235 replies to this topic

[Jim G]

DragonMaster Jay, on Nov 17 2009, 01:29 AM, said:

This situation is not altogether easy. The only sign that marks IObit products (or at least IObit Security 360) as rogue, would be the fact that they steal databases.

The argument against being rogue, would be the fact that they do not explicitly enforce the need to upgrade to higher version just to remove threats. They offer the chance to in the program, but do not explicitly enforce the need to. Then, they do not unusually attempt to penetrate or intrude the system it is running on. They also do not seem to have any illegitimate advertising going on.

I see IObit Security 360 as rogue, and should not be used. I am not forcing users to remove IObit products, but giving the user the opportunity to choose. Here is how I state it to the user I am helping (to remove malware): "IObit was recently recorded to be a rogue software distributor. Removing it is optional at the moment, but I recommend to remove IObit software because IObit steals databases of good products."

I am not saying it is legal, but if there was a way you can reverse-engineer their software and check it out yourself - you should.

I think it is also dumb that they are using 5 years worth of samples of malware. That will not work because:

• Malware is a continuous and growing danger, and multiplies daily.
  
• Botnets are becoming one of the biggest dangers.
  
• Detection of malware should be based on behavior not just signatures.
  
• Using old removal methods and old databases can cause the file size of the program to be huge.
  
• Some of the more difficult malware cannot be removed easily. Having an up-to-date database is the best and biggest priority all security companies should have.
  
• If they are going to detect traces, then detect all of them, not just a few.
  
• They need to make sure every signature they have in their database is not a carbon copy of another security companies' work.

I do not think it is questionable, I think it is arguable - about whether or not IObit is rogue. I think IObit is rogue, but I can find a lot of people who would like to argue, especially IObit users.

Hello, I wonder that whether the latest version of IObit Security360 is clean. I think the program itself has no problem, the interface, the function and the design, IObit is good at it, much better than Malwarebytes.

The question is that the database they used. For the latest version, are they still using Malwarebytes' database? Is there any proof?

[Jim G]

nosirrah, on Nov 16 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

My last scan shows identical detection to 1.20 . If they made any major DB changes it is to long dead malware as fresh malware (less than 30 days old) is still detected at the same rate and as the same detection names .

Can you upload the scan report file here? I think they could not be so risky as they also have the brand, not like the real rogueware who changes products and websites often.

[exile360]

Jim G, on Nov 16 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

Hello, I wonder that whether the latest version of IObit Security360 is clean. I think the program itself has no problem, the interface, the function and the design, IObit is good at it, much better than Malwarebytes.

The question is that the database they used. For the latest version, are they still using Malwarebytes' database? Is there any proof?

Yeah, the software's great, the interface is great, the features are great...and they're also all STOLEN. If you haven't tried the software on my list (all of which is FREE and existed long before IOBit), give it a try and compare it for yourself.

They stole a LOT more than just databases .

[Jim G]

exile360, on Nov 17 2009, 05:11 AM, said:

Yeah, the software's great, the interface is great, the features are great...and they're also all STOLEN. If you haven't tried the software on my list (all of which is FREE and existed long before IOBit), give it a try and compare it for yourself.

They stole a LOT more than just databases .

Can you please specify? I read your thread but that's very foolish. Can you tell me that whether MS steal Mac's idea or Mac steal MS' idea?

* It steals from the functionality of HijackThis
* It steals from the functionality of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, including FileASSASSIN ("Unlock Delete")
* It steals from Spybot Search & Destroy/SpywareBlaster with it's "Passive Defense" functionality
* It steals from Secunia PSI with it's "Security Holes" checker
* It steals from CCleaner (even the user interface looks the same) with its "Privacy Sweeper"

That's what you think, right?

I started to use IObit's Advanced SystemCare at 2006. At that time, there is a module like what you said, the passive protection feature.

And the "Unlock Delete", why don't you say Malwarebytes steals from KillBox? At least, the "Unlock Delete" tool has the unlock feature but not only delay deletion. While Malwarebytes' FileASSASSIN is absolutely the same as KillBox.

I'm the user of Advanced SystemCare and Malwarebytes AntiMalware. I don't want to be a brawler between the two company, but I know that we should have the principle. IObit's Advanced SystemCare created and carry forward the one-click maintanence feature, and then GlaryUtilities, Tune Up Utilities and PCTools copy this idea. Can you say that they are all thief? IObit was online from early in 2005, they are not founded yesterday.

Please learn the history first, my friend.

[SpySentinel]

Quote

IObit is good at it, much better than Malwarebytes.

Sure you can jazz up the GUI all you want but that does not make IOBit a better product.

Plus if you have to resort to stealing databases to make your product good, that tells you something

Quote

And the "Unlock Delete", why don't you say Malwarebytes steals from KillBox? At least, the "Unlock Delete" tool has the unlock feature but not only delay deletion. While Malwarebytes' FileASSASSIN is absolutely the same as KillBox.

We can say that Malwarebytes didn't steal from KillBox because they do not use the same code and GUI of KillBox, they are completely different. Unlike what IOBit did.

[Jim G]

exile360, on Nov 17 2009, 05:11 AM, said:

Yeah, the software's great, the interface is great, the features are great...and they're also all STOLEN. If you haven't tried the software on my list (all of which is FREE and existed long before IOBit), give it a try and compare it for yourself.

They stole a LOT more than just databases .

And you said that the interface is also stolen. What can I say? You have lost your reason now.

[SpySentinel]

Quote

And you said that the interface is also stolen. What can I say? You have lost your reason now.

I think not my friend.

The evidence is clearly laid out in front of you.

[Jim G]

SpySentinel, on Nov 17 2009, 06:29 AM, said:

Sure you can jazz up the GUI all you want but that does not make IOBit a better product.

Plus if you have to resort to stealing databases to make your product good, that tells you something

We can say that Malwarebytes didn't steal from KillBox because they do not use the same code and GUI of KillBox, they are completely different. Unlike what IOBit did.

What I mean is only the program itself. I don't use IObit Security 360 as it slows down my computer. I'm the user of Malwarebytes AntiMalware and Advanced SystemCare.

That's my suggestion for Malwarebytes. Make a good GUI and less error code, everytime when I scan my computer, there is an error code.

Anyway, the only issue is the database, but please don't lose your reason.

[SpySentinel]

What exile360 was saying is that IOBit did not steal MBAM's GUI, but they did steal the database, they stole the GUI from other vendors.

MBAM was not the only company IOBit stole from.

[Jim G]

SpySentinel, on Nov 17 2009, 06:32 AM, said:

I think not my friend.

The evidence is clearly laid out in front of you.

Can you please specify the comparability of the inferface between the two program?

[SpySentinel]

Quote

Can you please specify the comparability of the inferface between the two program?

We're not talking about the MBAM interface.

[Jim G]

SpySentinel, on Nov 17 2009, 06:38 AM, said:

What exile360 was saying is that IOBit did not steal MBAM's GUI, but they did steal the database, they stole the GUI from other vendors.

MBAM was not the only company IOBit stole from.

Sorry for that. Usually vendors copy the ideas from other company, even Microsoft and Apple, you won't know who did it first.

As I said, Malwarebytes also copied the feature from KillBox, and you think it's "copy" or "learn" from other product. Maybe IObit did the same thing, they made a Unlock Delete tool which has more feature, but you think it's "steal" but not "copy" or "learn".

That's my opinion, they steal the database but not the program.

[exile360]

Run Ccleaner (it existed long before IOBit) - same interface as the privacy cleaner
HijackThis - same functionality
Spybot Search & Destroy and Spywareblaster both existed and had the same types of "passive protection" as IOBit long before IOBit existed.

Try the software I listed, it's all free, then you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. IOBit took a bunch of copyrighted existing tools and stole their code and bundled it all together in their own application in an attempt to sell their product to unsuspecting users. You can believe what you want about me and my opinions, but I've been using these tools long enough to recognize when someone has blatantly ripped them off.

[SpySentinel]

Quote

Sorry for that. Usually vendors copy the ideas from other company, even Microsoft and Apple, you won't know who did it first.

As I said, Malwarebytes also copied the feature from KillBox, and you think it's "copy" or "learn" from other product. Maybe IObit did the same thing, they made a Unlock Delete tool which has more feature, but you think it's "steal" but not "copy" or "learn".

That's my opinion, they steal the database but not the program.

We are not talking simply about copying ideas, IOBit stole code and used it in there own programs to make it look like their own.

[Jim G]

Jim G, on Nov 17 2009, 06:45 AM, said:

Sorry for that. Usually vendors copy the ideas from other company, even Microsoft and Apple, you won't know who did it first.

As I said, Malwarebytes also copied the feature from KillBox, and you think it's "copy" or "learn" from other product. Maybe IObit did the same thing, they made a Unlock Delete tool which has more feature, but you think it's "steal" but not "copy" or "learn".

That's my opinion, they steal the database but not the program.

Also, you mentioned CCleaner. Both CCleaner and Advanced SystemCare were online from 2005. The privacy sweeper feature was there at 2005, I think only CCleaner knows whether it is copied from their product. Also, you will find that there are lots of product copy the design, interface and idea from CCleaner, IObit Advanced SystemCare and TuneUP utilities.

One of the most popular cloned product is GlaryUtilites. CNet reviewed it as the best utilities product, but the tools were the same as TuneUp, the main interface and one-click maintenance feature is copied from IObit.

As a user, what we want is great product. Vendors learn from other company at times, it's only learn or copy, but not steal. Wisdom is shared by human being, but not only the first man who implement it, or it's protected by patent.

[Jim G]

exile360, on Nov 17 2009, 06:48 AM, said:

Run Ccleaner (it existed long before IOBit) - same interface as the privacy cleaner
HijackThis - same functionality
Spybot Search & Destroy and Spywareblaster both existed and had the same types of "passive protection" as IOBit long before IOBit existed.

Try the software I listed, it's all free, then you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. IOBit took a bunch of copyrighted existing tools and stole their code and bundled it all together in their own application in an attempt to sell their product to unsuspecting users. You can believe what you want about me and my opinions, but I've been using these tools long enough to recognize when someone has blatantly ripped them off.

I know those products. This feature was there at 2005 in Advanced SystemCare. But do you know which product has this feature first? SpyBot or Spyware Blaster?

Can you say that the idea was stolen by SpyBot or Spyware Blaster? They are not here at the same time, who steals first? Or there is a product that has the feature earlier than SpyBot and Spyware Blaster. Why SpyBot and SpywareBlaster are not popular now? There is only one winner.

[SpySentinel]

Quote

I know those products. This feature was there at 2005 in Advanced SystemCare. But do you know which product has this feature first? SpyBot or Spyware Blaster?

Can you say that the idea was stolen by SpyBot or Spyware Blaster? They are not here at the same time, who steals first? Or there is a product that has the feature earlier than SpyBot and Spyware Blaster. Why SpyBot and SpywareBlaster are not popular now? There is only one winner.

You fail to see what we are trying to say, and what has been proven. We are not talking about stealing ideas. We are talking about stealing the actual code from a product, placing it in your own program, and calling it your own like IOBit did.

[Jim G]

SpySentinel, on Nov 17 2009, 06:51 AM, said:

We are not talking simply about copying ideas, IOBit stole code and used it in there own programs to make it look like their own.

How did they steal the code? Send a spy into Spyware Blaster or SpyBot company and get the code, do you think so?

It's just writing some registry keys and values, even non-programmer can do it, make a vbs batch file.

[Jim G]

SpySentinel, on Nov 17 2009, 07:02 AM, said:

You fail to see what we are trying to say, and what has been proven. We are not talking about stealing ideas. We are talking about stealing the actual code from a product, placing it in your own program, and calling it your own like IOBit did.

You mean the source code or what else?

One of my colleague can did it, and I found that SpyBot is built by C++ and IObit uses Delphi, it's different.

[exile360]

Correct, only Piriform knows for sure if they were ripped off as it's their code. I'm talking about the functionality and the user interface. It just seems too many features and interfaces in that program are far too similar for me to be comfortable with.

You and everyone else here knows that they've stolen code for certain (the databases), so why would you think they didn't steal the rest of the features? When I tried the new version of IOBit I had no idea what features it had or what the interface was like, but when I saw what they had done I called them on it. That may upset you and if you want to keep supporting a company who is willing to steal from others (as I said, the DB issue is confirmed theft) go right ahead, but I won't.