Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Ilgaz · Apr 15, 2006, 05:47 AM

I posted on a topic at usenet about EULAS than I thought I better post here too. A very interesting EULA which has a lot of "potential"

"Components bundled with our software may report to
Licensor and/or its affiliates the installation status of certain marketing
offers, such as toolbars, and also generalized installation information, such as
language preference and operating system version, to assist Licensor in its
product development."
(it already does, pingie.exe , is blocked on my netbarrier x4)

and here is very interesting part!

"Licensor may in the future
offer additional components (such as a toolbar) through our version
checking/update system." --->pingie.exe I speak about

Want me to name software? Everyone knows? It runs "naturally" a bit deep level of system and it is installed as admin.

andreas_g4 · Apr 15, 2006, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ilgaz

Want me to name software?

No.

Ilgaz · Apr 15, 2006, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by andreas_g4

No.

OK. Nobody name please.

Doofy · Apr 15, 2006, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Ilgaz

Want me to name software?

Yes.

zerostar · Apr 15, 2006, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes.

Ditto, it is in the software eula. What is there to hide?

Ilgaz · Apr 15, 2006, 08:48 AM

BTW, let me clear. Nothing "malicious" installed yet but that EULA gives them right for future.

Doofy · Apr 15, 2006, 09:01 AM

C'mon llgaz, spill.

Ilgaz · Apr 15, 2006, 09:18 AM

http://www.versiontracker.com/php/fe...51223221946306

Please don't name product here. Nobody wants mysterious "new members" (companies doing ego search) to get in discussion.

BTW, it is not my post there. My post is "usage tip" saying they should read EULA before installing

What makes me mad is, while windows users weren't aware of these things, many p2p programs carried same things saying (guessing) "Oh, they don't have firewall/they are stupid" type of things.

Now they rely on the general userbase of OS X.

Ω · Apr 15, 2006, 09:20 AM

DivX

Ilgaz · Apr 15, 2006, 09:27 AM

OK. read the rest of discussion now. Thank you (!)

ps: I am one of the first guys tipped the IT press about topmoxie while I was using windows. No, it was not job of this company, it was couple of "Stanford" Java geniuses.

Edit: Asking now, who/which company would care about such a potential spyware. Not spyware yet but looks like "looking forward" to it.

Would Apple INC. care? "No spyware" is a good selling point for them you know.

Mastrap · Apr 15, 2006, 09:48 AM

And that's why I run Little Snitch on all of my machines. Nothing phones home without me knowing about it. Highly recommended.

Doofy · Apr 15, 2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

And that's why I run Little Snitch on all of my machines. Nothing phones home without me knowing about it. Highly recommended.

Seconded.

Ilgaz · Apr 15, 2006, 10:02 AM

Any developers out there can tell if a Quicktime Codec may connect to internet "abusing" quicktime framework? E.g. user will see "quicktime wants to connect" but it is the codec "phoning home"?

TopMoxie was written in MS Java on that purpose (version 1), so user will see Microsoft JVM, an integral part of OS wants to connect to net and 99% chance grant it.

Mastrap · Apr 15, 2006, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Ilgaz

so user will see Microsoft JVM, an integral part of OS wants to connect to net and 99% chance grant it.

I don't know about you, but Microsoft JVM is no integral part of my OS. I routinely deny most requests to phone home.

Ilgaz · Apr 15, 2006, 04:42 PM

For Symantec,norton and some of "clever" firewalls, the MS JVM was automatically granted to connect to internet as it was made in microsoft.

I am not speaking about what kind of thing MS JVM is, I am telling about semantics of some stupid firewalls trying to be end user friendly and tricking users via connecting over a "trustable" system component.

meelk · Apr 15, 2006, 07:21 PM

I cleaned this kids computer yesterday.
http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lol0ik.jpg
I still think windows users who know what they are doing are fine. This kid obviously doesnt fit that description.

most of it seemed linked to various small stupid programs of the kind a 15 year old would indeed download.

turtle777 · Apr 17, 2006, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

And that's why I run Little Snitch on all of my machines. Nothing phones home without me knowing about it. Highly recommended.

Thirded. Little Snitch is a keeper.

-t

ghporter · Apr 17, 2006, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by meelk

I cleaned this kids computer yesterday.
http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lol0ik.jpg
I still think windows users who know what they are doing are fine. This kid obviously doesnt fit that description.

most of it seemed linked to various small stupid programs of the kind a 15 year old would indeed download.

There's so much crapware for Windows that it's mandatory to have a firewall that looks at OUTGOING traffic as well as incoming traffic. Gotta have it! Unless you actually LIKE other people goofing with your computer, your data, and particularly your private information. I use Symantec Client Security for both the firewall and antivirus (it doesn't include a spyware finder, at least not yet) on my Windows machines for just such a purpose. Zone Alarm (even the free version) works fine for this too.

Jack, you had quite a lot of cleaning to do on that computer! BAD kid! No pizza! No Cartoon Network!