Comments on: Scareware and Legitimate Marketing News, Views, and Insight from the ESET Security Community Mon, 03 Feb 2014 08:49:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: David Harley Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:45:37 +0000 @adam: well, you could argue that fear of negative consequences is what sells security products. There is a difference, though, between selling an honest attempt to mitigate the problem and selling a dishonest attempt to profit from that fear without mitigating the problem. Selling an honest product using dishonest means is something different again. It's by no means unknown in the security industry, but ethical issues apart (and that doesn't mean I don't care about the ethical issues, only that it's a complex area), it seems to me that to be found to be dishonest in some respects is counter-productive for any company. The more so in a sector that's as distrusted as the security industry.
@Rob: I guess Godwin's law hasn't been repealed, then. ;-) I guess you could argue that even if the end doesn't justify the means, it's not intrinsically evil to use the results of "evil" research as long as the way in which you use them isn't in itself evil. In the case of Mengele, you might even even argue that it's laudable to use the knowledge gained from that research if it means that the death and suffering has some positive results further down the line. But can (never mind the should…) the AV industry learn as much from scareware as the scareware guys have learned from marketing (in general, not just AV marketing)? Maybe we can, but I'd rather see us use that knowledge in countering scareware, rather than emulating it.

By: Rob Rosenberger Mon, 20 Sep 2010 03:24:29 +0000 Hmmm.  You know, David, there is a … certain logic to this.  Scareware firms experiment with any number of psychological ploys to make people buy FAKE antivirus software.  If a legit antivirus firm did enough analyses on those marketing tactics…
In theory, they might be swayed to adopt some of those tactics.  But that may be okay, because we're talking about a legit antivirus firm, not a fake antivirus firm.
I mean, consider Dr. Joseph Mengele.  Yeah, sure, he performed gruesome medical experiments on Jews & Gypsies in WWII.  But legit surgeons made some amazing advances by studying Mengele's work.  So, uh … it ultimately benefits society when an ethical surgeon studies unethical medical procedures.  This ultimately means we should applaud Mengele for his … uh–
Wait, this isn't going the way I wanted it to.  What I'm trying to say here is, if a legit antivirus firm adopts the practices of a fake antivirus firm, then we should thank the scareware industry for showing legit companies how to succeed in the marketpla–
Uh, wait.  I'm back where I started.  Certainly there must be a way to study unethical tactics and use them in an ethical manner.  I'm probably just … you know what, I think I need to sleep on this.  I'm just not in the zone right now, and that alarms me.  Good night.

By: Adam Wilder Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:24:54 +0000 Yes, that  makes  perfect  sense  as,  the  concept  of  fear  should  never  be  used  to get  someone to  use  something.I,myself  have  used  ESET  for  several  months  now and  was  never  goaded  into    purchasing  out  of   some  mareketing  measure(s)  or  such rather,  the  company and  it's  products  have a   solid  reputation.

By: Martha Bagwell Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:22:32 +0000 I am the owner of a computer help group in Yahoo.  Several of our members are reporting scareware behavior on the part of Zone Alarm free.  I have removed the download links for Zone Alarm from my sites.
It's too bad,
FYI i do use EST Smart Security and wouldn't use anything else.