<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Defending The Kingdom &#187; spyware</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/category/spyware/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com</link>
	<description>Security and Privacy in Your Digital Life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:59:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>IE vs Firefox: security update</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/ie-vs-firefox-security-update</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/ie-vs-firefox-security-update#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/?p=282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First, which browsers are the most common these days? Wikipedia has a useful summary of browser usage statistics collected from various sources. The summary statistics look a little off to me (even after considering the note at the bottom of the table), but you get the basic idea: Internet Explorer and Firefox are running away [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="imgintro"><a href="/images/firefox_ie_logos.jpg"><img width="230" height="221" alt="Firefox and Internet Explorer logos" src="/images/firefox_ie_logos.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>First, which browsers are the most common these days? Wikipedia has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_Table">useful summary of browser usage statistics</a> collected from various sources. The summary statistics look a little off to me (even after considering the note at the bottom of the table), but you get the basic idea: Internet Explorer and Firefox are running away with it.</p>
<h3 style="clear:both; margin-top:40px;">Security Update</h3>
<p>Internet Explorer 6 remains a hopelessly dangerous browser, but I&#8217;ve been impressed by Internet Explorer versions 7 and 8. If you haven&#8217;t yet upgraded, do so now.</p>
<p>I wanted to update previous comparisons (see <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/firefox-and-internet-explorer">here</a>, <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/ie7-and-firefox-security-update">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/speedy-updates-matter-for-browser-security">here</a>) between the two most prominent browsers, but Secunia, the security consultancy I had been getting figures from, now advises against using its statistics for comparison purposes because of the way it reports them. </p>
<p>Fair enough, and it wouldn&#8217;t hurt to go to a second source. I recently ran across a <a href="http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/NSS%20Labs%20Browser%20Security%20-%20Socially%20Engineered%20Malware%20Q3%202009.pdf">report by NSS Labs</a>, which mentions that &#8220;53% of malware is now delivered via internet download versus just 12% via email, while IFrame exploits and other vulnerabilities comprise 7% and 5%, respectively&#8230;&#8221; (If you&#8217;re wondering, IFrame exploits are just another flavour of attack aimed at web browsers.) </p>
<p>Check out the <a href="http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/Q309_Browser_Security_Summary_Final.pdf">report summary</a>, which has two very interesting graphs. It looks like Internet Explorer 8 is beating Firefox (and other browsers) by a wide margin when it comes to protecting against &#8220;socially engineered malware&#8221; (links that lead to infected downloads), while the two leading browsers provide about the same amount of protection against phishing attempts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/ie-vs-firefox-security-update/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The web&#8217;s most dangerous search terms</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/the-webs-most-dangerous-search-terms</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/the-webs-most-dangerous-search-terms#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[browsers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identity theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/?p=263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Curious about the web&#8217;s most dangerous search terms? The categories with the worst maximum risk profile were lyrics keywords (26.3%) and phrases that include the word “free” (21.3%). If a consumer landed at the riskiest search page for a typical lyrics search, one of four results would be risky. What makes a webpage dangerous? Risky [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Curious about the <a href="http://us.mcafee.com/en-us/local/docs/most_dangerous_searchterm_us.pdf">web&#8217;s most dangerous search terms</a>? </p>
<blockquote><p>The categories with the worst maximum risk profile were lyrics keywords (26.3%) and phrases that include the word “free” (21.3%). If a consumer landed at the riskiest search page for a typical lyrics search, one of four results would be risky.
</p></blockquote>
<p>What makes a webpage dangerous?</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Risky downloads—Downloadable files that contain viruses, spyware, or adware or make unrelated<br />
changes to the downloading computer</li>
<li>Browser exploits—Also known as a driveby download, this type of malicious code enables viruses,<br />
keystroke loggers, or spyware to install on a consumer’s computer without consent and/or knowledge</li>
<li>Email practices—Registration forms and other sign-ups that result in high volume email, highly<br />
commercial email or both. We also test for difficultly unsubscribing.</li>
<li>Phishing—Scam sites that try to trick visitors into believing the site is legitimate</li>
<li>Excessive popups—Sites that engage in aggressive popup behavior or display large numbers<br />
of popups</li>
<li>Linking practices—Sites that aggressively link to other red- or yellow-rated sites</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>The report, by McAfee, mentions that hacking for profit has overtaken hacking for fame. I suspect that is why we no longer worry about viruses that will wipe our hard drives clean &#8212; the tactic is attention-getting, but is unlikely to be profitable to anybody. Today, viruses that collect information about our computing habits and personal lives are the primary threats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/the-webs-most-dangerous-search-terms/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viruses and Spyware: Expected Costs</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-and-spyware-expected-costs</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-and-spyware-expected-costs#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:28:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics of security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-and-spyware-expected-costs</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The previous post discussed the amount of money you ought to be willing to pay per year to avoid getting phished. By using statistics about the average cost of phishing and the probability of experiencing it, it was possible to come up with a meaningful figure. Given the right statistics, this type of analysis is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/phishing-expected-costs">previous post</a> discussed the amount of money you ought to be willing to pay per year to avoid getting phished. By using statistics about the average cost of phishing and the probability of experiencing it, it was possible to come up with a meaningful figure. Given the right statistics, this type of analysis is possible for any type of risk.</p>
<h3>What Should You Pay to Avoid Viruses and Spyware?</h3>
<p>In Consumer Reports&#8217; <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/computers/internet-and-other-services/protect-yourself-online/state-of-the-net-2008/protect-yourself-online-state-of-the-net.htm">2008 State of the Net summary</a>, the odds of contracting a serious computer virus problems are given to be 1 in 7, the yearly costs $2.9 billion. The odds of a serious spyware problem are 1 in 14, with a yearly cost of $3.6 billion. (Note that these figures are for both businesses and consumers.)</p>
<p>From these statistics, it is possible to calculate the amount that the typical person ought to be willing to pay, yearly, in the form of insurance or a preventative product or service, to avoid the consequences of viruses and spyware.</p>
<p>If 1 in 7 <a href="http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=973">computer users</a> had major <strong>virus</strong> problems, it means that 26 million people suffered expenses of about $110 each. If 1 in 14 computer users had a major <strong>spyware</strong> problem, it means that about 13 million people took a hit of $275.</p>
<p>Using these numbers and a formula for expected costs (expected cost = average cost per incident multiplied by probability of incidence) we can conclude that the expected yearly loss per person from virus and spyware threats totals $35. Put another way, each of us should be willing to spend up to $35 per year on insurance, services, or products that would shield us from the costs of viruses and spyware.</p>
<h3>The Value of Anti-Virus Software</h3>
<p>Of course, my calculations could be wrong. But it&#8217;s interesting to note that McAfee and Symantec, two of the most popular anti-virus and anti-spyware providers, price their mainstay products at $40, $5 more than our calculation says is reasonable. </p>
<p>Is that extra $5 per year for peace of mind or is it down to overpricing? Or maybe the cost figures that Consumer Reports noted do not include the psychological cost of annoyance and time spent getting rid of viruses and spyware, which could bring the total cost per person higher than what was reported. I&#8217;m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the millions of consumers who indicate, by their willingness to pay, that a $40 anti-virus solution is worth it to them, but I could be off the mark.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-and-spyware-expected-costs/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why are privacy and security important?</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-are-privacy-and-security-important</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-are-privacy-and-security-important#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 02:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-are-privacy-and-security-important</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every so often, it helps to remind ourselves why security and privacy are important. In late 2006, Consumer Reports published its third annual State of the Net, which I think is an excellent summary and forceful reminder of why, exactly, security and privacy should be high priorities for everyone. The report is based on a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every so often, it helps to remind ourselves why security and privacy are important. In late 2006, Consumer Reports published its third annual <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/online-protection-9-06/state-of-the-net/0609_online-prot_state.htm">State of the Net</a>, which I think is an excellent summary and forceful reminder of why, exactly, security and privacy should be high priorities for everyone.</p>
<p><span id="more-54"></span></p>
<p>The report is based on a national survey (of America, I believe), and lists the 4 biggest threats on the internet along with their rates of incidence. If you want to know just how likely you are to suffer monetary damages from internet threats, this is a great resource. Here are the findings from survey respondents:</p>
<h3>Viruses</h3>
<p>1 in 4 had a major, often costly problem. The cost per incident was $109</p>
<h3>Spyware</h3>
<p>1 in 8 had a major, often costly problem. The cost per incident was $100</p>
<h3>Phishing</h3>
<p>1 in 115 had a major, often costly problem. The cost per incident was $850</p>
<h3>Spam</h3>
<p>1 in 2 experienced high levels of spam. Consumer Reports doesn&#8217;t mention the costliness of spam, probably because it&#8217;s too hard to measure. But it&#8217;s still a major nuisance that soaks up valuable time and computer resources for almost everyone who uses the internet.</p>
<p>I hope the readers of this blog are slightly less prone to suffer damages as a result of the advice I give. Best of luck to all of you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-are-privacy-and-security-important/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viruses have come of age</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-have-come-of-age</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-have-come-of-age#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recommended software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-have-come-of-age</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If your installation of Windows XP is lacking an antivirus program or firewall, itâ€™ll take about 8 seconds for it to become rabid and foaming with worms, viruses, and spyware. At least, thatâ€™s what this BBC article suggests. But seriously, remember when all you had to worry about was some dork impressing his friends with [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If your installation of Windows XP is lacking an antivirus program or firewall, itâ€™ll take about 8 seconds for it to become rabid and foaming with worms, viruses, and spyware. At least, thatâ€™s what <a href="http://www.bbcworld.com/content/clickonline_archive_14_2005.asp?pageid=665&#038;co_pageid=3">this BBC article suggests</a>.</p>
<p>But seriously, remember when all you had to worry about was some dork impressing his friends with some virus named after a girl that kneed him in the balls last week? That was a more innocent time.</p>
<p>Today, viruses have come of age. And theyâ€™re not even called viruses anymore. The biggest problems today are spyware and adware. The trouble with viruses was that their sole object was to penetrate your computer, then destroy it. That didnâ€™t make anybody rich, though, because good parasites donâ€™t kill their hosts.</p>
<p>The most sinister and pervasive threats have morphed into commercially propelled vehicles for privacy extraction with a view to profit. These days, when I look at a friendâ€™s computer that has slowed and showed signs of derangement from infection, I donâ€™t find a lot of viruses. But I find boatloads of spyware and adware (and thatâ€™s a metric boatload, not one of those sissy imperial boatloads).</p>
<p>So be aware of the threat you face now. A new enemy requires new tactics&#8211;this means your anti-spyware and adware programs are more important than ever. I previously recommended Spybot and Adaware for the newly important jobs â€“ <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/destroy-spyware-and-annihilate-adware">read my review of both</a> and find out how to get them (theyâ€™re free, of course).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-have-come-of-age/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google warns against bad webpages</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/google-warns-against-bad-webpages</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/google-warns-against-bad-webpages#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 03:03:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search engines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/google-warns-against-bad-webpages</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google, by partnering with the StopBadware Organization, has begun to issue warnings when users click on search results that lead to dangerous websites. StopBadware keeps a list (so far it appears to be quite limited) of user-submitted websites that are known to host spyware, adware, and other malware. After receiving submissions, the organization analyzes the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="imgintro"><a href="/images/warn_big.jpg"><img width="200" height="150" alt="Google search screenshot" src="/images/warn_small.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Google, by partnering with the <a href="http://www.stopbadware.org/">StopBadware Organization</a>, has begun to issue warnings when users click on search results that lead to dangerous websites.</p>
<p>StopBadware keeps a list (so far it appears to be quite limited) of user-submitted websites that are known to host spyware, adware, and other malware. After receiving submissions, the organization analyzes the purported malware using a list of seven categories of bad behaviour that help to identify malicious software.</p>
<p>This list includes:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230;deceptive installations, unclearly [sic] identification, causing harm to other computers, modifying other software, transmitting user data, interfering with computer use, and being difficult to uninstall completely.</p></blockquote>
<p>You can see one of the warnings in action by doing a <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hs=yNF&#038;hl=en&#038;client=firefox-a&#038;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&#038;q=seriall&#038;btnG=Search&#038;meta=">search for &#8220;seriall&#8221;</a> and clicking on the first result (SeriAll.com is a website that publishes serial numbers for pirated software). After clicking on the link, you should see a screen similar to the one shown at the top of this post.<span id="more-25"></span></p>
<h3>Will Google and StopBadware prevail?</h3>
<p>Most solutions to this problem, such as downloadable antispyware scanners, are reactive rather than preventative. They help minimize the damage from malware that has managed to nestle into a user&#8217;s computer, but do little to prevent the installation in the first place.</p>
<p>Preventative initiatives like Google&#8217;s have the potential to greatly decrease the harm and reach of malware. Many websites, including those that deal in malware, depend on search engine results for a good number of their visitors; if this source of internet traffic dries up, malware providers will need to look elsewhere for their victims.</p>
<p>Still, let us hope the execution of this strategy is transparent and level-headed. Because a website&#8217;s fortunes can change dramatically depending on the traffic it receives from search engine results, collateral damage to websites that are mistakenly or negligently targeted would be unfortunate indeed.</p>
<p>Happily, the idea so far is not to irrevocably block traffic to a searcher&#8217;s intended destination, but to provide a warning en-route. If someone wishes to continue to the website, even after reading the warning, it is fully possible. I hope the policy remains that way and abstains from taking up a censorship position.</p>
<h3>Another way to avoid spyware</h3>
<p>There is another way to use search engine results to help you vet software before you download it, and I will provide a detailed how-to in an upcoming post. I think you will find it quite useful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/google-warns-against-bad-webpages/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Windows firewall is not good enough</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/windows-firewall-is-not-good-enough</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/windows-firewall-is-not-good-enough#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/windows-firewall-is-not-good-enough</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As far as I know, Windows Firewall, which comes with Windows XP Service Pack 2, is fairly effective at inbound protection (warding off hackers and other threats coming from the outside world), but it doesn&#8217;t have any outbound protection. Outbound protection is important because it can prevent spyware on your computer from sending the information [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as I know, Windows Firewall, which comes with Windows XP Service Pack 2, is fairly effective at inbound protection (warding off hackers and other threats coming from the outside world), but it doesn&#8217;t have any outbound protection.</p>
<p>Outbound protection is important because it can prevent spyware on your computer from sending the information it has collected back over the internet to whoever is trying to spy on you.<span id="more-18"></span></p>
<p>If your firewall features outbound protection, it means that you can grant or refuse permission to any program that wants to access the internet. So if something does slip through the <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/destroy-spyware-and-annihilate-adware">spyware and adware precautions</a> you have implemented on your computer, you&#8217;ll be able to prevent it from doing any real harm.</p>
<h3>What you can do about it:</h3>
<p>One of the best programs to keep you safe with inbound and outbound protection is the <a href="http://www.download.com/ZoneAlarm/3000-10435_4-10550364.html?tag=lst-0-2">ZoneAlarm firewall</a>. And, of course, it&#8217;s free and super easy to set up.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t forget to turn off Windows Firewall after you have installed ZoneAlarm. Here&#8217;s how: Start>Control Panel>Windows Firewall> then select &#8220;Off&#8221; in the tab/section called &#8220;General&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/windows-firewall-is-not-good-enough/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Destroy spyware and annihilate adware</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/destroy-spyware-and-annihilate-adware</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/destroy-spyware-and-annihilate-adware#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:48:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recommended software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/destroy-spyware-and-annihilate-adware</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your computer is hopelessly lost to adware and spyware and viruses. I know because I&#8217;ve seen computers like yours. If you upgraded to Firefox as I suggested in the last post, you&#8217;re headed in the right direction, but there is more to be done. Now you need to download two programs (free, of course) that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="imgintro"><a href="/images/spybot_big.jpg"><img width="200" height="136" title="Click for larger image" alt="Spybot screenshot" src="/images/spybot_small.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Your computer is hopelessly lost to adware and spyware and viruses. I know because I&#8217;ve seen computers like yours. If you upgraded to Firefox as I suggested in the <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/get-firefox-and-be-safer">last post</a>, you&#8217;re headed in the right direction, but there is more to be done.</p>
<p>Now you need to download two programs (free, of course) that will kill anything that manages to get by your defences.<span id="more-16"></span></p>
<h3>Spybot Search and Destroy</h3>
<p>This extremely well maintained and frequently updated program eliminates all the most common spyware, adware and tracking cookies that infect all computers from time to time. Basically, <a href="http://www.safer-networking.org/">Spybot</a> will catch whatever your antivirus program misses.</p>
<h3>Adaware</h3>
<p>Because one anti-spyware program is not quite enough, <a href="http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/">Adaware</a> will catch anything that Spybot Search and Destroy might miss and vice versa. Both programs are excellent and rarely miss the chance to extinguish the life of spyware, but even the best program will miss something now and again.</p>
<p>Now that you&#8217;ve got both of these programs on your computer, you just need to remember to update them often and run them even more often.</p>
<p>Let me make this very clear: <strong>you need to be an active participant in keeping your computer clean by running these programs at least once a week</strong> and more often if you&#8217;ve been infected with a load of spyware recently. They will not actively monitor your computer to catch the bad guys while you sleep.</p>
<p>In upcoming posts, I will recommend free antivirus and firewall programs so that you can finish building an impenetrable fortress around your electronic assets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/destroy-spyware-and-annihilate-adware/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why is it important to be spyware and adware free?</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-is-it-important-to-be-spyware-and-adware-free</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-is-it-important-to-be-spyware-and-adware-free#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:07:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-is-it-important-to-be-spyware-and-adware-free</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why bother keeping your computer free of spyware and adware? Almost everyone has some type of malware on their computer and Iâ€™ll wager that your identity has never been stolen as a result of having it. On top of that, spyware often helps companies know what you like so that they can market to you [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="imgintro"><a title="Click for larger image" href="/images/big_bugs.jpg"><img alt="Praying mantis on wooden board" src="/images/bugs.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Why bother keeping your computer free of spyware and adware? Almost everyone has some type of malware on their computer and Iâ€™ll wager that your identity has never been stolen as a result of having it.</p>
<p>On top of that, spyware often helps companies know what you like so that they can market to you better. So it may seem like no big deal, but there are some good reasons why you should take it seriously. Hereâ€™s why:<span id="more-13"></span></p>
<p>1. Spyware and adware can actually cost you a lot of money. When your computer finally runs out of memory and grinds to a halt because all of its resources are being hungrily consumed by malware, youâ€™ll have to take it to a computer shop to get it fixed, which could cost upwards of $100, or fix it yourself (maybe $50-$200 according to the value of your own time). Either way, youâ€™ll definitely miss the use of your computer for a day or three.</p>
<p>2. Youâ€™ll feel safer shopping on the internet knowing that there isnâ€™t a key logger taking down your passwords and credit card numbers, then sending them to www.yourescrewednow.com.</p>
<p>3. You should be keenly aware of how you are trading your privacy in return for â€œfree thingsâ€. This is precisely whatâ€™s happening when you are surfing the web and decide to download what looks like a free piece of software, but is actually laden with spyware or adware (often, this kind of software comes in the form of screensavers, gambling software, or video games). The company that created that software is making a profit by collecting and selling data about you, about how you use their program, and information about your computer in general.</p>
<p>Your information is very valuable to marketing companies, and you should treat it as such. If youâ€™re going to sell it to them, know how much itâ€™s worth, and get a fair price. For me, the tradeoff is not worth it when the free thing Iâ€™m getting is a SpongeBob SquarePants screensaver and the company that created it gets to advertise at me with pop-ups for the rest of my life. You can choose how important your information is to you, and act accordingly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-is-it-important-to-be-spyware-and-adware-free/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

