IMO... ESG know nothing. IMO they make bad AM...
Can someone tell me how I can directly contact the owner of ESG?
Can someone tell me how I can directly contact the owner of ESG?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Nov 15, 2016
- 867
This whole things always cracks me up. 
To think they really believe their out there making the best AM on the market lol.
To think they really believe their out there making the best AM on the market lol.
He has links to social media accounts on his website. Maybe you could message him.
- Jan 16, 2017
- 1,469
Agreed with everyone. Hope they don't sue the commentators here for speaking the truth.
- Jan 9, 2013
- 1,457
Really? Anyway, they are not on my Santa's lists of AV/AM to test.
- Aug 2, 2015
- 4,286
"Ryan Gerding, a spokesman for ESG, said of the development, "ESG is pleased to put this matter behind us and to get back to making the best anti-malware products on the market"
That's his opinion
In my opinion, They went after Bleeping because it presented the softest target, even though Bleeping's sentiments were echoed
by many others and on more than one occasion.
That makes them cowards in my opinion, and their shrinking market share says many see them in the same light.
That's his opinion
In my opinion, They went after Bleeping because it presented the softest target, even though Bleeping's sentiments were echoed
by many others and on more than one occasion.
That makes them cowards in my opinion, and their shrinking market share says many see them in the same light.
@Wave, If you find a contact, PM me too Wave, Thanks
Last edited by a moderator:
Press release by Lawrence Abrams on Bleeping Computer: Press Release
It's an interesting read, and not one sided toward Engima as I had expected. I (surprisingly) think the outcomes listed are reasonable. Of course time will tell if Enigma mean what they say.
I think that ESG are completely out of order. They know what forums like BleepingComputer are for, Quietman7 was expressing a personal opinion about a product of theirs (whether it shed light on a fact or not is irrelevant). ESG caused lots of drama for the removal of some posts which won't change their financial status most likely at all, they wasted peoples time and also their own... Money was also spent on both sides.
If I was the owner of ESG I would be incredibly embarrassed and would be considering my pride right now.
I agree with that completely.
It will be interesting to see if anything comes of the following, considering that I often see SpyHunter being promoted on websites with removal instructions for unwanted software, where they offer SpyHunter as the solution to remove unwanted software that can be removed quite easily via Add/Remove programs.
- Feb 13, 2017
- 1,486
I read the story, well, I see aggressive marketing and very aggressive policy to defend the interests.
In my opinion the marketing has to be used to promote a technically valid product but not to replace it.
In my opinion the marketing has to be used to promote a technically valid product but not to replace it.
- Apr 13, 2013
- 3,147
Cruelsister Rootkit Removal Guidelines: To Remove Cruelsister Rootkit Infection
Totally incorrect, by the way.
Totally incorrect, by the way.
This is the first time I've seem a dubious malware removal site actually list a ficticious threat. But it's not surprising really.
- Feb 13, 2017
- 1,486
Malware Research Center - look at how outdated this webpage is... The news is from the beginning of 2016, still. So much for "Malware of The Month", eh?
- Apr 13, 2013
- 3,147
Oh Roger- the threat is not fictitious at all! It just doesn't work the way they say and can't be removed.
- Jan 8, 2011
- 22,361
They a bad reputation, that's a fact because it's in their DNA and they cannot control their own Affiliates or Resellers either.
Maybe I am talking rubbish (I live outside the USA), but Freedom of Speech is a load of a rubbish in the Land of the Free, especially how the Courts in-bed with them (or vice-versa).
"Here, don't need to tell anyone, but take our $20,000 that we made from ourvictim's customer's through our 'Loyal and Trusted Affiliates/Resellers'".
Oh, don't sue me.
On the real funny side, you don't see Microsoft crying to the Courts when people call their Windows 10 Spyware.
Maybe I am talking rubbish (I live outside the USA), but Freedom of Speech is a load of a rubbish in the Land of the Free, especially how the Courts in-bed with them (or vice-versa).
"Here, don't need to tell anyone, but take our $20,000 that we made from our
Oh, don't sue me.
On the real funny side, you don't see Microsoft crying to the Courts when people call their Windows 10 Spyware.
- Jan 28, 2016
- 525
I don't know why I didn't notice this thread at the time but I think it's worth resurrecting because of the very worrying precedent this ruling sets.
This seems to me like a pretty clear victory for Enigma. All of Bleeping Computer's counter claims were rejected by the court, and under the terms of the settlement BC has had to remove all of quietman7's contentious posts.
Enigma CEO Alvin Estevez also expressed concerns about what people post about his software product on sites like BleepingComputer.com. and unbelievably he appears to have got his way on this too. It seems BC members are now forbidden from discussing Enigma, and any concerns BC has will now be communicated to Enigma, rather than discussed openly.
It would also be interesting to know the full financial terms of the settlement, in particular, if these included payment by BC to Enigma.
All in all, very disappointing and rather worrying.
This seems to me like a pretty clear victory for Enigma. All of Bleeping Computer's counter claims were rejected by the court, and under the terms of the settlement BC has had to remove all of quietman7's contentious posts.
Enigma CEO Alvin Estevez also expressed concerns about what people post about his software product on sites like BleepingComputer.com. and unbelievably he appears to have got his way on this too. It seems BC members are now forbidden from discussing Enigma, and any concerns BC has will now be communicated to Enigma, rather than discussed openly.
It would also be interesting to know the full financial terms of the settlement, in particular, if these included payment by BC to Enigma.
All in all, very disappointing and rather worrying.
The court only ruled on BC's claim of ESG's case being spurious due the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
This case has established no precedent. Both parties chose to settle and therefore the court dismissed the case. And it is almost a certainty that BC settled so as not to incur excessive legal fees from a drawn-out case. However, it is a virtual certainty that if BC had the financial means and had chosen to pursue the case further, that the outcome would have been different. The deciding factor in this case was obviously one of an inability to pay the ongoing legal expenses to pursue the case to the fullest.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
-
- Sticky
