Slashdot Log In
Privacy Web Browser 'Browzar' Branded Adware
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:26 PM
from the shell-games dept.
from the shell-games dept.
DivineOmega writes "The recently released 'Browzar' web browser, based on the Internet Explorer core, is designed to protect a user's privacy whilst surfing the Internet and be an effective 'throw-away' browser. However many who deal with the removal of malware have flagged this software as malware. From the article: 'The application Browzar has been branded "adware" by many because it directs web searches to online adverts. Some technical experts also say Browzar, which claims to leave no trail of webpages visited, does not work. Browzar's developers say they are examining the feedback but strongly deny that it is adware.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Privacy Web Browser 'Browzar' Branded Adware
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 113 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
well, (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday September 20 2006, @10:30AM)
I could go on to make jokes about an IE core, but that might be tacky (besides you'll have them in a moment anyway...)
Nobody cared about the first story (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.madleet.net/)
Releasing a closed-source Windows-only IE-based browser that claims to do things already done by other browsers is a non-story, especially on Slashdot. The discovery that it's adware can only be addressed with a single-word response:
Re:Nobody cared about the first story (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not, some Slashdot users might even be using Browzar thinking they are safe.
Don't like it? Don't read it.
I'm not sure why this is a YRO story, though.
Re:Nobody cared about the first story (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.firehed.net/)
There are plenty of perfectly good closed-source solutions out there, both paid and free. Unless you're one of the truest of true 'practice what you preach Linux zealots,' chances are that you're using at least one of them. Now exactly how you classify 'scumware' I don't know, we all know there's rarely a true something-for-nothing
To the masses, open source doesn't mean a damn thing. To slashdotters, it means a warm fuzzy feeling but, probably more often than not, nothing more. How much OSS are you using? Probably quite a bit, going by your cynical attitude. I tend to use an OSS solution when it's available in favor of something closed-source, for the principle of it if nothing else. Now the much more important question: how many times have you actually looked through the source code to make sure it's not full of shitware? I know for me, that's one, and that one time was when I was actually coding the thing. People always go on the assumption that OSS is safe simply because the source is available, but it wouldn't be especially hard to slip a trojan of sorts into a fairly mainstream piece of OSS (probably not something as large as Firefox, but of decent install-base anyways) and get thousands of people infected who were counting on the open-ness as a security blanket. Sure, you're screwed if it happens in a closed-source solution, but it would still take someone who knows what to look for and where to look for it (and, most importantly, is actually doing so) to notice something and then spread the word for open-source software.
On the other hand, we've got Google. Everyone with half a brain knows they monitor absolutely everything they can, and want to know as much about us as possible. And they want to profit from the information. But we still use them. Maybe it's because they only want to use the information for their own profits and thus don't just bend over to the government; maybe it's because every other search engine does it too - but does it matter? I use google, everyone I know (except my moronic brother, but he's "special" that way) uses Google, and I'd bet that the majority of slashdotters use them as well.
I've written things out of goodwill, as have plenty of others. Yes, for every one of us, there's probably ten more with bad intentions; that's life. The 'free' community has given me a lot, and I like to give back in some way or another. That doesn't mean that I want to open-source my stuff. Hate me for it all you want, but I'd like to keep my options open - that doesn't mean I'm going to chock my software full of shit for dirty profits. Maybe some people a bit less cynical had assumed that Browzar was just such an example, since they are out there.
Any "technical details"? (Score:1)
Re:Any "technical details"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Any "technical details"? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.ultimatemk.com/)
URGENT (Score:1)
News at 11.
Is anyone really surprised, here? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) It uses IE.
2) It's a branded, closed source skin for IE that fails to do many of the claims that it makes
3) Instead of actually creating something, they have to adapt it to something that is KNOWN to have many serious issues that...
4) Allow malware/adware/spyware people to gain control of a browser to do their dirty work...
5) Came pretty much out of nowhere. Full release without known betas,
6) Doesn't work.
Anyone who has been online for a while probably has had an experience or two with IE browser skins. Most of my experiences have involved devious search bars, plugins and other "enhanced content" that effectively monitors, controls traffic and serves ads. Not surprised in the least.
If anyone claims to make a fully private and "secure" browser, while ignoring that you still have ISP and backbone logs, going through pipes and other servers that do their own logging... I'd have to, in my best technical opinion, call bullshit. Especially considering it still uses Internet Explorer as a rendering engine. (If that's indeed all it does.)
Posted anonymously because I don't need no steekin' karma.
Trail (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Trail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trail (Score:4, Informative)
1) Open a command prompt, go to your user directory where index.dat is located, and search for the index.dat file:
cd %userprofile%
dir
2) Open your task manager (press Ctrl-Shift-Esc or right click on task bar). Kill the explorer.exe process.
3) Go back to your command prompt. Delete the file that you found in step 1.
4) Start explorer again, by typing explorer.exe in the command prompt.
BTW, this method is the easiest way to delete or modify all sorts of files that the explorer shell locks while running, without requiring a reboot.
Oh NOES! (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Friday October 06 2006, @06:40PM)
My thoughts (Score:2, Insightful)
Last Page Cached (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.spywareinfo.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 20 2003, @08:22AM)
They've altered it a bit since the story on Digg. Now it opens to an Overture search engine form instead of a page full of PPC links. Same search engine though. It does save a cached copy of the last page visited in the cache folder, after you shut it down. No cookies or anything else was saved that I could see.
Before and after usage log [spywareinfo.com]
Scott Hanselman's post & update (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Saturday July 03 2004, @11:10PM)
Not that I would care much for some "enhanced" IE shell, but it makes sense for there to be such a market, of course. How do you know who to trust if you're not a geek reading tech news every day? Maybe google should have some kind of techmeme-ish related links to every site in a result.
Oxymoron (Score:2, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday January 28 2007, @08:00AM)
Besides, how do you "BASE" something on closed source? Isn't it a fancy term of creating new front-end to the "same old same old" using an API?
Already been done... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.fluxtrap.net/)
Don't you think? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://myspace.com/adolfojp)
The browser is like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.
Browzar can be customized and made "adware-less" (Score:1)
(http://xenomorph.net/)
Eh? (Score:1)
previous comment (Score:2)
(http://evil.google.com/)
just another "use firefox" advert (Score:2)
(http://blog.peoplesdns.com/)
does not surprise me, using IE as a core in an attempt to recreate something like firefox (which all this functionality you can easily do with ff and a few tweaks that take five minutes)
moving along.. nothing to see here..
Deletes data after you close the browser? Right (Score:1)
How will they port this to Linux? (Score:1)
lacking expertise? (Score:3, Insightful)
In Safari, all one has to do is select "Private Browsing" from the "Safari" menu. Why don't all browsers have that?
Portable Firefox (Score:1)
(http://sg1archive.com/)
Results (Score:1)
Hmm... (Score:2)
(http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3675.html)
Hmm (Score:2)
(http://blog.mzzt.net/)
How good is your privacy? Who can you trust? (Score:3, Interesting)
The browser was advertized as a privacy ensuring tool. Now we learn it is exactly the opposite. Which one is true? What claims can you rely on? What review is actually independent and "true"?
The end result will probably be that the only thing you can actually trust (at least to a moderate extent) is open source software. For the simple reason that, even if you cannot verify its safety and privacy, peer review will work. Someone with the ability to read source will want to use it and thus review it, test it and determine its inner workings.
This of course requires you to trust the system you build it on, the compiler you build it with, the libraries used in the process and so on. A very lengthy rewiew process, but still it is more secure and profound than anything you can reach with software that you can, at best (and only until DRM disables it), throw into a disassembler to get at least a clue of its plans.
Please fill out a "badware" report. Thanks (Score:2)
(http://www.animats.com)
If this is "badware", please fill out a Badware Report [stopbadware.org] at StopBadware.org.
That organization has real promise for putting a dent into adware and spyware. With legal support from Harvard University and Oxford University, financial support from Google, Lenovo, and Sun, and assistance from Consumer's Union, they're in a very strong position to fight back. They're not going to cave in because some business complains.
*gaggle* (Score:2)
(http://nutsncents.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday August 08 2003, @07:47PM)
This crap is based on IE. If anyone believes that an IE engine browser will be safe & private, I'd like to send you some information literature regarding some beach front land in Louisanna.
*shrug*. This shit has been in the news for days now. What the fuck; it's practically a prank. There's nothing here to see folks, other than some moron pretending to release a browser by repackaging pure-shit. You're supposed to ignore stuff like this; just like the guy who claims he'll prove the water carborator works, but only after you buy his $19.99 (plus $24.99 shipping & handling) Automobile Water Carborator upgrade kit.
Use Torpark (Score:1)
(http://rgm.nu/)
Criteria (Score:3, Insightful)
If it meets the criteria [microsoft.com] for spyware: (excerpt)
Five evaluation criteria
Microsoft researchers use the following categories to determine whether to add a program to the definition library for detection, and what classification type, risk level, and recommendation to give it.
Deceptive behaviors. Runs processes or programs on the user's computer without notifying the user and getting the user's consent. Prevents users from controlling the actions taken by the program while it runs on the computer. Prevents users from uninstalling or removing the program.
Privacy. Collects, uses, or communicates the user's personal information and behaviors (such as Web browsing habits) without explicit consent.
Security. Attempts to circumvent or disable the security features on the user's computer, or otherwise compromises the computer's security.
Performance. Undermines performance, reliability, and quality of the user's computing experience with slow computer speed, reduced productivity, or corruption of the operating system.
Industry and consumer opinion. Considers the input from software industry and individual users as a key factor to help identify new behaviors and programs that might present risks to the user's computing experience.
Then it is spyware/adware no matter how strongly the vendor denies it.
So it doesn't leave a local trail on your PC... (Score:2)
Only RMS has any balls these days (Score:2)
The only way to tell whether a program is any good is to examine the source code.
If the supplier doesn't want to show you the source code, the most probable reason for that is that there is something in there that they don't want you to know about. Back in the Classic Unix days, all software was distributed in source code form. You weren't necessarily allowed to pass copies about, but at least you could look at it and patch it. If the ugly truth be told, you probably had to patch it just because almost no two setups were ever identical.
I would like to see a (partial) return to those days. Maybe not the incompatibility (though it'd create employment opportunities for people who know one end of a shell prompt from the other) but the distribution of software in source code form, even if free and easy copying is not permitted, would be wonderful.
Disguising the source code does NOT make it harder to copy a program. It DOES make it harder to detect and repair problems. I would vote for anyone who intended to pass a law mandating that the administrator of a computer has the right to see the source code of any program running on that computer, and may use reasonable force to obtain it if necessary.
browzar (Score:1)
Re:forget about the browser (Score:2)
(http://www.comparecomponents.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 15 2006, @02:04PM)
Re:Oh the irony... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:forget about the browser (Score:2, Interesting)