Slashdot Log In
Adobe Quietly Monitoring Software Use?
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Dec 29, 2007 05:39 PM
from the probably-not-that-big-a-deal dept.
from the probably-not-that-big-a-deal dept.
henrypijames writes "For months, users of Adobe Creative Suite 3 have been wondering why some of the applications regularly connect to what looks like a private IP address but is actually a public domain address belonging to the web analytics company Omniture. Now allegations of user spying are getting louder, prompting Adobe Photoshop product manager John Nack to respond, though many remain unsatisfied with his explanation."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not about spying (Score:5, Interesting)
To clarify the summary, the biggest issue is not the spying on users; the biggest issue is the deceptive server name, 192.168.112.2O7.net. It's at least meant to confuse unwary users, and possibly meant to confuse misconfigured firewalls.
As someone said on a blog I can't find right now, this is not a story about privacy; it's a story about lies.
Re:Not about spying (Score:5, Interesting)
What I found as a cause for concern is that it is tracking an embedded Opera browser.
Parent
If SONY wasn't innocent for what First4Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Um, no, we can't (Score:5, Insightful)
As for responsibility.
Analogy: If Ford used a third party airbag in their cars that regularly deployed when you hit 70mph, who would be held responsible? Ford, the third party or both?
Parent
Don't yet have the full story (Score:5, Insightful)
As Trombone says the misleading server name is the issue. As I perceive it, this smells bad. Microsoft-style bad to be blunt.
Parent
Re:Don't yet have the full story (Score:5, Interesting)
This then leads to the question of why Adobe is using them for applications, which leads to think what has been aquired in the past year or so. I know. Macromedia. You know, that company that produces complicated resources hogging web content that unlike other resource hogging content cannot be filtered by most web browsers. I had hoped that Adobe might soften the rules and ship a flash player that was less user hostile, but no such new player exists. So, can we presume that instead of the user friendly Adbobe culture positively affecting the old macromedia products, that the end user hostile macromedia culture is infecting the adobe products.
OTOH, this product is a web design product, and most web designers get their money from ad revenue, so I would hardly think that the users of the product would have much problem with working with 2o7, kind of a necessary evil sort of thing. I can't imagine why adobe would use them at the design level, but overall I agree that it will be of no big deal to users of the product. To me, it is another step in the downfall of Adobe.
Parent
Re:Not about spying (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost guaranteed that Adobe was trying to hide something here (to state the obvious). I suppose there's always the possibility that somebody thought they were being playfully clever, but if so, it was done with the same poor judgment one uses if one jokingly tells the TSA guy, "Don't worry, I won't blow the plane up, I promise!"
Parent
Re:Not about spying (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not about spying (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The "biggest issue" here comes from the fact that a software vendor has the arrogance to think they have some "right" to use my network connection in an app having no business connecting to the internet in the first place.
The actual address just raises a few red flags, but I'd consider it just as unkosher if they connected directly to "www.adobe.com".
If they want to download some form of legitimate update or additional content, their bloatware can damned well ask for my permission. Otherwise, I consider this no less than theft of service on Adobe's (or whatever company you want to pick, since we tolerate far too many of them doing this crap) part.
Okay, now cue the trolls and apoligists who will quote part of a EULA that not even its own author ever read.
Parent
Re:Not about spying (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It's about beaing sneaky (Score:5, Insightful)
I absolutely agree that the software vendor thinking that they have some right to do this spying is very arrogant and serious. But think about this. The fact that the connection is structured to LOOK like something connecting internally only goes to show that not only are they doing this, but they are doing this with the intent to try to obscure it. It would be one thing if they were on the up and up about it. But they would not need to do this 2o7.net stuff if they were. They could connect to "reg7.adobe.com" or some such name. But no ... they tried to add a layer of obfuscation to it.
They know they are spying on you because they are doing it. But they also know you won't like it. And that is obvious from the effort to hide and obscure it. Doesn't that make it at least twice as bad, if not triple or worse?
Parent
No explanation is a good explanation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Adobe's behavior of late (and it will only get worse) is why applications like Little Snitch [obdev.at] exist.
This kind of thing is why I wish The GIMP [gimp.org] or similar would get useable* for those of us with hundreds of gigs of Photoshop documents.
* Open, Save, full support for all blending modes, masking modes, layer groups, and fonts/text editing capability up to at least Photoshop CS. I don't need the thing to handle Exactly Like Photoshop, but if it's going to be the "photoshop competitor" every FOSS advocate claims it is (instead of, say, the Paintshop Pro competitor that it actually is), then it ought to at least be able to handle my existing documents as well as OpenOffice handles
Bad assumption. (Score:5, Insightful)
I won't speak in the name of others, but clearly The Gimp is not a competitor to photoshop. If PS was to be competing against The Gimp, Adobe would have to release native file format information, plus access to the code. For those among FOSS supporters like me, failing on both counts is a total show stopper for even considering a switch, much like the burden of your previous work is to you.
The Gimp is like the plank cabin you build on your grounds : there might be holes, it might not be completely comfortable, and the roof might even leak, but nevertheless, you're the king in your own private kingdom, because you're considered to be the owner of the place. PS is more like a rented flat : nice view, good furnitures, central heating, but if your landlord happens to be a complete moron, and suddenly decides to lock all the doors at 9 pm, you're fscked, and either you're in by the curfew, or you're homeless for the night.
You decide what's acceptable to you.
Parent
Re:No explanation is a good explanation. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
2o7.net *Not* 207.net (Score:5, Informative)
The Opt-Out "Explanation" page is here: http://www.omniture.com/privacy/2o7 [omniture.com]
Still, the dubious address http://192.168.112.2o7.net/ [2o7.net] appears to be some variation of Social Engineering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(computer_security) [wikipedia.org]
This might explain some of Adobe's seeming software bloating (like Acrobat Reader, etc...) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Acrobat+reader+bloat [google.com]
Re:2o7.net *Not* 207.net (Score:5, Informative)
GET
Referer: http://www.adobe.com/startpage/dw_content/dw_90_full_default.swf?prod=dw&ver=9.0&plat=win&lang=en&stat=full&tday=&spfx=&productName=dreamweaver [adobe.com]
x-flash-version: 9,0,45,0
User-Agent: Shockwave Flash
Host: 192.168.112.2O7.net
and returns a 2x2 pixel blank GIF.
Parent
Re:2o7.net *Not* 207.net (Score:5, Interesting)
So let me get this straight. In order to tell Omniture not to do anything on my machine, I have to give Omniture access to my machine. What sort of half-assed policy is this?
Parent
Phisher's Delight (Score:5, Informative)
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/12/whats_with_adob.html [adobe.com]
the Adobe guy says:
the objections seem to center not so much on whether Adobe apps are contacting a server, but rather that the server is named "192.168.112.2O7.net,"
Note the letter O instead of a zero. 2o7.net is registered to Omniture.
WTF? If Little Snitch told me that some app was trying to connect to 192.168.112.2O7.net I would assume it was compromised, and would be debating a complete clean system reinstall of OSX.
192.168.112.2O7.net? Masquerading as an IP from my home DHCP server? Are they serious? From Nigeria? Romania?
Again, WTF?
P.S. for those of you who have not set up a LAN, 192.168.xxx.xxx is typically an IP address for an internal LAN, not something out on the Web.
Re:Phisher's Delight (Score:5, Interesting)
More to the point, the 192.168.x.x address range is one of several that are specifically intended to be non-routable on the Internet. Many people know this, even those who aren't otherwise that network-savvy. This is a blatant attempt to make the address appear safe ("well, I dunno what it's doing, but at least it's only sending to address on my LAN!") Not what one should expect from a major software house, but unfortunately, it is what we are all coming to expect from everyone in the business. Doesn't much matter what they're actually sending to Omni-whatever
You know, this reminds of something that Jack Valenti once said (about the only thing that sociopath ever said that I agree with): "Just because technology lets us do something, it doesn't mean we should." Now, he was referring to the copying and downloading of DVDs, but his point is still valid. We're seeing too many companies set up to serve larger organizations (Omniture, MediaSentry) using the Internet in unethical if not outright illegal ways. Presumably, this is so the corporation hiring them (in this case, Adobe) has some plausible deniability.
Parent
Opt-out site (Score:4, Informative)
Local apps shouldn't secretly access the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
If Adobe and other companies want to retain their paying customers' trust, their applications shouldn't be doing unexplained things behind the user's back.
If they want to pop up a window saying "To insure better product quality, we would like to have this application send information to internet address thus-and-such. To read a detailed description of the information we send and how we use it, press 'details.' To allow us to do this, press 'allow.' If you do not want us to do this, press 'no,'" then everything would be cool.
But if an application does stuff we don't expect it to do, and they don't even mention it in advance, it's not terribly paranoid to assume that the reason is that they're doing something they don't want us to know about.
People run their machines with default HOSTS?! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
And use it. That domain has long since been blocked. Jeez, people. Old news.
John Nack is an arrogant ass (Score:5, Insightful)
[Are you saying you can't figure out how to remove applications? That's really saying something. --J.]
[You're a complete moron, and I don't have time to bother poking holes in your litany of ridiculous assertions. --J.]
[Sorry to hear that things aren't going well, Ryan. Have you called tech support? If not, why not? --J.]
[What sucks is how gullible, lazy, and reckless people prove to be. --J.]
And on and on it goes...
Re:This is very common (Score:5, Informative)
Port 123 (both UDP and TCP) is the NTP port.
Double-click on the time on the right end of your taskbar to open the Date and Time Properties dialog box, then click on the Internet Time tab.
I believe it defaults to time.windows.com. I change mine to us.pool.ntp.org.
Parent
Re:Why is this an issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
And everyone should have locks on their doors.
But its still going to piss me off if I come home and forgot to lock my doors and you're sitting on my couch eating my milk and cookies.
Parent