235 replies to this topic

[DragonMaster Jay]

evilfantasy, on Nov 13 2009, 12:17 PM, said:

The Latest Declaration from IObit

Thanks for the link...I think the following is a joke:

IOBit, on Nov 13 2009, said:

And we also paid special attention to questions regarding the old database of IObit Security 360 among the feedback.

Hah, yeah right...they avoided the situation.

Quote

We have apologized for all the inconvenience, meanwhile, we have taken immediate actions to remove all disputed data and updated the whole database online on November 3.

Is this completely true?

Quote

Eventually, IObit would like to work with all anti-malware vendors, to enhance the overall evolution of malware detection...

Are they going to steal, or ask permission?

--------

From Nov 13 2009, 12:56 PM:

I see IObit is playing the victim. They got caught (period). Also, I do not see their developers in the trenches with us.

They are not very strong apparently.

---------

SpySentinel, on Nov 13 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

They look for help from other vendors now, instead of just going out and stealing them, how thoughful of them to ask now.

Also, like Kenny94 said, why are their analysts not out in the field.

lol, like I said above...Are they going to steal, or ask permission?

[MBAM-is-the-BOSS]

What can I say? IObit has really dug itself into a hole here. Not only are they stealing database information that good, reliable people worked on day in and day out at Malwarebytes, but they are also stealing from multiple other countries! Not to offend the Chinese people, but if they had more restrictions on this kind of stuff then justice would be served.

I've spread the word around my entire company that no one should use IObit. 15 people in my office have it!

I suggest everyone to tell everyone they know not to get any IObit stuff, and explicitly explain why. Malwarebytes belongs at the top of the food chain in computer security, and they don't steal!

[Triple Helix]

There so many new Anti-Malware programs out there as we all can see and I only use the ones the Malware fighters use because they know what is best to clean up an up an infected machine! Who in there right mind would suggest to install IOBit to clean an infected machine not me!!

Right?

TH

[DragonMaster Jay]

Exactly. I would not. lol

[MBAM-is-the-BOSS]

I had it for a while lol. Actually, a highly respected Hewlett-Packard worker i know recommended it to me, until we realized what they were doing to other companies. Never using it again! Go mbam

[DragonMaster Jay]

I already have an optional canned speech for IObit that I am using for the users I help. lol

[russellsmith1985]

IOBIT HAS A NEW LINK TO THEIR STOLEN SOFTWARE, THE ADMINS MAY WANT TO EMAIL A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO WIKISEND.COM

Iobit thieves, as soon as one link gets taken down another one pops up

[Amethyst]

Can someone de-live that link or whatever you do, since it goes right to an .exe?

Oh... Someone's quick, that got done while I was hitting the 'submit' button.

[DragonMaster Jay]

At least IObit is out of the most popular download sites, right?

[Rednose]

DragonMaster Jay, on Nov 16 2009, 04:33 AM, said:

At least IObit is out of the most popular download sites, right?

Nope, it's back on MajorGeeks

http://www.majorgeek..._360_d6088.html

Greetz, Red.

[Jim G]

It seems that they are using a new database now per their update history.

[nosirrah]

Jim G, on Nov 16 2009, 06:44 AM, said:

It seems that they are using a new database now per their update history.

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 .

[SpySentinel]

Their declaration posted on their blog:
http://blog.iobit.co...chives/122.html

[evilfantasy]

http://download.cnet.com/IObit-Security-36....html?tag=mncol

It's v1.10 but that doesn't matter. As soon as you update it you will have the latest version.

You can't expect download sites to ignore a popular download for too long. The accusations aren't between the download site(s) and IObit. It's between IObit and whoever they have infringed upon.

Download.com and MajorGeeks (Download.com mainly) host downloads that I consider spyware/adware so singling out IObit to be removed from their sites is a little over the top. If we go after them for hosting 360 we should go after them for the other downloads also.

[DragonMaster Jay]

evilfantasy, on Nov 16 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

Download.com and MajorGeeks (Download.com mainly) host downloads that I consider spyware/adware so singling out IObit to be removed from their sites is a little over the top. If we go after them for hosting 360 we should go after them for the other downloads also.

Agreed. It isn't just BrotherSoft that hosts bad downloads. I have seen a lot of disagreeable downloads on CNET. Now, on MajorGeeks, not as much.

[Madness423]

some good reading about iobit. http://www.pcmag.com...,2355888,00.asp

[BABatson]

The projected Scenario: Iobit had denied and now accepted responsibility and shows good faith will to work with other vendors that they all might together serve our security needs.

This is a deception in logic which denies the facts and then accepts the facts but denies the wrongdoing -- and yet accepts the responsibilities for "errors" they initially denied making -- and now follows up with a "Good Guy -- Let's all work together to prevent such "mistakes" and momopolise the software field, presumably using Iobit's expertise in who knows what underhanded quasi-criminal systems.

We see this kind of bait & switch coming out of that neck of the woods today, like an influenza plague. It is called by those deliberate malefactors who would have us think of them as mere co-victims in need of greater "co-operation" -- this is a perversion of the 'Art of Positive Thinking' into outright fraud which, having been now revealed, becomes mere "mistakes" in need of greater voluntary information sharing, a legitimisation of what they have already been doing, along with vague promises of "accepting responsibility" (read, paying the agrieved parties to move them from potential plaintiffs to partners.

I have recently uncovered a Chinese Writing Impliment operation which purports to be a struggling young engineering working to support orphanages & hospitals in order to give back to the world that has been so good to him -- complete with flowery philosophical essays and "borrowed" student photographs -- to explain away their somewhat higher product asking prices. They claim to charge shipping costs according to weight, which they go on to define as the some total of the weight of each item if it were individually shipped by China Mail, instead of the real cost of the combined items they are going to ship together at very little margin over the individual item cost.

Something right out of of Abbot & Costello sham scams -- this seems the wave of the today coming out of the crooked East Asia -- which gravely tarnishes the impeccable names of the genuinely honest, in the Confucian sense, noble & honourable policies of the gentleman-businessman.

Now, where are those mobile Lethal Injection Chambers today when we need them to make visits to the several crooks doing these wickedly evil things with software and with hardware ? At the least, public canings might become a virtuous import from Singapore, home of my Phony Writing Pens Charity located there ?!

Are the pieces of the puzzle coming together for others as they have for me, one lone customer client without the substantial resources of successful companies to put into investigative work? And, most sadly of all, there seems to be substantial government ministers and lower officials involved in the collusion -- and China & Singapore need to make thorough investigation of a whole lot of various levels of malefactors and take care of things in that highly effective, if summary, Oriental methodology ... or whatever works within humanitarian restrictions which distinguish civilisation from barbarism.

Anybody else out there who might elaborate on this apparent trend -- at once highly disturbing & frustrating, as also ridiculously juvenile, nuisances -- expensive, counterproductive, and anarchistic as they be ?!

Veneta, Metro Eugene, Oregon

[TeMerc]

@ DragonMasterJay & EvilFantasy:
How is this software just 'questionable'? The have been caught red handed, denied it, accepted it, but then said maybe no, as so eloquently put by BaBatson. They can't make up their mind.

I don't see what is 'questionable' about that type of behavior.

Borderline rogues sure, I can agree there are tons that are questionable due to ad tactics, and how the present so called 'detections' and ask for payment to remove.

But the word 'questionable' does not come to mind when I think of IOBIT and this situation, far from it in fact.

[evilfantasy]

I wasn't trying to excuse IObit.

Just saying that we shouldn't hold the download sites to the same accountability as IObit.

[DragonMaster Jay]

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.