AOL 9.0 Called Badware

An anonymous reader writes "The bad news at AOL keeps coming. First they get in trouble for releasing search data on more than half a million customers, then it gives away security software with a nasty EULA, now its free client software is accused of acting like badware according to Stopbadware.org, the Google-funded rating group."

LOL

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

So, Google technically owns like 5% of AOL, and funds stopbadware.org. So this is sort of like Sony vs. Sony, isn't it? Not directly relevant, but interesting as it shows how widespread these big Internet companies are, and how many pies they have their fingers in.

Re:LOL

[pmancini (20121)]

Its more like a concerned stock holder voicing a concern. I own a good chunck of the company I work for and if they were to screw up I'd get on them to fix things too. Its not uncommon to see stake holders do this sort of thing because it protects your bottomline.

Lets face it though, hasn't AOL been "badware" since like 1991? ;-)

Re:LOL

[Pharmboy (216950)]

Actually it sounds like truth in advertising. StopBadware.org has clearly stated that their goal is to make it known what software does bad things, and list those things that it does, and what the software makers can do to NOT be listed as 'badware'. If AOL Free version does these things, then it should be listed.

All I see is StopBadware doing what they said they would do, no matter who it is, or who owns what. This is a good thing. Anything less would mean NO ONE could trust StopBadware.org.

Badware?

[by Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a term a 5 year old would come up with.

Re:Badware?

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

Well, it's a nice way to sum up adware, viruses, worms, trojans, rootkits, spyware, and all that stuff. It's easy to understand. Joe Schmoe might not know what a rootkit is, but he's got a good idea that "badware" or "malware" (my prefered term) is not something he wants on his computer.

Re:Badware?

[Dread_ed (260158)]

I had not seen "badware" before. I immediately thought it was categorically different from malware. Parsing the roots of the words would lead most people to that conculsion. "Mal" meaning bad but having the connotation of evil (as in malefic, malicious) seems pretty natural, but "bad" as in "sucks ass" leads me down a different cognitive road.

I immediately thought that "badware" must be poorly designed, written, or implimented software. AOL would definitely be in this category, as well as the spawn-of-Satan Microsoft products.

But since these words are synonomous I am coining a new word for software that isn't downright nasty like malware is, but just fails to reach the mark it was intended to. I call it "krapware." Those more vulgar of mind could call it "shitware" but that might be difficult to use in all circumstances.

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

After all, it is often computers owned by people like the average Joe Schmoe which get compromised and are used to send spam or propagate worms.

Let's talk about Joe Schmoe for a second here. Joe Schmoe is probably a decent guy, and not necessarily dumb. It's just that he has a job, bills to pay, hobbies, and with any luck, a wife/girlfriend, and maybe kids. He thinks of his computer as he thinks of his washing machine. He buys it at a big box store, spends an hour or so setting it up, and then he uses it as a tool. When it breaks, he calls Geek Squad or the smart nerdy kid down the street, just like if the washing machine breaks, he calls the repair guy from Sears.

He doesn't look at a PC as a car, he thinks of it as a washing machine. We need to educate him about how to use it safely (SP2, patches, and AV for starters), and acting all high-and-mighty about it gets you nowhere.

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[monsterfish (987631)]

He doesn't look at a PC as a car, he thinks of it as a washing machine.

In that case... I guess I look at my car as a washingmachine, look at my PC as a car... but I just can't remember what I use my actual washingmachine for!

Re:

[servognome (738846)]

but I just can't remember what I use my actual washingmachine for!

Making giant batches of koolaid. Pour the mix in set the machine, and it automagically adds the water and stirs.

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

I would love to see someone operate a toaster oven with the same casual disregard for safety that people seem to want to operate computers with.

I put my toaster on the counter, stick the pop tarts in, and push the button. They get done in a minute, and I eat them.

The problem with computers is that if you use the washer incorrectly (or set it up incorrectly), it floods. You notice the problem right away. Most users don't realize they're botted until 2-3 months later (when the adware or spyware gets really, really bad).

The best way to do this is to offer computer classes with incentives, and to make home installion a part of computer sales. Failing that, Dells should all come with the firewall on, and AV and anti-spyware installed and running with a 6 month subscription, as well as a note (in dead tree form) reminding the user that he needs to update and renew the stuff in 6 months.

Re:

[mikey1134 (628079)]

To some extent this is already happening. I'm an In-home technician for a major electronics retailer and I can tell you that if you buy a PC in a retail store like ours, the sales people will pound into you the idea of in-home setup, virus protection, etc. The problem is that people will find a way around it if it'll save them a few bucks. People can be told it's better for a pro to configure it but they'll take their chances for a slightly smaller bill. Even if we made it mandatory with every purchase, pe

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[mspohr (589790)]

Dude! Pop Tarts are DANGEROUS with toasters...

Lawyers and pop tarts http://www.overlawyered.com/2004/12/poptart_fire_l awsuit.html [overlawyered.com]

Flaming strawberry pop tart toaster blowtorch http://www.pmichaud.com/toast/ [pmichaud.com]

The definitive word from Dave Berry: http://www.cfcl.com/vlb/Cuute/f/pop_tarts.txt [cfcl.com]

Re:

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

I use a Mac. In fact, I am typing this on an iBook, waiting for my Mac Pro order to come in (31 more days...). I don't think it's Joe Schmoe's fault. I am not blaming anyone. I'm saying we need to fix it. Windows needs to be more secure. Patching needs to be easier for Joe Schmoe. But most of all, Joe Schmoe needs more education than "PCs have viruses. I'm a Mac, and I'm virus free". We need to accept that most relatively unskilled home users will continue to use Windows on their desktops. We need

Re:I believe you're quite mistaken, sir.

[atokata (872432)]

You know, a more cynical person, after reading about how our esteemed legislature is just *drooling* all over the idea of heavily regulating the internet, and after reading several stories about how politically-backed PR firms have been increasingly 'astroturfing*' internet forums and other community based sites, might start to think that all these nearly identical messages from ACs advocating a "driver's license for the internet" are some form of covert propaganda.

A more cynical person, someone experienced with both politics and the internet, might think that messages like this, posted with such similar wording, with such a similar idea being conveyed, could be 'testing the waters,' to see how the techies might respond to such a proposal.

A more cynical person might think that some senator or congressman, perhaps something involving Ted Stevens, is feeling out the idea of floating a bill, maybe something called "The Internet Security Act," or "The National Data Protection Act," or even the "Save the Children from Internet Pedophiles Act," where compulsory licensing is hidden away within.

A more cynical person would probably realize that all those license fees would simply disappear into heavily pork-filled projects, the main beneficiaries of which would be gigantic corporations, probably technology based, but equally likely to be ConAgra, Exxon, United Defense, or Halliburton. Even a simpleton would know the license fees do nothing to benefit them.

A cynical person might already know that as soon as a license becomes madatory, a huge revenue stream is created by fining those individuals who are unlicensed. Just like parking tickets, tax penalties, and code violations, this money will go to supporting even more regulations.

A cynical person would suspect that an unlicensed computer would become basis for sneak-and-peeks, no-knock-raids, and unwarrented wiretapping. A cynical person knows that countries like Cuba, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia already have laws regarding licensing of internet access. Sure has helped them, hasn't it?

A more cynical person might think that kind of thing, indeed.


*Astroturfing: In American politics and advertising, the term astroturfing describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior. The goal is the appearance of independent public reaction to a politician, political group, product, service, event, or similar entities by centrally orchestrating the behavior of many diverse and geographically distributed individuals.

Re:

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

I recognize the difference between a washing machine and a computer. but I'm a computer science major, and I have about 30 posts on slashdot today. But everyone else has other interests. There are rocket scientists whose password is "password" (or would be if they could get away with it). All I'm saying is that we need to educate people better, and we can't expect the world of them unless we're willing to sit down and teach them stuff. Threatening to take away computers won't work, because all the big

Re:

[operagost (62405)]

The average joe is a bit too ignorant for his own good.

Yes, he is too ignorant. Let us, the intellectual elite, enslave these weak-minded brutes and put them to work for us!

Seriously, I'm pretty sure most men, at least, know what they're driving. Sorry, but it's only the women I know who have had trouble recollecting certain significant details about their vehicles, such as the number of doors or when they last changed the oil.

Re:Maybe Joe Schmoe shouldn't be using a computer.

[atokata (872432)]

My god, you're a moron.

First of all, people *do* operate cars without a thought to safety. Have you ever driven on a major highway in a large city?
How about the number of people who destroy thousand-dollar engines for want of two bucks of motor oil?

If Joe Schmoe decides he wants to click "Yes" when AnnoyingAdBar, LLC tells him to, than doesn't he pretty much get what he deserves?

(And, more importantly, when he pays me to fix it, don't I get what *I* deserve?)

Support freelancers, encourage stupidity!

Re:

[soft_guy (534437)]

You get paid to fix problems - I get paid to prevent them.

Re:

[sco08y (615665)]

First of all, people *do* operate cars without a thought to safety.

A better example to prove your point: I was watching an auto insurance ad that showed testimonials of people saying "I saved enough money on my insurance to buy (fishing gear / a camera / etc)"

Yeah, you'll be really fucking happy with that fishing rod when you get in a wreck and see that $20,000 doesn't cover shit.

Not really

[Moraelin (679338)]

Spyware has a conotation of being, you know, about _spying_ on the user. Malware implies some malicious intent. Etc. That's stuff which not only doesn't cover all the crap out there (e.g., yes, how about stuff that keeps nagging me after I thought I uninstalled it?), but also is attackable -- and indeed attacked -- in courts on technicality grounds. You get people like Claria/Gator sending legal nastygrams around just because they're prepared to argue in court about some technicality in that classification.

"Badware", while maybe it does sound like a kindergarten word, tends to convey the broader meaning and not get bogged in such lexical arguments. It doesn't imply malicious _intent_ or have to fit any definition of spying or whatever else these fucktards argue in court. It's just "bad".

And, frankly, as an end-user I don't care why or with what intent it was written like that. E.g., if a toolbar or anti-virus is a nightmare to uninstall and leaves components running after I uninstalled it, it's "bad". I don't care if it's like that by malice or if Hanlon's Razor applies. ("Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.") It's just "bad" and they better clean up their act.

To give a personal example, I had an experience like that with one of those MacAffee all-in-one security packages. An older version, but annoying anyway. Among the many problems it had, picture this: so when installing I installed it on D:, to free space on C:. But the first update installed itself in the default directory in C: anyway. But here's the stupid part: it also let the original version from D: running at the same time, so I had two anti-viruses running at the same time, slowing my machine to a crawl. So I uninstall it. Ok, it uninstalled the newly installed one from C:, but left the old one still installed and still running. Only this time without an uninstall, so I had to manually edit the registry and remove files to get rid of it.

I'm sure that Hanlon's Razor fully applies there. It was no malice, there was no intention to spy, it's just written by the cheapest incompetent monkeys. But it's "bad" anyway. So "Badware" seems to fit that just nicely.

I love it!

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

AOL is worse than malware. Malware is written with bad intent, or possibly written by Malcom Reynolds. AOL is just badware -- badly conceived, badly designed, and badly implemented.

AOL was good before....?

[BlahMatt (931052)]

Does this mean people actually believed that old versions of AOL were good? From what I can recall AOL has never been good. Perhaps it didn't act with malicious purpose, but it has, in my opinion, never been good and I certainly recall several occasions in my previous support job where it ended up being the cause of problems with totally unrelated software. My apologies to any AOL supporters out there, but this is looking like the end for AOL.

Re:

[Red Flayer (890720)]

I've recently been approached by several different people (most recently, the concierge at my office building) about why their internet is so slow recently. Stupid me, I forgot to ask if they used a portal... I gave them a sheet with instructions for cleaning out malware, and it didn't seem to help them. Then one of them informed me she uses AOL. Turns out, they all did. I told them all to uninstall AOL, cancel their account (good luck with that!) and use Firefox instead of IE.

My protocol for handling

Re:

[Scoth (879800)]

I was doing ISP tech support for a major ISP when AOL 5 came out. We got absolutely flooded by calls from AOL users who either used our service with AOL, or did the BYOA plan. AOL 5 replaced Windows DUN with its own version, which conveniently only worked with AOL. It was nearly impossible to rip it out and replace it with the original DUN. We had to turn tons of customers back to Microsoft or their computer vendor to reinstall Windows.

Fortunately, most people were already unhappy with AOL so it didn't take

Back in 95? Yes, they were good

[HighOrbit (631451)]

I know its very popular to bash AOL, but in their time they served a purpose.

Back in 95, I had Prodigy. It was terrible. My username and email were something like "[e-mail]" or some such un-memorable non-sense. I couldn't tell people my e-mail address because I couldn't even remember it myself. IIRC, there was no "screenname", just the account name. Their client software was very much a DOS type app (even when run under Win3.1) that could not be minimized and filled the whole screen with a single task. And they did not have IM or anything like it.

So one-day I tried AOL 2.something. It had a windows interface, so I could have multiple tasks open (i.e. one with the news, another with the weather, and another with a browser). I had a real username that was memorable and that approximated my own (along with a few other screennames for chat). And they had IM (no buddy list yet, that would be another year or two away), so I could send private messages in chat. And there was more content than prodigy. The web based advertising and spamming business were still immature, so they were not as sophisticated or motivated to spy on their customers as they are now.

I also tried a few more services back then, MSN, still independantly run compuServe, something called WOW, etc. None of them were as good as AOL in 1995. Remember that pure ISP-only "web" was still young, web content was sparse, and search technology was immature, so it was hard to locate. Once cable-modem came to town in 1999, I keep AOL around for a few years for the email address. But I shut that down back in 2002.

In their time AOL was the best on-line + internet service around. Basic internet was just not developed enough and the other services just didn't match up.

Not uninstalling is a huge pet peeve of mine

[indytx (825419)]

From the article:

The suite is also criticized for engaging in "deceptive installation" and faulted because some components fail to uninstall.

This is just ridiculous. Why are there so many programs that refuse to uninstall or leave pieces of themselves lying around? How hard can it be for the "uninstall" function to actually work? Worse, do I really need several dialog boxes to get rid of something? I can always install it again. It's not like I'm wiping my hard drive.

Re:

[Metaleks (977598)]

Technically, the uninstall function works just fine. Remember, it's how they want it to work. It's their decision if they want crap lurking in your hard drive after the program has been wiped. Usually the data that remains after an uninstall just remembers the settings of the program. So if you were to install it back you would have the same preferences as before. However, that's not always the case.

Re:Not uninstalling is a huge pet peeve of mine

[bogie (31020)]

If it was just a few preferences left behind then there probably won't be any issue. But have a look at this screenshot. http://stopbadware.org/images/screenshots/AOL/AOL1 1.html [stopbadware.org]

Two processes are left running and sucking up memory. The programmer who is charge of the unistall routine should be tarred and feathered and then forbidden from ever working in the field again. Beyond the obvious issue think about this. Aol 9.0.3343 is updated to 9.0.4000 because of a massive security flaw in AOLServiceHost.exe. You uninstalled AOL before the update came out and yet there sits part of the old version of AOL running as part of your OS just inviting trouble.

Re:Not uninstalling is a huge pet peeve of mine

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Uninstalling is not a trivial problem. What happens if the program installs a shared library? If you remove it when you uninstall, you might end up breaking things. You could fix this in a UNIX system by putting the library in /usr/lib and hard linking it to /usr/lib/appname/lib (for example). When you uninstall, you delete the copy in /usr/lib/appname/lib and then remove everything from /usr/lib with a reference count of 1. Or you keep an install count somewhere else (e.g. in the package management framework), although both of these require everyone to play by the rules.

And what about configuration files? Sometimes I uninstall an application because I want it gone. Sometimes I uninstall it because I want to install a new version. In the first case, I want configuration information to be deleted. In the second, I want it retained. The uninstaller needs to know which of these I'm doing. There is even the third case (although less common these days) that I am uninstalling it to free up some disk space, but I will want it back later. In this case, I probably want configuration files deleted.

This is news?

[DragonHawk (21256)]

From the summary: "...its free client software is accused of acting like badware..."

This is news? Everyone I know has been saying that for *years* about AOL and their software. It tries to take over your system, has odd compatability problems, is extremely difficult to remove, and bombards you with ads. And that's when you *pay* for it!

Re:This is news?

[legoburner (702695)]

Even back in the windows 95 era it would mess up your dial up networking settings to prevent you from connecting to other ISPs using DUN. Many a support query about that fun feature went flying around.

I wonder what the "Google Toolbar" rates...

[xxxJonBoyxxx (565205)]

I wonder what the "Google Toolbar" rates...

Jessica Simpson

[Andrewkov (140579)]

The AOL software is down right angelic compared to the Jessica Simpson Screensaver! [stopbadware.org]

wtheck

[kemo_by_the_kilo (971543)]

Between not letting you cancel (even post mortum) and having "bad"ware... the only thing left for them to do is start including dell batteries with their CDs

duh

[matt328 (916281)]

AOL has been badware since its inception. Even back in the day with version 3.0, why the hell did we need an entire goddamn program just to establish a dial up connection?

In related gradeschool news ...

[Floody (153869)]

Large object in the center of the Solar System called Hotthing.

You'd expect more from...

[brunascle (994197)]

...the worst tech product of all time [pcworld.com]

anyone complaining about google funding

[thelost (808451)]

this is called full disclosure. deal with it. Lenovo and Sun also sponsor StopBadware.org, big deal. Whether or not google have alternate reasons for getting behind a push like this they have a history of philanthropic work, I am not surprised to find them involved.

Re:badware?

[w33t (978574)]

I prefer to call it "misunderstoodware".

Re:

[owlnation (858981)]

how about badwear? or better yet naughtywear?

Now those sound much more interesting!

Re:

[rackhamh (217889)]

Badware is software that's really good when it's good, but better when it's bad.

Alternatively, badware can refer to software that gets lots of plastic surgery and lives with a monkey.

Re:badware?

[ZachPruckowski (918562)]

"Bad" is in English what "Mal" is in Latin/Greek. Badware is adware, spyware, viruses, rootkits, worms, trojans, and anything else I'm not thinking of that John Q. Public doesn't want on his PC. "Trojans" are sort of an abstract concept for most (they think of the condom before the Trojan horse), but any idiot knows that "badware" is, well, BAD.

Re:badware?

[Br00se (211727)]

Badware Behavior
Installs additional software without disclosure (Deceptive installation)
Forces users to take an action (Interferes with computer use)
Adds AOL toolbar in Internet Explorer (Makes changes to other software without disclosure)
Adds additional icons to default Internet Explorer toolbar (Makes changes to other software without disclosure)
Adds to "Favorites" in Internet Explorer (Modifies other software without disclosure)
Adds AOL Deskbar to the user's taskbar (Modifies other software without disclosure)
Updates software automatically (Deceptive installation)
Fails to uninstall software completely (Unacceptable unistallation)

Re:badware?

[Tom in Boston (453354)]

But it's so simple and easy to uninstall! I wrote up these instructions...

http://websiteperson.com/advocate/uninstallaol90.h tm [websiteperson.com]

1. Go to the control panel, Add/Remove Software, and choose AOL. I think it asks you to restart after this.
All done, right? Not yet!
2. Follow the same steps to remove "Real Player," assuming you don't want it! (Spyware, intrusive.)
3. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL Coach." Apparently uninstalling AOL doen't uninstall this, whatever it is.
4. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL Desk Bar." Hmmm... Maybe this was the icon in the task bar?
5. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL Spyware Protection."
6. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL Toolbar."
7. Follow the same steps to remove "AOL You've Got Pictures Screensaver."
I think we're almost done!
8. Follow the same steps to remove "Pure Networks Port Magic." (What the heck is THAT?)
9. Follow the same steps to remove "Viewpoint Experience Technology."
Not done yet...

Re:

[remembertomorrow (959064)]

Keep in mind that Google also has some stock in AOL...

Wrong Keyword...

[denebian devil (944045)]

The real one is "AOL"

Which makes me wonder... is "AOL Keyword: AOL" recursive? Having never had, used, or even breathed on an AOL browser, I wouldn't know.

Re:Erm

[Knossos (814024)]

FTA:

Backed by tech companies such as Google, Lenovo Group, and Sun Microsystems

It is run out of two well-respected university departments: Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and University of Oxford's Internet Institute in the U.K.

It's not just funded by Google, and the researchers are in public departments, not privately employed ratings companies.

It's Still Badware

[homer_ca (144738)]

I installed AOL 9.0 on a virtual machine to see for myself, and it is a seriously annoying piece of software. It takes an extra section of the taskbar for itself (about 1/5 the width of a 1024 screen). It adds an autostart tray icon and about five desktop shortcuts. I launched the program to see if I could log in with my AIM account. I got to a screen where I could log in with an existing account or register a new account, but that screen had no back or cancel. I could only kill it with task manager.

It's obviously made for newbies who need lots of handholding, and it's good that they're bundling free antivirus with AOL 9.0 because that demographic really needs it. If you want to try out free AOL 9.0 over broadband, do yourself a favor and install it in a VM. MS Virtual PC and VMWare Player are both free (beer). QEMU is Free, but you need the KQEMU module to get decent speed, and it's free (beer).

Re:Erm

[danpsmith (922127)]

Keywords: google funded

Because Google has a real interest in taking down AOL considering that they paid a billion [businessweek.com] just to do business with them.

Re:Why is that?

[rm69990 (885744)]

The group rated AOL 9.0 as "badware" because it doesn't fully uninstall when you tell it to and because all of the actions the software takes aren't disclosed to the user. Google fully discloses [google.com] what their software does to the user, and I've never had a problem uninstalling Google Toolbar.