51–60 of 71 posts
I remember the first time I found Sun bundling the Yahoo! toolbar along with the Java runtime. I knew at that moment that Sun had lost its self respect and had no credible strategy for Java. I immediately went back to developing C++ for MS Windows and Perl for Linux.
Rest assured that they have now ceased this insane pratice.
Now the JRE installer force install the Ask Toolbar instead.
Technically speaking Download.com is not modifying the original EXE file as some people alleged but using an 'download manager' to intermediate the download of the file.
The bundled 'malware' comes inside this intermediary application and does not touch the original installer other than downloading it to the disk.
This seems to a phenomenon unique to Windows and growing. No wonder everybody complains about Windows being slow and full of popups and spam, almost everything you try and install on it seems to want to also install some free trial/browser toolbar/sign up for some online service etc.
This is disgusting behavior from what could be considered the first "app store". What a shame.
And to think that Microsoft is paying them for it. O how the mighty have fallen.
I'm confused. Did Microsoft make a deal with Cnet to include this on every download, or did a third party do this? StartNow (startnow.com) is run by an independent company: "The StartNow Start page is owned and operated by Zugo Ltd, a start page platform company. Our start pages are usually official operated on behalf of one of our clients or partners. Some pages may be "unofficial" and in support of/dedicated to imp…
Shit. I just found that my application which was updated last week and is the 10th most popular system utility app on Download.com is also being similarly bundled [1]. This was not the case last week. I think Softpedia and FileHippo are the only big sites left not doing this ridiculous practice. I'm debating whether or not to pull the application listing. What do you guys think? [1]: http://download.cnet.com/EasyBCD/…
http://blog.getpaint.net/2011/10/03/paint-net-v3-5-9-and-dow...
Surely this is a case for a DMCA take down notice? If they are distributing the copyrighted software outside the terms of the licence, then they are violating copyright and the DMCA can come into play?
"6. User Submissions
Some of the Services may allow you to submit or transmit audio, video, text, or other materials (collectively, “User Submissions”) to or through the Services. When you provide User Submissions, you grant to CBS Interactive, its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, and partners a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, fully sublicenseable license to use, distribute, edit, display, archive, publish, sublicense, perform, reproduce, make available, transmit, broadcast, sell, translate, and create derivative works of those User Submissions, and your name, voice, likeness and other identifying information where part of a User Submission, in any form, media, software, or technology of any kind now known or developed in the future, including, without limitation, for developing, manufacturing, and marketing products. You hereby waive any moral rights you may have in your User Submissions."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to think that Microsoft is paying them for it. O how the mighty have fallen.
It's not (most likely) the case of Microsoft going to them. Microsoft (as well as google) just pays for customers that you bring to their search. Many products make living out of it. Now, CNet just wanted to make more money. It's a shady practice to do it this way, but Microsoft shouldn't be the one to blame.
For CNet to make money on the deal, Microsoft would need a way to attribute the increased traffic to CNet. If Microsoft is paying them significant sums and yet remaining willfully ignorant of the means, then Microsoft is no better than your bottom feeding pay-per-install malware services.
The fact that we're even discussing Microsoft's reputation in this way is what led me to say "O how the mighty have fallen." It's quite sad IMHO.
This should be sufficient cause for all web filters and security software to block access to CNET due to the malware. But will it actually happen, or are they treated with a special standard?
As the "malware" is only downloaded after you installed a download manager, I doubt the Cnet website will get marked as the distributor. I believe it goes like this: - User clicks on link to download software - User is being asked to install Cnet download manager - Download manager downloads more software, including the crapware Because the actual download does not happen on the Cnet site, it does not gets marked as…
This is indistinguishable from malware.