Talk:Flipora/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Flipora. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Protection request
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Too many disruptive edits. Will be good if this page can be edited by only auto confirmed users for the next 2 weeks
Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - Arjayay (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Scans Contacts and Sends Spam
The flipora service is NOT what is described in the Wikipedia page, I would rather classify it als unwanted software/malware spread by dubious practices. I received an Email from Flipora, claiming I had a message, the sender was not correctly identified as Flipora. Clicking on the link took me to the Flipora wepbage, which attempted to install a browser addon (without telling me what it is), and asked for access to my google contacts (without telling me my). Needless to say, I did not install the addon or grant access rights, but I am pretty sure that Flipora spreads through scraping address books. If I have time, I will research this and amend the article. If somebody else beats me to it, that's perfectly fine. 87.189.124.12 (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that, but as this is Wikipedia you will need to provide a reliable reference. -- haminoon (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Check out the references below the article, most of them just process and publish press releases, not entirely reliable sources then, are they? Microsoft classified the infoaxe browser helper as spyware: http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/threat/encyclopedia/entry.aspx?Name=Spyware%3aWin32%2fInfoaxe and if you do a google search, you find many sources that claim flipora is malware: http://www.safebro.com/remove-flipora-virus , http://botcrawl.com/how-to-remove-flipora/ http://www.2-viruses.com/remove-flipora-hijacker https://www.quora.com/Why-is-infoaxe-usually-tagged-as-a-virus-and-was-the-move-to-change-the-name-to-Flipora-an-effort-to-move-away-from-the-negative-publicity?share=1 , similar results come up when searching for fliporas previous name infoaxe https://duckduckgo.com/?q=infoaxe&t=ffab I think this is enough sources to be mentioned in the article. 91.61.70.177 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- also, loads of complaints in the google product forums https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!searchin/chrome/flipora 91.61.70.177 (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately only the microsoft one could be considered reliable. Blogs, forums, and rogue security companies aren't reliable. -- haminoon (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I see your point, and I understand the underlying policy, and even though it has unwanted negative side effects (as in this case), I can not suggest a better one, I will keep on looking for sources. Can you please include the microsoft reference in tha article? 91.61.75.173 (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The provided Microsoft link was last updated in April 2011 (see page) and refers to an earlier real time search product that is not even available now. It's not clear if the microsoft page is current, since it's over 4 years old and the new Flipora product seems to have been launched only in 2012. Since the page hasn't been updated for 4 years, it's an unreliable reference, since all kinds of software routinely get misflagged resulting in false positives submissions followed by delisting. This page however has no current status. It is merely a past snapshot 4 years old of a product that hasn't existed in a long time. So there is no reliable reference anywhere.
This latest change needs to be reversed, since it incorrectly references an earlier product, Infoaxe that was a search engine which isn't being offered any more. Microsoft doesn't have anything to say about Flipora. Separately, this article could use some cleanup in terms of grammar and factors. For example, Flipora is not a search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.80.20 (talk • contribs)
- Haminoon, thank you for reverting. Jimmy0007, please provide a decent edit summary when you're reverting. The extra time you have to devote to writing an edit summary would have given you the opportunity to realize that your revert was foolish. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- The MS link appears current to me - if it was de-listed it would be removed from the site. There is no evidence Microsoft routinely misflags software and leaves it on their Malware Protection Centre website. The "product" obviously still exists; although it may or not be still "supported", and it is clearly a product from Flipora. If we remove citations to infoaxe there will be very few reliable references - probably not enough to justify the article's existence. One of the citations calls Flipora a search engine, but there doesn't seem to be enough reliable references to develop a consensus for what it actually is. There has been very little reporting on this company and product - most of the cites read like re-written press releases. -- haminoon (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I had an email similar to the OP with a Flipmailer link directing me to a site which looked as if was a genuine Flipora page. Visiting a Flipora page via Google requires a login/signup which was not a requirement in the email link but Google certainly flags Flipmailer as suspect. There is some evidence that the Flipora ITunes app can hijack the subscriber's address book, however. Lmstearn (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've had about 3 e-mails now each week from flipmailer claiming to be a message from a "compromised" family member. The family member has not sent me a message and never recalls giving flipora permission to spam their address book.--Drsox (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I know this won't amount to 'real evidence' in the eyes of Wikipedia but I came across this page trying to workout what Flipora is and I am very confident it is a virus/phishing/malware service. In my case friends have been telling me I have been emailing them asking them to join. I had a close look at one of these emails I had supposedly sent and while it does indeed have my address in the "from" field (making it look like it has been sent from my account) if you look closely at the "full header" it can be found the email actually originated from "info@infoaxe.net". There is no doubt that this email is attempting to impersonate me.
- I've had about 3 e-mails now each week from flipmailer claiming to be a message from a "compromised" family member. The family member has not sent me a message and never recalls giving flipora permission to spam their address book.--Drsox (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I had an email similar to the OP with a Flipmailer link directing me to a site which looked as if was a genuine Flipora page. Visiting a Flipora page via Google requires a login/signup which was not a requirement in the email link but Google certainly flags Flipmailer as suspect. There is some evidence that the Flipora ITunes app can hijack the subscriber's address book, however. Lmstearn (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
This is the beginning of the "full header":
- From my_real_address@gmail.com Sun May 3 02:47:25 2015
- X-Apparently-To: my_friends_real_address@yahoo.com; Sun, 03 May 2015 02:47:30 +0000
- Return-Path: <info@infoaxe.net>
- Received-SPF: permerror (encountered permanent error during SPF processing of domain of infoaxe.net)
--S.Bartfast (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
This is malware
A relative who relies on me for technical support reported his Firefox home page being switched unbeknownst to him to Facebook (probably due to the Facebook icon shown on the page's tab). Upon closer inspection it was this Flipora site that the home page was set to. I vote for malware status. It's only a personal anecdote. Sorry. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Upon a closer look, I see that Flipora somehow installed itself as an Extension in Firefox (on a MacBook Pro). It comes up with Firefox, and force-create a separate tab with flashing adds, and a search field, every time Firefox launches. The logo looks like a Facebook log, but instead of a blue background color, it has a red bg color. If this is not a malware, I don't know what a malware is. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Content Recommendations are good only in some topics
One of my friends uses this app to get his daily news and recommended the app to me. He likes topics like technology and business where the recommendations seem to be pretty good. I found a lot of the content recommendations on topics like travel, fitness, nutrition etc. to be highly sub-par and a lot of the recommendations in these topics are also relatively old content. Additionally, Flipora shows upvotes from my friends as recommendations to me, even when I am uninterested in these topics, which doesn't indicate mature personalization technology. I am therefore not sure if Flipora can be considered a general purpose content recommendation engine, since its strength seems to be primarily in technology, business and similar topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.242.36 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is enough reason to call Flipora a vertical content discovery app, since most apps have some strengths and some weaknesses, which evolve over time. For example Pinterest is much stronger when it comes to image content about fashion and shopping compared to image content about technology or business, but no one would categorize it as a vertical image content discovery app. How mature the product is etc. is related to noteworthiness and not to the product description. If the admins decide to keep the page rather than delete it (once they make a judgement call on whether the noteworthiness of the product as judged by whether the press coverage was transient or sustained), the current product description is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.80.20 (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
add section about public reception of flipora
When looking at the official Google+ and Facebook pages, flipora has 272 followes and 5.715 likes (as of today). I find that rather curious for a service that claims 25 million users. Flipora's posts on facebook and google+ usually have no likes, shares or comments. I think the article should mention that. 91.61.75.173 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the number of social media followers is notable, although I do find the 25 million users a bit hard to believe. -- haminoon (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I find the number of social media followers notable the context of the alleged number of users, the 30 million is e.g. reported by reuters. 91.61.75.54 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- FYI that is not "reported by Reuters"; its a press release. -- haminoon (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed that. How about this statement then: "Flipora claims in a 2014 press release to have 25 million users, and the company has (as of May 2015) 272 followers and 5.715 likes on Facebook"? Sources are Reuters and the facebook page. 91.61.72.56 (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- FYI that is not "reported by Reuters"; its a press release. -- haminoon (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I find the number of social media followers notable the context of the alleged number of users, the 30 million is e.g. reported by reuters. 91.61.75.54 (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Protection request - 2 (May 16, 2015)
@Drmies:: I agree, please protect this page against these disruptive edits. I looked at the talk page and delete page and I can safely say that these references are lower in quality than the bar that was discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.66.125 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 17 May 2015
- For the record, I have semi-protected the article and blocked the IPs for edit-warring and personal attacks and for block evasion, respectively. Whether www.virusresearch.org is reliable may be debatable, but Symantec certainly is, as is Microsoft listed below. Huon (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the best place to put this, but I see the malware info has been removed again. Wonder how long this edit war is going to go on. ekips39 (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Protection request (May 16, 2015)
@Drmies: This user "Winner 42" is vandalizing this page with unreliable references which actually distribute his own malware in the name of cleaning his computer. See the page he is citing as first reference. It forces you to install a dangerous exe file in the name of cleaning your computer. Would anyone dare to actually install his exe? This is the link he is trying to reference: http://www.virusresearch.org/flipora-removal-instructions/
This link is nowhere of the quality of the high quality sources referenced so far and it's also trying to distribute its own exe.
@Drmies: Please lock this page from edits or block "Winner 42" from editing this page. You have blocked people trying to vandalize this page in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.109.178 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 May 2015
- Did you even read the page? It doesn't even distribute any executable files, it tells you how to disable the extension in chrome while providing a description of the malware. Lying won't get you far on Wikipedia, you have already been reported to administrators for assumptions of bad faith and disruptive editing. Good day. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't force people to install the .exe. Do you have any evidence the website is unreliable? It is used as a reference in other parts of Wikipedia and has been uncontroversial. Also please note you have already been warned about mislabelling edits as vandalism. -- haminoon (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are also removing the Symantec reference - why? -- haminoon (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I am copy pasting the dangerous part of the reference link:
"ATTENTION! Important Notice About the Flipora VIRUS: Manual Removal should be performed by computer experts only! Some infections are capable of striking back and destroying your system, if not entirely removed. The recommended Flipora Removal Tool* will save you a lot of time and troubles. Below is a link to a FREE scanner that you can use to identify the virus. >> Click Here to DOWNLOAD Automatic Flipora Fixer*." The link it points to is: http://www.virusresearch.org/spyhunter-installation-instructions/ (visiting this link automatically triggers an exe download).
@Drmies:, @Haminoon:: I apologize for the bad faith comment on an earlier edit. It was written in a hurry. But please visit the link above and tell me if this looks safe to you. If not please block this editor from editing or protect this page against disruptive edits.
On this talk page as well as delete page, the repeated consensus was that the reference links need to be high quality. There was even a debate on whether references from Forbes, Huffingtonpost, Inc. magazine etc. was noteworthy enough, or whether this article should be deleted, which is still not resolved. It's fair to say that such a reference from a much less reputable source, which drives the person to install an exe, cannot possibly meet wikipedia standards. Also, please apologize for your bad faith comment of accusing me of lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.109.178 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 May 2015
Reasons for deletion
"The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence Also: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Just as a lagging economic indicator indicates what the economy was doing in the past, a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be" Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence While Flipora has some recent news coverage, this cannot be considered sustained notability. The rules are very clear that "short-term interest" and "brief bursts of news coverage" are inadequate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.80.20 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 May 2015
Please make a final decision on deleting vs not; this page has been marked AfD for too long
This page has been marked for Deletion since Apr 26th. Haminoon mentioned that only an uninvolved admin can close the AfD. @Drmies: can you please remove the AfD from this wiki page? Or if you think there are any compelling arguments made in the last 3 weeks on this talk page or on the deletion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flipora, please go ahead and delete. Either way, it's been 18 days since this article has been marked for AfD, which seems extremely long. The fact that there has been no clear consensus for so long suggests that it's best to close this AfD. Should someone come up with more compelling arguments later, we can always open an new AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.80.20 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 May 2015
New to this topic, but system integrator
Notability or Notorious? Given that this falls in the category Adware/Malware, for it to be an article means that it has crossed the boundary for a passing virus which, once identified, finds a security resolve note on microsoft's website. Waay back, Another such was the picture program 'Hijaack', which collected all images on a user computer and rearranged them into folders. Problem was, at the time, it consumed all system resources(win95). Shut the computer it was installed on down! The same concept but done in a way that didn't compromise the users resources is the Picasa program by Google. Great digital darkroom! (current free download with no malware attached). Flipora has the concept of the latter with the downside of the former, but that isn't the deletion problem here, it whether it's been debated for two weeks.
I think the issue that should be resolved first is whether a program like this is phishing software that does no good(notable) or just a non-notable product that compromises users computers(delete).
Blackbeard was notable but cutthroat island was a bomb. Both are on wikipedia, which will ultimately have staying power? Robco311 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Recent good Flipora references
The Flipora article is inaccurate end to end mixes an old product with this product, and has a bunch of outdated references, all of which should go. We should either delete the current article outright or rewrite it from scratch correctly with correct references. Minor edits to this article cannot salvage it. Below are some accurate recent references in Forbes, Inc Magazine, Yahoo finance etc. Flipora is not even a search engine, it's a content discovery engine/content discovery app.
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2015/01/27/five-new-apps-challenging-facebook-and-twitter-for-content-discovery/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnrampton/2014/09/12/the-past-present-and-future-of-content-discovery/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/drewhendricks/2014/10/16/are-interest-based-networks-the-way-of-the-future/
Inc Magazine: http://www.inc.com/john-rampton/4-essential-iphone-apps-for-late-2014.html http://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/ai-is-helping-the-internet-know-what-you-want-before-you-want-it.html
Yahoo Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-announces-next-version-mood-090000328.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-mood-aware-content-discovery-090000755.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-reads-mind-recommends-websites-090000803.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-exceeds-25-million-worldwide-090000022.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-future-content-discovery-090000893.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/flipora-announces-launch-api-personalization-090000274.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.157.52 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Yahoo articles are actually press releases from Flipora.
- It would be probably be good to clear up what the article is about - the company or the product? I noticed another editor added back in references to Infoaxe. If the article is about the company then it should mention the historical product that is still listed by Microsoft as malware.
- I'm also a little concerned the references are coming from a business perspective rather than an IT perspective and are throwing around terms like "artificial intelligence" with no substantiation. -- haminoon (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- It makes no sense to include reference to Infoaxe, since that's a long defunct product, which hasn't existed for at least three years. Such references should definitely be dropped. If the articles in Inc magazine and Forbes are insufficient to have as the only references for Flipora, this wikipedia page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.157.52 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- If the article is about the company then it does make sense to talk about defunct products. Most wiki articles on companies cover their entire history. However its unclear what this article is about - the first sentence only mentions the product, but the infobox and categories relate to the company. -- haminoon (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Information that infoaxe.net is defunct is wrong. The information that they spam is right. They harvest people's gmail contact list by sending frindship invites that look like the ones from Google Plus. The accept link goes to http://invites.infoaxe.net/signup_e.html?fullname=etc and redirects to flipora.com.
- This process grants Flipora.com access to the gmail profile. This can be revoked in the gmail settings at https://security.google.com/settings/security/permissions
- All contacts receive a spam email with Return-Path: <info@infoaxe.net> this Email is send by mail1.infoaxe.net and has a valid DKIM Signature:
- If the article is about the company then it does make sense to talk about defunct products. Most wiki articles on companies cover their entire history. However its unclear what this article is about - the first sentence only mentions the product, but the infobox and categories relate to the company. -- haminoon (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- It makes no sense to include reference to Infoaxe, since that's a long defunct product, which hasn't existed for at least three years. Such references should definitely be dropped. If the articles in Inc magazine and Forbes are insufficient to have as the only references for Flipora, this wikipedia page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.157.52 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=key2; d=infoaxe.net; h=Date:From:To:Subject:List-Unsubscribe:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; i=info@infoaxe.net; bh=6YOqKeFAnMAFMrbNk6JwlVtN/LA=; b=f3b6lfspGh80PSJHGoA7PQ+pSXiEizf9OHZIiZWm+4JiQtQppo/DpeFlzm3PN3rcLPcyvY5ZIo4t JxKJrcVK/Y7XPQVTIJ23WSjt0wDaus4L2EC7u00ALvBFaI4g7F2SMrYG0aEyCcrDBl+WQkDDRUYH 73/q7y0aouqmVostt/E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; q=dns; s=key2; d=infoaxe.net; b=GaWodSt53GGu16YbQVAL8orXIjce+vix6RNl2EdVG/dQsqa4Go9AEHyzjTGhzQJmpWy7obrraIkI tWzjuJSWKRrjDxW2srDQYH00vCz7Bm3T/XwlbyOeaqfKgISX4BzKrfKizomoFU2f7gQYKYX285h1 XyBUEf8vdW67oDiIPCg=;
As can be seen with
| hatting page-breaking text |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
$ host -t txt key2._domainkey.infoaxe.net key2._domainkey.infoaxe.net descriptive text "k=rsa\; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEx+zx49v8XQhwtj3OEqaw2oLGgpn+G7Vf03pTeE3c37y179cnc0Xnr0jIgzxpt27ZVOJMU20E57lD4q8ftK2ZvMbIWMAuW4WzbjrpAzi79NmnUbsVmqAF0AEXDV3bHf/+RnUNEeEy7OAo9c/HZBD2eNmziQ2V6lod7YC/Q9TSzQIDAQAB" |
- So infoaxe.net is not disfunctional and this information is a valid source. 89.247.6.215 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
That is part of the problem with the wikipedia page. It is extremely confused end to end. There are definitely no current references of the "company" (all recent accurate references are about the Flipora product) and it's fair to say that previous products were never noteworthy since no wikipedia page was created for them and it's not clear they had meaningful usage. If we choose to keep this wikipedia page, it should be about the product alone. If the recent references in Forbes and Inc aren't strong enough to meet the noteworthiness criteria if they were to serve as the only references, we should just delete the page as planned. After all none of the Forbes and Inc articles are dedicated to referencing Flipora in great detail. They all reference Flipora in a few sentences each alongside other products, so a case can be made for deletion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.157.52 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Anupmehra: I'd appreciate your comment here. -- haminoon (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a work in progress. Please Be Bold and make changes that improve the encyclopedia article (remove existing refs, added new one, re-word contents, or whatever, just click "edit" and do it. WP:BRD may be of help when someone revert your work.) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Revamped the Flipora article based on feedback on this talk page.
I rewrote the article per the detailed discussion on the talk page. Fixed a lot of factual and grammatical errors and included new authoritative references to this product. @Haminoon: ,@Anupmehra: Please remove AfD message if you think this revamped article is reasonable. I didn't want to unilaterally remove AfD message without discussing with you guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojanapothik (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 April 2015
- Only an uninvolved admin can close the afd. -- haminoon (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Request for reversion to the last clean version free of negative connotations; no opinion of delete or keep
@Drmies:, @Hamiroon:, @Lukeno94:, , @Ojanapothik:: I see a number of problems with the current version. From what I can tell on the delete page, the discussion was already whether coverage in Forbes, Huffington Post, PCWorld was already noteworthy enough, so I think we can safely say that these two negative references added do not cross the bar.
| Warning: Massive message approximately the size of Cheshire to follow by an IP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Citing Lukeno94 (on the delete page): It has had several paragraphs dedicated to it from Forbes in multiple articles, Huffington Post gave it a reasonably sized paragraph, and The Hindu dedicated a lengthy article to it. Sorry guys, but it clearly satisfies GNG, and you not liking it does not change that. There's also a lengthy piece by PC World, for example. Additional problems are the following: 1. None of the two citations actually claim that "Flipora has been reported to post to social media websites on the user's behalf without their consent.". I have no idea on what basis this was written: 2. It's hard to call http://www.virusresearch.org/flipora-removal-instructions/, a reliable reference. Since: Scamadviser gives it a medium trustworthiness rating and says the following: "Analysis Details:- Although being a new website, does not make it un-trustworthy, as with any new business you should be extra vigilant and do your own research before placing an order or making an investment. This site is using an anonymous service - which prevents us from identifying the site owner. This can sometimes be just so that the owner does not receive spam, but be aware that many scam sites use this as a method to hide their identify. If this is an ecommerce site - we would suggest you confirm the business address with the website owners. The website has been newly registered with a short life expectancy, which follows the pattern used by many fraudulent and fake selling websites. Please be vigilant and take extra care before providing any payment information." http://www.scamadviser.com/is-virusresearch.org-a-fake-site.html This distributes a supposedly malware removal tool called "Spyhunter" from a prominent link on top of the reference page. Clicking the link automatically initiated an exe download. This is what a bunch of links have to say about it: 1. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081130093340AAqzxaL "Spy Hunter by Enigma Software offers a free *scan* (no fix) with exaggerated results to scare the user into buying it. There are several better FREE programs which remove the *real* infections which they find for free. Not only that, but if you buy SpyHunter from any link posted in an answer here, the poster (or more correctly, SHILL) will get paid a commission from Enigma. " "Spy Hunter is a scam. When I first ran their scan, it said I had 180 problems. I paid the $39.99 subscription fee (that's right, you have to pay $39.99 EVERY SIX MONTHS to use the software) and ran the scan again. Of the 180 problems it found, it fixed 60 of them. That leaves me with 120 remaining problems. Now, I'm being told by Spy Hunter customer service that their software can't remove all spam and malware remaining and they're giving me instructions from Firefox support about re-starting my browser. I have numerous awful spyware problems, and the software prevents them from opening, but won't remove them from my computer. What a waste." "It's a crappy program that charges people for a antispyware with no real free version or trial I would recommend NOT getting Spyhunter MyWot rates it yellow(low reliability) All user comments rate spyhunter as bad https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/enigmasoftware.com" 1(a) When you look deeper into the website of the enigma software that makes spyhunter, you see the following reviews on mywot. https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/enigmasoftware.com/comment-70046933#comment-70046933 Kaze-Z 10/10/2013 Tagged: I don't trust, Malware or viruses, Scam, Potentially illegal, Misleading claims or unethical, Privacy risks Suspicious, Potentially unwanted programs SpyHunter is a virus scanner that gives fake results in an attempt to scare people into giving them money. SpyHunter is a complete scam. Do not download SpyHunter because it will ruin your computer and waste your time. " https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/enigmasoftware.com/comment-82206129#comment-82206129 CoherentBass 07/07/2014 I don't trust Malware or viruses Poor customer experience Phishing Scam Misleading claims or unethical Privacy risks Potentially unwanted programs This site is absolutely pathetic. Users can arrive here from a simple Google search looking for sincere help with how to remedy a problem, as I have many times before. Every time a user visits, they are greeted with a post by a user that's been made to look legit telling them to download SpyWare Hunter to fix the problem. The only issue here is that SpyWare Hunter itself is a virus designed to trick users into paying money to Enigma to "fix their PC" or sorts. Never visit this site or download anything by Enigma Software for your own privacy and safety, as well as the safety of your PC.'
Let's be specific here unlike any other user here. Spyhunter is a scareware that wants you to pay their product, If you pay for it, then you just got scammed. And if you haven't, great for you. Ignore the threat alerts, they are all false and fake. Follow these steps : 1. Click the ALT key on your keyboard 2. Go to control panel 3. Down below you'll see programs, click Uninstall a program. 4. Wait for it to create a uninstall list 5. Find SpyHunter 6. Click Uninstall 7. Reboot 8. Download malwarebytes at malwarebytes.org 9. Set the trial version 10. Scan and remove viruses. You're welcome. And if you REALLY need spyware protection. You could get SUPERantispyware or Spybot. They are both good programs to use. I use SUPERantivirus. And never install Spyhunter again, it's just a scareware and a rogue. Other than that, be safe and peace out! "
Enigma Software is notorious for creating, selling, and distributing bogus PC optimization software and antiviruses. This company has a bad history and I wouldn't recommend their software at all. "
SEO spam / engaged in the distribution of malware ( fake anti-spyware) " https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/enigmasoftware.com/comment-83702441#comment-83702441 Chaldon 09/13/2014 I don't trust Scam Spyhunter WILL NOT UNINSTALL. Legitimate since 2006 my ass. "
This has always been rogue software. "
Engaged in distribution of malware " I could go on and on, but you can look at the full set of reviews yourselves. This is just a small percent of all reviews on mywot. Plenty of users complaining about the software fraudulently detecting other software as viruses, to encourage users to install it. 2) bit.ly/1ESbjfz (Complaints board) Yet another flood of complaints including very recent ones, essentially complaining about this software's fraudulent billing. spy hunter Tigard (Complaint) Posted: 2015-04-27 by Hazel Barrie unauthorized withdrawal from bank account computer, and I cancelled Spyhunter. Now they are billing me again for 39. 99. I want NOTHING to do with them and I do want my money back because they were unauthorized to take it from my account ...
Dri Spyhunter Minnesota (Complaint Comment) Posted: 2015-04-25 by RENARDET Unauthorized charge on my credit card 10/04 Dri Spyhunter - 35, 99 10/04 Dri Spyhunter - 35, 99 Je vous serais gré de me fournir les factures correspondantes à ces soi disant achats ? et je n'ai pas de trace mail En plus votre fichier est gratuit Cela s’appelle de l’escroquerie C’est vous qui êtes des espions et surtout des voleurs... Dri*spyhunter California (Complaint Comment) Posted: 2015-04-21 by teela return money 66 Plats DRI SPYHUNTER 952 646 5288... spy hunter (Complaint) Posted: 2015-04-21 by teela Don´t want it I can not login You know neither me nor my E-mail address I ordered and tried to use it Was not happy uninstall it work Now you have the debit off me for another year, it will not consent to return the money to the account you are charged enigma Esher KT10 8QD (Complaint) Posted: 2015-04-20 by G.E.T.RAINE Spyhunter4 Spyhunter 4 arrived by accident. I am unable to uninstall it. The perceived Uninstall program is mixed with aggressive advertising. I am reporting this as a complaint to the UK authorities and to Microsoft. Please remove Spyhunter 4 from this computer. G. E. T. Raine... spy hunter igny (Complaint) Posted: 2015-04-16 by david marie claude prelevement non autorisé Dri*spyhunter 952 - 646 - 5288 29. 99 Usd Posted: uthappa unauthorised payment Complaint Rating: 75 % with 4 votes Contact information: uthappa Sydney, New South Wales Australia sir i bought spy hunter a year ago for one years subscrption, and didnot renew it this year, an unauthrosied payment has gone from my credit card... unauthorized charges 14 this firm spyhunter takes unautorized charges of 71, 38, 17. 04. 14 71, 3829. 07. 14 twice 35, 69; 16. 10. 14 twice 36, 69 €, last 08. 12. 14 71, 38 € from my creditcard please refund this immediatly dont use my creditcard for charges,...
SpyHunter 4 Helsinki (Complaint) Posted: 2014-11-18 by Tenttus Overcharged So i wanted to Register an account to "Spy Hunter 4" software, when i filled in my information and confirmed the transaction, they charged 74, 38-€ from my credit card by "DIGITAL RIVER INTE" . I would like to be refunded by this since they have no rights to take more money from my ca... Enigma SpyHunt Hawick (Complaint) Posted: 2014-11-03 by Derek boden Money taken from my account without my permission I purchased the Enigma Spyhunter software for 6 months which Expired in September. I tried to renew the contract without success and finally decided not to renew. No new contract had been entered into so no cancellation was required. In spite of not having any authorization Enigma took £28... Enigma Software Group Spyhunter (Complaint) Posted: 2014-09-28 by magma112 unauthorized charges I purchased SpyHunter via Credit card, but it changed the price of my order without any further notice. Instead of charging me 29. 99EUR, the order came out with 71 EUR. I want all my orders to be cancelled and my money refunded to my account. order number: ST87751436... Yves Rocher England|Greater Manchester (Complaint Comment) Posted: 2014-08-25 by Pierre St-Yves Never received my order j'ai acheté SpyHunter sans toutefois le recevoir. Le 10 Août 2014 vous avez débité ma carte Visa d'un montant de:29. 99$U. S Vu ce qui précède, je vous serai gré de bien vouloir me rembourser ce montant et de fermer mon dossier. Je ne veux plus rin savoir de votre compagnie... Dri*spyhunter 952 - 646 - 5288 29. 99 Usd Sydney New South Wales (Complaint Comment) Posted: 2014-08-24 by Tom Rutledge unauthorised payment my computer of DRI SPYHUNTER . I have been charged a renewal fee which I, most certainly did not Authorise. Despite my best intentions I have been unable to remove it from my computer to insure I will NOT be charged again for a renewal I DID NOT order or request. HOW DO I GET RID OF SAME ?... SpyHunter (Complaint Comment) Posted: 2014-08-13 by Shanelle Woltman Overbilling DRI*SPYHUNTER has taken money out of my bank account without my consent on the 12th august 2014. 2 sets of payments were taken out one was for $43. 29 ad the 2nd was for $32. 47. They first took payments out for digital international luxemburgh on the 10th of august 2014 with the exact payments as those, then they switched it to this company I'm complaining about now... Dri*spyhunter California (Complaint Comment) Posted: 2014-07-14 by Wilma Parker return money I ordered online SpyHunter and RegHunter from Safe Cart - this company is affiliated with Enigma Software Group. I rec'd confirmation via email and everything seemed above board. I paid by Visa and the proper amt. of $79. 08 was removed from my Visa acct. BUT - the next day $43. 80 was also taken from my Visa account for another SpyHunter from a company also affiliated with Enigma Software Group - they are called DRI - I rec'd... 'Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg and there are hundreds of complaints on this site talking about how this software prominently made downloadable from the reference page is a scam that fraudulently bills your credit card or bank account. 3) http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread.php/163160-SpyHunter-4-Good-or-bad "SpyHunter by Enigma Software is a program that was previously listed as a rogue product on the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products List because of the company's history of employing aggressive and deceptive advertising. It has since been delisted but AV-Test has not included SpyHunter in their comprehensive testing analysis that would reveal how SpyHunter compares to the best anti-spyware in terms of protection, repair and usability. The reason for this is that the publisher, Enigma Software, has not been cooperative in submitting SpyHunter for testing at AV-Test. In my opinion it is a dubious program which is not very effective compared to others with a proven track record and I would not trust all the detections provided by its scanning engine. Further, I have read that some newer versions of SpyHunter apparently install it's own "Compact OS" and uses Grub4Dos loader to execute on boot up. The user no longer sees the normal Windows boot menu but instead sees the GRUB menu. For some folks this has resulted in SpyHunter causing a continuous loop when attempting to boot and other issues. When searching for new malware or malware removal assistance (and removal guides) on the Internet, it is not unusual to find numerous hits from untrustworthy and scam sites which misclassify detections or provide misleading information. This is deliberately done more as a scam to entice folks into buying an advertised fix or using a free removal tool. SpyHunter (SpyHunter-Installer.exe) is one of the most common "so-called" removal tools pushed by these sites" 4) http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/505423/cant-remove-spy-hunter-no-matter-what-i-do/ "cant remove spy hunter no matter what i do" "Posted 24 August 2013 - 07:53 PM The current Enigma (Spy Hunter) site comes up with a Red Warning on my ratings, so no direct links to that site will be provided by me - Spy Hunter was actually a complete fraud ! ! They took money and provided no real services. This was revealed back between 2006 and 2008 by several private people, and Antivirus programs. Enigma (parent company) was forced to repay many "fake subscriptions" since that time. Try this first > Fix problems with programs that can't be installed or uninstalled http://support.microsoft.com/mats/Program_Install_and_Uninstall"
SpyHunter was previously listed as a rogue product on the Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products List because of the company's history of employing aggressive, deceptive advertising. It has since been delisted but in my opinion it is a dubious program which is not very effective compared to others with a proven track record which are available free of charge. Further, AV-Test has not included SpyHunter in the comprehensive testing analysis that would reveal how SpyHunter compares to the best anti-spyware in terms of protection, repair and usability. When searching for unfamiliar or unknown malware on the Internet, it is not unusual to find numerous hits from untrustworthy and scam sites which misclassify detections or provide misleading information. This is deliberately done more as a scam to entice folks into buying an advertised fix or removal tool. SpyHunter is one of those so-called removal tools pushed by these sites. "
"SpyHunter is a virus scanner that gives fake results in an attempt to scare people into giving them money. SpyHunter is a complete scam. Do not download SpyHunter because it will ruin your computer and waste your time."
"SpyHunter received their 25th complaint on 03/07/2014. Information about SpyHunter was first submitted to Scambook on Feb 16, 2012. Since then the page has accumulated 31 consumer complaints. On average users reported $330.09 of damages. Scambook's investigation team reached out to this company a total of 7 times, Scambook Investigators last contacted them on Jun 17, 2013."
Now, coming to the question of Symantec: 1. It never refers to Flipora as malware. It says "Adware.Flipora is an adware program that displays advertisements and tracks browser information such as websites visited." Even if you went with the definition of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adware, it might just mean "advertising supported software" as defined on the wikipedia page, and as Symantec itself clarifies. 2. The symantec page lists the risk impact as "low". 3. Symantec's entry is last updated on Nov 5th, more that 6 months ago, which suggests that one of the many software products is either no longer functional or symantec delisted them through false positive dispute resolution. 4. False positives are common at Symantec. Even EnigmaSoftware, maker of SpyHunter (distributed by virusresearch.org was flagged by symantec). http://www.enigmasoftware.com/enigma-software-group-responds-to-symantec-corporation-listing-spyhunter/
"In the latest on-demand test from AV-Comparatives, quite a few products lost points due to false positives—erroneously identifying a valid program as malware. Symantec and Microsoft scored about the same based on detection of malware samples, but Symantec lost points due to false positives. " 2. Symantec flagging reputable software https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/Symantec+FalsePositive+on+Filezilla+NASA+World+Wind/3150/ "It appears that Symantec's anti-virus definitions (July 15th, rev 2) had a false positive on Filezilla and NASA World Wind, detecting them as Adware.cpush. The definition was fixed in the July 16th release. This isn't the first or last time false positives have shown up with anti-virus updates. As more and more malware gets developed and deployment of said malware gets quicker, the strain on AV vendors to get definitions out quickly is intense." Detailed instructions by Symantec so software can manage the known issue of false positives: "FP Prevention and Correction with Symantec Endpoint Protection 12.1 Security technology has always had the potential of identifying a good file as bad. Symantec works very hard to balance this risk of a false positive versus the need for aggressive detection. In building SEP 12.1 many features have been added to reduce the risk of a false positive. However; in the initial testing and implementation of SEP 12.1 some customers may at first see higher rates. With SEP 12.1 new security technologies are being introduced that require some self learning to avoid false positives. But any disruption to the organization due to false positives can be avoided with some very simple precautions. Additionally, improvements have been made to the false positive workflow to enable a false positive to be correct issue quickly and with minimum disruption. This document will discuss both of these. False Positive Prevention SEP 12.1 will not detect known good files as malware. There are several ways to make sure your good files are known as good. The following steps will help prevent false positives when installing SEP 12.1. Step 1 – Using Digital Signatures One of the easiest ways to identify a file is good is to know where it came from and who created it. One of the most important factors in building confidence in a file being good is to check it’s digital signature. Executable files without a digital signature risk being identified as unknown. Custom or home grown application should be digitally signed with class three digital certificates Customers should insist that their software vendors digitally sign their application Step 2 ‐ Add to the Symantec White List Symantec has a growing white list of over 25 million good files. These files are used in testing signatures before they are released to our customers. The hash values of these files are also stored in the cloud and used to prevent as a real time check, to avoid false positives on the SEP client. Having files in the white list is a powerful tool in avoiding false positives. Customers and vendors can add files to this list. Software vendors can have their executable added to the Symantec white list here: https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/ BCS Customers can have their system images added to the white‐listing program here: https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/bcs.cgi Tools as available through this program that can greatly simplify the submission of information on known good files [Do not use these web sites to correct a false positive. See below for instructions on correcting a false positive.] Step 3 ‐ Exclude SEP 12.1 supports multiple ways to exclude good files from detection. Exclusions can be performed from the SEP management console to provide false positive mitigation right on the client. When known applications come up in the Risk Logs as FPs you can “allow” FP’d applications so that they stop showing up on the Risk Logs. This same functionality is also present in the SONAR Logs. You can also multi‐select and go to the Action dropdown in the toolbar and select “Allow application”. You can also use “Trust Web domain” to add the download Web Domain to the Exceptions policy. You can multi‐select and use the Action dropdown, or you can use the Action widget per log line. Step 4 ‐ Test The initial deployment of SEP 12.1 during beta should include test machines with representative images of the software you run in your environment, including common 3rd party applications Monitor for potential issues during beta testing Step 5 ‐ Feedback Each security technology in SEP 12.1 can collect data that is sent back to Symantec to measure and mitigate false positives via analysis, heuristic training against collected data sets, and custom generic white listing. Enable automated submission of meta data on detections Correcting a False Positive Symantec wants to know about and correct false positives. Having a submission not only allows Symantec to correct a current issue, it allows us study the causes of the false positive to avoid similar files from having issues in the future. Step 1 ‐ Submit False positives submissions can be made immediately to Symantec via a web form. All suspected false positive should be submitted here: https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/ It is critical for resolution of Reputation (Download Insight) false positives that the file or the SHA256 value of the file be included with the submission.2 False positives should not be submitted via the malware subvmission system. Note, this is a change in proceedure and not specific to SEP 12.1. https://submit.symantec.com/false_positive/ should be used to report any false positives, no matter the product involved. Once the submission has been processed and the file white listed by Symantec the quarantine rescan feature will automatically restore heuristic FPs out of quarantine. Step 2 ‐ Exclude SEP 12.1 supports multiple ways to exclude good files from detection. Exclusions can be performed from the SEP management console to provide false positive mitigation right on the client. Future false positives on this file can be avoided immediately by using exclusions. Add an exclusion/exception in SEPM for the critical files , directories or URLs/IPs
|
- I am not sure what your goal is in posting large amounts of irrelevant quotes here amongst red herring arguments. I haven't read it all - its not relevant to me as I'm not about to install an .exe advertised in a wikipedia citation without doing any research. If you don't think it shouldn't be linked then maybe we should remove the much more prominent Flipora link (also discussed at length in Yahoo answers forums). I can't follow your other arguments either. We shouldn't call it adware because you want to give us a lengthy explanation of what adware is? Theres no need as adware was already linked in the article. I can't follow your contradictory arguments you and your suspected sockpuppets keep making about Symantec's false positives either - Symantec don't have entries for the false positives you mention, and the age of the entry should mean its less likely to be a false positive not "out of date". I haven't read all your text but I am going to revert it back to the previous version. If you have any complaints I suggest you use the semi-protected edit request tool, and keep your arguments concise and to the point of the edit you are requested. If you are claiming scamadvisor as a reliable reference you might want to check out what they say about Flipora. Finally, are you the same editor who was blocked earlier today for edit-warring? -- haminoon (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've moved this to the bottom and fixed the section headers. In future please follow the instructions given in the tan box at the top of the page; it makes things easier to follow. ekips39 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- And I didn't read all that either because of the large amount of copy-pasted stuff (please just give links next time), but adware is a subtype of malware, and that something is malware is not an extraordinary claim -- there's lots of malware out there. There is no proof that it's a false positive; you have given only circumstantial evidence and then acted as if it were possible to draw a conclusion from it. ekips39 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've hatted it due to its enormous size, and there is no way on earth I'm going to read all of that mess. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
"The software is marketed as ..."
From what I gather, Flipora does what it says it does, but it also does other stuff that isn't desirable -- it's more "obnoxiousware" than plain malware. It seems like original research to add in phrases like "is marketed as" and "allegedly", as they imply that it doesn't do what it's supposed to do (unless someone said somewhere that it doesn't and I overlooked it). It also seems like undue weight to begin by describing it as malware, since most sources have just focused on the positives; I think it should read more like "Flipora does all this fancy stuff, and it also does this other obnoxious stuff". ekips39 (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think it pretty much is textbook adware, which, despite its negative connotations, isn't that bad on its own. Calling it browser hijacking software is definitely something that needs much stronger sourcing though, particularly as Symantec don't say that it does that. The VirusResearch piece is not convincing in that regard, due to its dubious reliability, and the fact that the standard of writing there is pretty poor. It's worth noting that Sophos describe it as being adware as well (but make no mention of any browser hijacking as far as I can see). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Most of the discussion on this page seems to revolve around whether or not Flipora is a piece of malware or a browser hijacking software. Based on what I can see on this talk page, the users claiming that it is malware are generally using anecdotal evidence or sources that are either outdated or unreliable. It IS true that a Google search for Flipora will bring up a bunch of links that tell you how to uninstall the “Flipora virus” or discuss whether or not the software is, indeed, adware or a browser hijacking software.
It’s also true that you can go to the Flipora homepage and fairly easily figure out how to cancel your account and uninstall the browser add-on, which doesn’t seem like the type of information a malware company would make readily available (you can find all this info via their FAQ page). Most reliable sources used in the article (including those from Forbes and Inc Magazines) don’t mention anything about the software’s potential existence as a browser hijacking software. Other sources (including those from VentureBeat, TechCrunch, and PCWorld) only discuss Flipora as a content discovery/aggregation service similar to StumbleUpon.
If anything, the article might warrant a mention that Symantec listed Flipora as a “low-risk adware” in November 2014. But, to refer to the software only as a piece of browser hijacking software and adware is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. There’s nothing outside of hearsay and that single Symantec source to suggest that Flipora is a piece of adware. Gargleafg {talk) 05:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems that an editor or two got too vigorous in their zeal to re-characterize Flipora as "malware", based on a couple of sources that don't really fit with Wikipedia's usual standard of what constitutes a reliable source. It's a shame that the article was locked down in this current state, because I would have liked to have tried to balance the documentation, per Lukeno94's and Gargleafg's suggestions above. - 64.94.31.206 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Updated content
I've updated the content of the page to reflect information found in reliable sources. Because there are no reliable sources that suggest that Flipora is a piece of browser hijacking software or adware outside of Symantec, I've made the content a little more neutral. I did keep the Symantec source to comply with WP:WEIGHT. There isn't much else to reliably suggest that Flipora is as nefarious as the previous editor purported, so I've gotten rid of that upfront claim. The sourcing is a little bit cleaner and more complete as well. Gargleafg (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
How do I REMOVE flipora from my Windows-based computer, once I've allowed it access? Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B01:47D0:A808:206A:6713:7AC3 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)