Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Nice blog post on the parasitic software hosting sites bundling junkware
bit:
Although this link is to a how-to article called 'Remove Trovi.com redirect', it turned out to be a good way to clean up my machine from other crapware problems.
It gives links to four cleaner programs and tells what order to run them in.
It's recommended by malwaretips.com as a sub-link.
Tnx for the head's-up on Softonic.
-bit (April 01, 2014, 03:28 PM)
--- End quote ---
How strange... I just joined MalwareTips.com, and was cordially invited to post in the 'new members' section, and at the bottom of the page it says (You have insufficient privileges to post here.)
For security purposes I would rather withhold my username there as of yet, but that is a very odd experience.
It did not say to look for an authentication email, nor did I get one, so I don't know what the deal is.
So I have 'membership' but no 'privileges'.
(edit) Okay they just sent me an email confirming my membership. Usually as a new member of a forum, you just get an email to click on a link, but they don't do it that way there.
Instead there is a 12 to 24-hour delay and then they just approve your membership.
(edit) Malwaretips.com forum has this special web page for assistance with malware removal.
The subsection has a 'Read Me Before Posting' sticky instructing to post your problem in a new thread, not someone else's thread, because it is very important for you to get advice specific to your own malware removal problem.
It also says it is staffed by volunteers, but the forum seems quite active.
Volunteers actually write executable scripts specific for unique user malware problems, but again, they say don't just use someone else's script or you could cause problems for your machine; post your own problem and they will write you your own executable script at no charge to deal with your specific problem.
The ReadMe sticky there at the above link explains the whole thing in more detail.
wraith808:
For the respective user that would be too late though as once your installer runs, all the crap has already been installed.
Edit: Well, I guess you assume that if you do this your SW wouldn't be wrapped like this in the first place.
--- End quote ---
the first hope would be that the site would not be able to use their wrapper if my installer made the result unusable.
the second hope would be that the really lazy sites that don't check their wrapper success, would get penalized after the fact because my installer would tell the user the reason the installer has failed and blame it on where they got the download.
-mouser (April 01, 2014, 11:24 AM)
--- End quote ---
But you have a zipped portable installation... they can do whatever they want with that.
mouser:
You're giving them too much credit for the effort they would be willing to put in.
wraith808:
You're giving them too much credit for the effort they would be willing to put in.
-mouser (April 03, 2014, 09:34 AM)
--- End quote ---
As it stands, does the installer ever run? From the step by step, it doesn't appear so.
peter.s:
Just a sidenote to this:
I've been looking out for better defrag sw. So of course there is Diskeeper, PerfectDisk and O&O Defrag, each 30$ (but per comp, I'm afraid, have to have another look at that prob). So I came to IObit Smart Defrag, NOW free, from being even more expensive (and slightly less good) than the aforementioned free (info from the toptenreview 2014).
I went to the IObit site, and indeed it was free - how can these people make some bucks out of their product now, I mused?
Well, you will have suspected what follows: I clicked on their download link... and was redirected to cnet, one of the most awful sites out there... Now I'm searching for some "honest" download site...
In the past, I got lots of crap from both cnet and Softonic, and on both sites / with both sites' installers, I had paid attention - in vain - to not download crapware, too, so I had avoided both sites whenever possible since...
Before reading this very informative thread today, I hadn't known that in the U.S. (= by U.S. law), if I understand well, it's perfectly legal to do what both cnet and Softonic do, vàv the respective developers? (That it's legal vàv the dumb customer, is another story, and better understable since on that side, the buggering is on purpose, given the respective small print accepted.)
So indeed, before today, I had thought that those developers wanted a max. market penetration (oops, that fits here!), and that thus, they "accepted" some of their "customers"/prospects (freeware vs. shareware) being buggered, instead of just limiting themselves to post their sw on "save" sites (= sites that also rectally feed you crapware, but only when you don't pay enough attention to uncheck their various checked buttons).
Cnet is "best", since there, you can find lots of often highly informative user reviews (whilst their editor reviews are the usual crap), and so, for getting information, I often go to cnet, just for reading; on the other hand, the often high information value of those user reviews there convey a very respectable image to that site, in the eyes of the uninitiated, so it's been a very smart move of them to have instigated such often high-quality user reviews, which on the other download sites, can NOT be found (or far from this quality)...
And lately, indeed, very often, those cnet user reviews have taken a weird virage: Users highly praise the given sw, but also just give 1 or 2 stars instead of 4 or 5, complaining about all the unwanted crapware that also had been shoved into their... with.
This perfectly illustrates what mouser said above, and what I had thought until yesterday: That the respective developer at least gave his consent for this sodomy.
Which brings us back to the possible illegality of that act, and I've got four ideas on possible action(s):
- What about another "shareware developers' org" which takes class action?
- We all think the people behind cnet et al. are multi-millionnaires now: What about their personal responsibility, even if their respective sites "own nothing"? What I want to say: If you introduce an action against some shitty site, if they lose, they simply vanish, so the cost will be on yourself, but with cnet et al., ain't they rich enough (and have too much to lose, too, by vanishing), in order to be always there after they lose the action, so your risk to sue them isn't that big after all, IF what they do is illegal, and at least when they shove unwanted crap behind the scenes (i.e. without any (pre-) checked check-box), and for which they did NOT get the developer's consent, I cannot imagine all this is perfectly legal?
- Alternative to the previous point: In Europe (= European Union), in some countries, there are quite harsh laws, so that not ANY multimillionnaire over here can do whatever he wants to do, and there possibly might be various ways to sue U.S. crap shovers over here in Europe, for their European wrongdoings at least (= shoving crap into European asses, too, I mean), and as far as I know, European rulings are executable in the U.S. (and vice versa), in many cases (i.e. if all the necessary conditions for that have been observed) - now you don't tell me they are in the Caribbean or in China/Congo, and cannot be effectively sued anywhere?
- Most such soiled sw has got more or less extended help files; don't fall these under copyright law? Or do they fall under copyright law only when they are to some extent, and/or of they've got a certain "style"? Cf. my posts, over multiple given names: It's clear as day, from European law (applicable in the U.S. as far as copyright infringement is concerned, too) that all my writings have a very personal style, by which they are perfectly protected any misuse (= any republication, other than by myself, in any other forum, etc., except the one to which I posted them (originally or afterwards), and a similar effect could apply to "your" respective help files: Whenever your personality shows in them (well, this would even apply to Ultra Recall's help, by omission so total it gets a style of its own! ;- ) ), your sw going with such a help file should be protected?
If you think I should replace some chars by asteriskes, please tell me, that's what the fine edit function's for. ;-) But then, look here, in order to see with your own eyes that even google/YT has got some sense of sensitive humour / outrage lately:
some three other versions of this, and then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ36S3d1CaU (this latter one with more than 2 million views) ;-)
And no, I'm not entirely into that sort of humor: (full length = abriged to latter half, i.e. the boys went down after the first quarter of an hour, offered help, were rebuked, THEN only took the 15 min. you can see here in the vid (I almost choked from laughing): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf4TIWECZ30 EDIT: Here's a better version, without the black beams: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acWXj-Wjmsg
This one is politically incorrect, and only should be a treat for perverts (but then, almost 5 million of this mud film's lovers on YT!); I'm very happy though to have seen it straight to the end: Just see the very latest 5 seconds: incredible stunt!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf-V400X6EY (or is it a sw trick?)
EDIT 2 : And here's another VERY good one:
"Advanced SystemCare Ultimate - Ultimate Protection and Ultimate Performance - Protects you against viruses, spyware, hackers, phishing, botnets and more" - Well, the catch is that comes from IObit, via cnet, too...
EDIT 3 : Back to serious matter: Above, I forgot to ask, Why are cnet and then Softonic hits 1 and 2 on google for e.g. "smart defrag download", and for myriads of similar searches? Why doesn't google relegate such smock sites to page 3? What's the interest of google (or the nsa behind google???) in PUSHING such people? Just total absence of decency, or is there some other explanation I didn't get yet (if we leave out nsa paranoia)?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version