (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not moved. Seems consensus to keep disambiguator to avoid (intentional on part of creator) ambiguity. DMacks (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

MS Antivirus (malware) → MS Antivirus — Removing unneeded disambiguation. — — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• "MS Antivirus" looks so much like the name of an antiviral, including Microsoft Antivirus, that the name better make it clear that it is a malware. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  There's a link on Microsoft antivirus that redirects here. We could add a {{distinguish}} to the top of this page that would point to Microsoft antivirus, if that would help. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I think that distinguish is a better way to handle this. Disambiguation in parentheses has never been to be explanatory, even though many editors try to use it in that manner, but only to distinguish between articles that would otherwise have the same name. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose people would be thinking of Microsoft Antivirus; Microsoft is abbreviated as MS commonly. (MSAV) 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose disambiguation in title required as the malware wants to confuse users, in this case wiki readers. Doorvery far (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "MS Antivirus" is a plausible enough search term for Microsoft Antivirus to warrant the disambiguation qualifier. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be fine if there was a program called Microsoft Antivirus - but there isn't. Microsoft antivirus is a disambiguation page, not an article. It simply lists Microsoft antivirus programs, along with this malware. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a program called microsoft antivirus. You just didn't look very hard, otherwise you would have found it. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Malicious reference?

According to http://www.mywot.com/scorecard/enigmasoftware.com , the enigmasoftware.com site is malicious.

Wondering what course of action to take, Thanks,MrZanzi (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

False redirections

Alot of these links have false redirections, this is probably done by rogue guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.100.132 (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, what? Can you explain that a bit better? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

after removal effects

i've gotten this stupid thing twice... and both times after i removed it or atleast crippled the thing, it really messed the computer up. should the aftermath of this thing be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.201.146 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)