![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
I think if there is any consistency between the type of sites, someone should add it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljawa ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 June 2007
There is no consistency, since these days this piece of crap is surreptitiously embedded into legitimate banner ads by a rogue advertiser, which is then rotated onto safe sites, triggering the download. There was a time late last year in 2006 where many bulletin boards and safe popular sites (like Livejournal) got hit by this - so now you can't be sure which sites are safe and which site isn't. Mind you, this is a mighty good case for blocking all ads on every site with an adblocker with extreme prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.120.68.69 ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 14 June 2007
Parts of this article read almost like an advertisement for Firefox. If you want to claim that IE is more vulnerable and FF less, by all means do so, but cite sources. CNash ( talk) 16:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
User Sephiroth storm ( talk) has decided to make major changes to this article. I originally reverted his changes and explained why. But rather than have a discussion, he has decided to resort to an edit war. These are some of the problems I have with his changes.
It should be noted that WinFixer is extortion program - it makes someone's computer unusable until you pay them to remove it. At the time the article was written, neither McAfee nor Symantec could detect and remove it.
Sephiroth storm has decided to make the program sound less dangerous by claiming that it is scareware or a rogue program and by stating that McAfee and Symantec can now remove it. In fact, it installs itself without the users knowledge, usually though some security hole. At that point, it takes over your machine and makes it unusable.
He removed
By the way, the main reason parasites like WinFixer deserve their own WikiPedia articles is because the trusted anti-virus programs don't protect the users. If McAfee and Symantec were doing what everyone thinks they are doing, then no one would waste their time producing an article like this one. As a direct result, claims on their web sites should NOT be trusted as reliable information as to what they detect and remove.
Unfortunately, the original editors of this site have moved on to other things and the valuable information they contributed to this article is now being removed.
Q Science ( talk) 18:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Addition: Also, as for McAffee and Symantic's detection and/or removal of WinFixer:
http://us.mcafee.com/virusInfo/default.asp?id=description&virus_k=135733 Threat Profile: Winfixer Risk Assessment
- Home Users: N/A - Corporate Users: N/A
Date Discovered: 9/1/2005 Date Added: 9/1/2005
McAfee(R) AVERT recognizes that this program may have legitimate uses in contexts where an authorized administrator has knowingly installed this application. Distribution
This is not a virus or a trojan. It is detected as a "potentially unwanted program." It purports to be an system repair/maintenance application, but requires paid registration before any issues found can be fixed.
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2005-120121-2151-99
WinFixer is a Security Risk that may give exaggerated reports of threats on the computer. The program then prompts the user to purchase a registered version of the software in order to remove the reported threats.
ProtectionInitial Rapid Release version June 27, 2007 Latest Rapid Release version October 2, 2008 revision 041 Initial Daily Certified version June 27, 2007 Latest Daily Certified version October 2, 2008 revision 050 Initial Weekly Certified release date December 7, 2005
Both sites claim to offer detection of WinFixer, and both also have removal instructions. I think it is logical to assume that anyone looking to remove these infections would prefer to get complete instructions from the vendor (McAfee/Symantic/ect.) rather than wikipedia, if said instructions cause damage to a users computer. Wikipedia could be held responsible, which is why it does not offer advice on malware removal.
Answers:
-Instead I included VERIFIABLE references that claim to remove the infection. The same can be said for most Malware applications. However, if you provide a trusted third party reference, I will gladly include it in the article.
-This was inserted randomly into the article, I believe there was a link, however, I do not know if it was indeed a reference. Feel free to provide it, as a matter of fact, I will locate it, but there doesn't appear to be a need for it.
-Addressed above.
-McAfee(R) AVERT recognizes that this program MAY have legitimate uses in contexts where an authorized administrator has knowingly installed this application. This is not the same as saying that it is legitimate. What kind of SysAdmin installs a reported rouge application, that has not been vetted?
-Manual removal can indeed be dangerous, however, I included a link to the Mcafee listing that links to removal instructions.
Please provide a source for this information. Many types of Malware can damage or ruin a users computer, that is why they are termed Malware, malicious-Software. To call these programs "extortion programs" could be considered slander, which is what happened when several vendors of rouge programs took the security companies to court. As such, they are not claissified as viruses or spyware (depeneding on the vendor) but as PUP's (potentially unwanted program). Wikipedia cannot cal the application as such, unless verifiable third parties call it such.
I look forward to your response. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the page history, the link for the class-action lawsuit is http://fixwinfixer.wordpress.com/, this is a personal blog, and therefore not verifiable, by wikipedia standards. However, the link in the article to a news release is good, and the information seems verifiable. I have no issue creating a new section for this
Sephiroth storm ( talk) 03:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not about what I want to put in the article, its about what can be referenced. It's been said before, wikipedia doesn't want the truth, it wants what can be verified. Personally, I dont use McAfee or Symantic, but I can't put personal experience in a article.
As for those articles, I have to say, that one of the confirmed effects of most Adware, and other Rouge programs to bog down the CPU, with startup processes, and multiple popups. To specificly state that, would add unnesesary heat to the article, don't you agree? Anyone who wanted to know what the potential effects of these types of application could check the articals on Malware, and Rouge programs, both linked in the article. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 12:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
On September 29, 2006, a San Jose man filed a lawsuit over WinFixer and related "fraudware" in Santa Clara County Superior Court, however, in 2007 the lawsuit was dropped. In the lawsuit, the plaitiffs charged that the WinFixer software "eventually rendered her computer's hard drive unusable." KTVU (Channel 2 in Oakland, CA) carried a special report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
As for the previous comments, I understand how bad WinFixer can be. Any user is free to look at the Talk page and see these comments, however, we cannot use the accounts of people whose identities and experiences cannot be verified in Wikipedia. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 12:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Reading through this page, I suggest the following changes:
-- h2g2bob ( talk) 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Parts of this article reads a lot like a how to, and WP is not a how to guide. Shouldn't someone do something to clean this up? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
came across watchnetprotection.com/scan/index2.php?affid=07000 which seems to have the same MO. any relation?-- Mongreilf ( talk) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Domain name: watchnetprotection.com Registrar: Regtime Ltd. Creation date: 2009-01-05 Expiration date: 2010-01-05 Registrant: Howard Brooks Email: howardcbrooks@gmail.com Organization: Private person Address: 1387 Andell Road City: Nashville State: TN ZIP: 37201
This person is already associated with another scam/virus - System Security.
Domain name: websecurityexamine.com Registrar: Regtime Ltd. Creation date: 2009-01-02 Expiration date: 2010-01-02 Registrant: Howard Brooks Email: howardcbrooks@gmail.com Organization: Private person Address: 1387 Andell Road City: Nashville State: TN ZIP: 37201
Unfortunately, this data is only found via unreliable (blog) sources and, therefore, can not be included in wikipedia until a "reliable" source, like Symantec, decides to include it on their web page ... probably in 6 to 12 months. Q Science ( talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Three men are facing federal fraud charges for allegedly raking in more than US$100 million while running an illegal "scareware" business that tricked victims into installing bogus software.
Two of the men, Bjorn Sundin and Shaileshkumar Jain, operated an antivirus company called Innovative Marketing, which sold products such as WinFixer, Antivirus 2008, Malware Alarm and VirusRemover 2008. The third man charged, James Reno, ran Byte Hosting Internet Services, the company that operated Innovative Marketing's call centers. NetworkWorld article Michael ( talk) 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Norton Safe Web said that winfixer.com is a safe web site since it's start of WInFixer. This should be apart of the article, unless it doesn't mean anything to the others. Norton Safe Web rated the site as "Safe without computer threats, and identity threats" even though the website wants people to install malware. From Me, WiiRocks566 □ 18:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
WinFixer. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
WinFixer. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)