Talk:MyWay Searchbar

message: Please elaborate why this would not be proper source . The file scanned is clearly identified with hashes. The scanners used are clearly identified. The date the scan took place is clearly stated. I know it is automated, but so it siteadvisor. --Cybjit (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has three references saying that the current version of the MyWay Searchbar is not adware. However, I do agree, along with the sources, that older version of the MyWay Searchbar did display pop-up ads. The source you provided is recent, however, the virus definitions, for the websites in that source that still claim it to be adware, blacklist the older version of the MyWay Searchbar, and therefore still detect the new version as adware. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 18:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jotti's malware scan 

message: There may (or maybe not), be some confusion between this site, "myway.com", and the BHO, "MyWay Searchbar" (a.k.a. "MyWebsearch", "MyWay Speedbar", "MyWeb Searchbar", "MyWay Search Assistant"). 
This site and the BHO are both parts of a larger corporation, IAC Search & Media. A Whois search finds that the Registrant, for this site and the "mywebsearch.com" site (the site the BHO contacts), are the same: 
IAC Consumer Applications & Portals Inc. 
One North Lexington Ave 
White Plains, NY 10601, US 
[email]dnsmanager@iaccap.com[/email] 
+1.9145912000 Fax: +1.9145911828 
The "mywebsearch" BHO is classified by some as a PUP (Potentially Unwanted Program). This BHO is usually bundled with other PUPs, such as, "FunWebProducts". 
The current versions of "Spybot S&D" and "SuperAntiSpyware" detect and remove these PUPs. 
To find out if you have these PUPs, you do not need an AV scanner, just look in your "Program Files" folder and if the folders: "FunWebProducts" and/or "MyWebSearch" are there, you got PUPs. (Also, possibly, any of the aliases listed above.)
Stormstream (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. Also, the older version of the program is adware, whereas the newer version is not. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 18:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I do believe that somewhere in the article, it should be mentioned that many claim it to be a Potentially Unwanted Program. (such as spybot and superantispyware). Stormstream (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can say that the older version is a PUP, however the newer version is not? That's what Sophos says. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not something is a PUP or not is a personal opinion.  I understand that wikipedia doesn't want this, but CURRENTLY, security manufactures such as the ones of Spybot and Superantispyware consider the programs in their databases as PUPs, and automatically remove the program.  This seems like something that should be mentioned in the article.
See this source, and click 'More Information. It says, "MyWebSearch is an adware application which, when initially analyzed, was observed to display advertisments when the browser was active. Analysis of recent versions of MyWebSearch show that this functionality is no longer present." Spybot and Superantispyware just haven't removed the MyWay Searchbar from their database, many other utilities have. They added it to the database in the first place because the older version is adware and a PUP. However the newer versions are not, as Sophos says. Spybot and Superantispyware have not removed the MyWay Searchbar from their databases because the older version is adware and a PUP! They don't have to remove it from their database, because the older version is adware, and the end user might have the older version! But just because they still have it in their database does not necessarily mean that the newer version is adware. In fact, Sophos confirms the contrary. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 18:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Incorrect.  Sophos states that it is no longer Adware.  It is however, still considered a PUP by many.  You have not shown me any sources which state that it is no longer a PUP.  But I do agree with you, the newer versions do not include adware.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryzal (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, OK, it is regarded as a PUP. Samwb123T-C-E 15:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryzal (talk • contribs) 20:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will this clear up the confusion? 

message: Helo, due to what appears to be a current content dispute, I made a couple of edits in this article which should hopefully help resolve the issue.  All information I added has been referenced, so please check them before arguing.  I added the information about this software being a PUP to the complaints section, as obviously it is a complaint, and one of the biggest ones.  Why even have a complaints section if this isn't even there?  There is no reference saying that Norton Antivirus supports it, so I removed that.  Also, siteadvisor says that the website is safe.  They did not check the downloads, so that is an invalid source for that information.  The sources 2, 3, and 4, (may change with future edits) claim that it is still malicious, so I adjusted the article accordingly.  If you disagree with anything here, please post it here, and I will see if I can change it.  Please don't get in an edit war by mindlessly reverting.  Thanks. PlantRunner (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reference your claims, and why is Norton and International Charter not a reliable source? Besides, all of the content disputes have been settled, so there is no reason to change everything. Samwb123T-C-E 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The sources 2, 3, and 4 claim that the MyWay Searchbar is malicious because the older version was. The current version, as Sophos says, is NOT malware. Samwb123T-C-E 23:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't even cite Norton.  I didn't change much at all, all I did was add content, which I cited ALL of.  If you want to readd the part about Norton and CITE it, then go ahead.  Also, I looked at sources 2, 3, and 4, and numbers 2 and 3 claim that the threat still exists, (number 5 doesn't).  There is still clearly a content dispute. PlantRunner (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Summary (PlantRunner) 

message: Explaining why reverted this edit without getting into an edit war.
Let's take this a little bit at a time.
"that replaces user's default search engine with the one on MyWay's website" is uncited.
"but stopped after getting complaints from customers" also uncited.
"This program is classified as adware by certain websites and anti-malware applications, although later versions along with the current one have been tested by Sophos, to not be malware. It is still regarded as a Potentially Unwanted Program because of the complicated uninstall process (add or remove programs doesn't uninstall it completely), and because it takes up a considerable amount of system resources. Many antivirus companies such as Spybot, Superantispyware, and Panda detect and encourage removal for this software." compared to
"Old versions of the program have been classified as adware by certain websites and anti-malware applications, and has been regarded as a Potentially Unwanted Program. It also has a complicated uninstall process and it takes up a considerable amount of system resources. However later versions along with the current one have been tested by Sophos to not be adware, spyware, nor a virus, and to not function like a malicious program." is very confusing and conflicting. The bottom one, on the other hand, clearly shows what the real issue is, and that is that old versions are adware and newer ones are not, as confirmed by Sophos.
"It is also detected and deleted by most antivirus software." Non-neutral point-of-view, as the issue was already explained above and does not need to be said again.
As you can see, this revert is unnecessary and is not constructive. Samwb123T-C-E 01:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to request a third opinion. Samwb123T-C-E 00:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for giving your opinion. It is helpful, but you mentioned something about me (PlantRunner) "pushing a certain POV". As you stated yourself, "no one ever installs one of these things on-purpose". When I first started editing the article, over the summer, it appeared that the article was completely ignoring the fact that this software is classified as adware and a potentially unwanted program. My edits since then were an attempt to make it more neutral. Could you explain why I'm "pushing a certain POV" rather then pushing to make it neutral? That would be helpful, thanks. PlantRunner (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I misread the situation.  Please disregard that comment. Gigs (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining an edit 

message: *PlantRunner, you seem to be pushing a certain POV here. If you are editing with a conflict of interest, you should review the guidelines at WP:COI before continuing.
*Lets be realistic here; no one ever installs one of these things on purpose.  Sophos still calls this a "controlled application" which is their politically correct name for not-obviously-malicious stuff that mysteriously appears on people's computers such as this.   This is about equivalent to the potentially unwanted program designation, and is not some kind of implication that this isn't still showing up on unsuspecting user's computers.
*Primary sources such as the Sophos one should not be extrapolated upon.  Primary sources can only be relied upon for basic facts, not to support wider implications that aren't specifically stated by the primary source.  Plantrunner Samwb123 was doing that in his version.
*The searchenginewatch.com reference in the complaints section seems to be inappropriate, it doesn't support the claim that it is attached to.  It also doesn't make sense that ads shown only on the myweb website would somehow increase if the bar was installed.  You should both check that section because it doesn't seem right.
Hope this helps.  Gigs (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for giving your opinion. It is helpful, but you mentioned something about me (PlantRunner) "pushing a certain POV". As you stated yourself, "no one ever installs one of these things on-purpose". When I first started editing the article, over the summer, it appeared that the article was completely ignoring the fact that this software is classified as adware and a potentially unwanted program. My edits since then were an attempt to make it more neutral. Could you explain why I'm "pushing a certain POV" rather then pushing to make it neutral? That would be helpful, thanks. PlantRunner (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I misread the situation.  Please disregard that comment. Gigs (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Your third opinion