Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
America Online Software Your Rights Online

Consumer Friendly Downloads? 169

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the bigger-friendlier-corporations dept.
* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us Yahoo and AOL will be offering a new anti-spyware initiative to begin next year. The new initiative will allow vendors to get their software "certified" as easy to remove and not containing spyware. From the article: "It creates market incentives that will change how consumers see software," said Doug Leeds, Yahoo's vice president for product justice. Backers of the initiative believe that consumers wouldn't benefit much from a system in which good products simply display seals of approval. "They are looking for us to do it for them," Leeds said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Consumer Friendly Downloads? More

Consumer Friendly Downloads?

Comments Filter:

  • Recycled versign? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:30AM (#14042244) Journal
    This sort of sounds like a recycled verisign sig. Unfortunatyl i doubt it would mean much to anyone at first. The majority of uasy to remove and not containing spyware. From the article: "It creates market incentives that will change how consumers see software," said Doug Leeds, Yahoo's vice president for product justice. Backers of the initiative believe that consumers wouldn't benefit much from a system in which good products simply display seals of approval. "They are looking for us to do it for them," Leeds said."sers i encounter think you only get trojans from visitiing porn sites and spyware from the same.

    Maybe this is a good thing. The interweb won't be the same.

    • Re:Recycled versign? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Shure is hard to un-install all those Mac applications. ...Wait, wait, wait. I have to drag and drop?...
    • Seriously, who would retain control over this group? This is the same Yahoo that recently released an anti-spyware toolbar that not only plays favorites [trebes.com] with detection, but outright ignores (regardless of settings) certain products that Yahoo has a financial tie to. The last time people tried to agree on a consortium promising to certify apps as "spyware free", it failed miserably [eweek.com] for the same reasons - the model of selling such a certification provides a clear financial incentive geared toward certifying p

  • And.... people won't care (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SeraphimXI ( 927683 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:33AM (#14042252)
    People really don't care about their products being "certified". Go out to the store and buy any usb wifi adapter you can find. In the installation guy it tells you to make sure that you hit "continue anyway" when your computer warns you the drivers aren't certified. I don't think not wanting to hit continue anyway is a valid reason for returning your new adapter.
    • But if Microsoft didn't test it, it has to be crap!
      • Actually, WHQL certification is pretty good indication that the driver isn't totally crappy. Then again its true that a lack of certification doesn't automatically mean it sucks - it just means that the HW vendor didn't want to pay for the testing & MS stamp of approval.

        So, since the certification costs money for the hardware vendors, and doesn't really tell you anything new, if their internal QA is competent, many vendors skip it - unless their OEM sales tell them they have to do it, so that dell/hp/ib
    • Ah, I think they'll give it some thought if it's implemented properly. What strikes me as very nice is that some software depots out there already have such stuff in place and they don't make such a big fuss, it's just part of normal service.

      Take Softpedia [softpedia.com] for instance, and check out their page for Buddy Spy [softpedia.com]. Notice the "100% adware, spyware free" banner on the left side, as well as the "Report spyware" link (on right, same level as program name).

      It's probably nothing fancy, just a peer and user review syst
    • Do you use Firefox?

      Tell me ONE (1) extension you have installed that does not say "UNSIGNED" in red black font?

      Do you panick when you see those? do you avoid installing such extensions.

      What is the meaning of that field anyway?
    • I don't think not wanting to hit continue anyway is a valid reason for returning your new adapter.

      In theory, the drivers not being certified to work with your OS may kill any support contract you have in place with the OS vendor (in this case, MS). I'd call that a valid reason to return the product myself.

  • This reminds me of another article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ThatGeek ( 874983 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:34AM (#14042256) Homepage
    Way back in March, Slashdot carried an article saying Office Depot will only carry Windows XP approved software [slashdot.org].

    Don't get me wrong, I think spyware is bad. I also think a big company only supporting a few software titles (and probably charging a bit to do it) is bad too.

    I'd really prefer to see some kind of meta-moderated system by users to rate software as clear of spyware as it would give small vendors more of a chance. Otherwise, we will just further entrench big monopolies.
    • I had the same thought at first, but the article states:
      TRUSTe, an organization that already certifies and monitors Web site privacy and e-mail practices for businesses, will rely on testing by two outside labs for the vetting. It would not name the labs.
      A user-run system of moderation is a great idea though. Although TRUSTe seems to be somewhat independant we have just recently seen that the big media corporations aren't exactly the most trustworthy entities when it comes to our personal privacy *co

    • Problem: Humans suck. (Score:4, Informative)

      by mister_llah ( 891540 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:51AM (#14042304) Homepage Journal
      I'd really prefer to see some kind of meta-moderated system by users to rate software as clear of spyware as it would give small vendors more of a chance.

      Well, I don't know about that, those systems can cause problems, too.

      I have come across a few very suspicious programs on download.com (where they use a rating system on satisfaction with the program) ... that I skimmed through the comments on. There seems to be a way to generate user accounts... so people put programs out with trojan horses, made a bunch of fake accounts, and upped the ratings... you had to really skim to see the 2 or 3 users who had the "THIS IS MALWARE" messages. ... now, this can be avoided, sure, but it will always be a problem... such a system, if disrupted once, would lose a good deal of credibility.

      Also... there is the problem of trolls, plants (that is, if the spyware pals decide to just sit and make new accounts and do it all manually), and kiddies.

      ===

      Perhaps I am too much the cynic?

      It *could* work...

      It would have to be *really* well thought out and programmed. It would also need to get a good following rather quickly and remain free.

    • Small business owners will pay, though. (Score:5, Informative)

      by lwagner ( 230491 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @07:11AM (#14042342)
      Way back in March, Slashdot carried an article saying Office Depot will only carry Windows XP approved software. I also think a big company only supporting a few software titles (and probably charging a bit to do it) is bad too.

      Ah, my friend, but you forget that is for for small business owners such as myself who couldn't care less about the variety of software -- we just want our stuff to work. Do you know how much time I spend playing "IT Guy" for our company? It is truly not fun.

      Give us our MS-Office, our devices that plug in correctly, our specialized apps, and just make everything work. We'll pay extra.

      • It's what I do for a living Mr. Business Owner is fixing messes that you made... What really sucks for you is your MS Office and devices and specialized apps that you bought thinking you understood technology and your playing "IT Guy" when you actually make money doing something else. Holy crap I don't understand cheapskate small business owners. I am one too and if I need my business taxes done I pay somebody that knows what the hell they are doing. I've seen people spend several days monkeying around
        • I don't think you meant to be funny when you called your customers stupid... these same stupid people are hiring you. I'm amused.

          Your rant exemplifies why I would prefer doing it myself versus hiring someone. It's not being cheap that's the problem.

      • It's good for consumers, too. XP certified software has to conform to a number of standards, one of which is the ability to run as a non-privileged user account. The more this becomes the norm, the better off the whole internet will be, as people stop inadvertently zombifying their machines (or at least, do so much less often).
      • I don't want to sound like a zealot here, but sounds exactly like you should be selling Apple stuff.

  • A chain of trust ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aceticon ( 140883 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:38AM (#14042271)
    ... is only as strong as it weakest link.

    It all boils down to:
    - Do we trust AOL and Yahoo to be honest in this sort of thing.
    - Do we trust that AOL and Yahoo have the technical capability to effectivelly detect both reported and not yet reported forms of spyware.

    • Re:A chain of trust ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Homology ( 639438 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:56AM (#14042314)
      It all boils down to:
      - Do we trust AOL and Yahoo to be honest in this sort of thing.

      Yahoo have no problems helping the Chineese government hunting down dissident journalists, and other US companies have been shown to actively help surpress free speech and democracy. So no, I certainly dont trust Yahoo in this. I do trust that Yahoo will do anything, given enough money.

      • I do trust that Yahoo will do anything, given enough money.

        I bet this is just something new to add as part of the 'feature' list for an ISP partner (Definitely AwOL, but Yahoo will probably re-package it for others such as SBC Yahoo! [yahoo.com] perhaps). At least after a certain exclusive period for AOL. Another bullet point for the marketing brochure, website and commercial.

        • Anti-virus protection [show me details]
        • Spyware Protection [show me details]
        • Faster downloads [show me details]
        • Secure and Verified(TM) Down
      • Funny how this is always mentioned here when yahoo comes up, but no-one ever talks about how google does exactly the same thing.

        Just sayin'

      • Also, please keep in mind that this is the same Yahoo who changed their privacy policy from "We won't give/sell your information to anybody." to "We don't give a rats ass about your information as long as we can make a buck off of it."

        Now, do you trust this company as a barrier against Spyware, which seeks to profit off of said information?

        When I read this story, the first thing that popped into mind was when MS took over Hotmail and how they implemented a policy of "we're going to crack down on spam throug

    • It all boils down to: - Do we trust AOL and Yahoo [...]

      Add: Do we trust AOL and Yahoo to make a valid definition (perhaps this is what you meant by honesty).

      Even before they start, 'spyware' is not enough, and 'malware' ill-defined, to define installation of 'hidden extras' I do not want. These are both companies who package things I don't want as default options in their own installers - not a good start, even if they're 'up front' about it (and include separate uninstallation procedures).

      If there's

  • Four words (Score:5, Funny)

    by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:40AM (#14042275) Homepage
    What will it cost?

    • Re:Four words (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      Probably "nothing" to consumers if you're already signed up to their respective premium services. See also AOL's virus checker etc. To software suppliers I expect it will cost $$$$ for what is essentially a useless service.

      What do I as the user care if AOL "certifies" a programme is easy to install? If software followed the Windows XP guidelines (sufficient to qualify to show the logo), it would already be easy to install. Therefore, the good guys already have an incentive to seek certification - from Mic

  • Good idea... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mister_llah ( 891540 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:41AM (#14042281) Homepage Journal
    Sure, it is old hat, but one of these days, there might be a "(insert company name approved) software" program that actually holds its weight and is useful/consistent/trustworthy...

    I'm not exactly saying infinite monkeys/infinite typewriters, here, I'm just saying we've only had one major company do this so far (as far as I know) ... perhaps AOL/Yahoo will do it better? ... of course, considering the advertising on Yahoo... I'm not going to count on it from them, but it might inspire a knock-off.

    • Re:Good idea... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Smallpond ( 221300 )
      I have just started a company called, let me see, Certified Software, LLC which will place our well-known "Safe As Houses" seal of approval on your low-cost software package for only $99. The large enterprise edition puts the "Rock-Solid Software" seal on for $2999. It includes an actual tamper-proof seal similar to the type that prevent you from opening bags of weed killer. Does that make you feel better? Diebold is our first big customer.
    • I think that content distribution channels would be a better place for this. Tucows, for instance, could include a "spyware" rating on the stuff they distribute. That would be a lot more impartial and likely to work than getting a certification that you pay for and then distributing it yourself.

      Ultimately, my Litmus test for this will be whether or not Realplayer is considered spyware. If its not, then Yahoo has sold out, and I won't trust them for anything other software.

  • What about the vendors? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:43AM (#14042286) Homepage
    Let me guess... any vendor, no matter how small, will have to pay a shitload of money to get certified?
    • how about packages which use time-limits to allow evaluation, but set something in the system to prevent deinstall/reinstall to get round it.

      for example, ULead do this a lot - you download the full (or nearly full) package but it expires after a number of weeks. if the program expires, you try de/reinstall, the time limit is still reduced or expired.

      does this behavious still count in some small way as spyware - the fact that they don't deinstall *everything*, and thus can track a reinstall?

      short of us

  • Captain Cynical Returns (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ckwop ( 707653 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:43AM (#14042288) Homepage
    Let me get this straight. One company decides what is malware and what isn't. Ask yourself this, would Sony's rootkit have been considered a safe download? I think you'd find the answer is yes. This isn't an objective panel of experts deciding what is safe or what isn't, it's a company and this inherently flawed.

    I find it hard to believe that any company, regardless of their otherwise good intentions, would refuse money from a company as Sony. In short, it may work in stoping the small spyware vendor but this is not nearly enough.

    Simon.

    • Re:Captain Cynical Returns (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @07:03AM (#14042327)
      Some companies would not be buyable; most individuals would be buyable for the right sum of money. Don't forget that companies are run by collections of individuals - some of them are going to be as principled as you imagine your panel of experts to be.

      If Sony waved a couple of million dollars under your nose to claim that their rootkit wasn't malware, would you really turn it down? You can retire on that - hell, invested properly, your kids can retire on it. All just for saying "Hey, you know what, this DRM isn't so bad after all..."

      If you genuinely would turn it down, then I applaud your ability to stand by your principles; I really don't think I'd be able to myself.

      • start spyware monitoring/announcement website

        declare many things to be dodgy

        extort money from vendors

        profit!

        Sony waved a couple of million dollars under your nose to claim that their rootkit wasn't malware...If you genuinely would turn it down
        I'd accept it, put the money beyond jurisdiction into a Swiss Bank account, sell the company, have plane tickets standing by just in case, start a new website denouncing the original one which stopped telling of the Sony evil, and wait for the next million dolla

      • If you genuinely would turn it down, then I applaud your ability to stand by your principles; I really don't think I'd be able to myself.

        I wavered on that ethical question for a moment. Then I remembered that I'm too stinking proud. A lifetime of money (which would get spent all the same) wouldn't be worth hating myself until I'm dead (and the kids growing up all tristed and warped because dad developed a psychosis).

    • Re:Captain Cynical Returns (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wordsmith ( 183749 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @07:05AM (#14042329) Homepage
      Stopping the small spyware vendor does quite a lot. A vendor like Sony, which is -generally- above-board (meaning it doesn't spend most of its time torturing puppies and whatnot) and accountable to millions of customers, shareholders and legal parters has a lot to lose when it does something nasty. Witness the massive backlash against the root kit, and Sony's eventual decision to pull it once it became a PR nightmare. An aware consumer market can fight back when someone like Sony pulls this nonsense.

      It's a lot harder to fight back against the fly-by-night spyware vendor who is looking to collect some quick info - maybe even dangerous info like credit card numbers and banking site passwords - then disapear. You can't hold those people accountable. You can't threaten to stop using their services. You can't even sue them, if you can't find them.

      Ideally, we'd be able to find a tool that's entirely trustworthy for routing at malware, but as you said, that's simply not going to happen. That's why I'm generally careful with what I download, but still run a few competing anti-malware apps, just in case I get something borderline one of those products choses not to flag for whatever reason - questionable dealings or simple ignorance of the malware's existence.

      Having one more tool at my disposal for IDing spyware, even an imperfect tool, seems like a good thing. How useful it is will depend on what reputation Yahoo/AOL can build for being forthright.
    • The players here already have blood on their hands. Yahoo's Overture division is the primary source of revenue [pcpitstop.com] for Claria Corporation, one of the biggest offenders out there. TRUSTe makes big money [truste.org] to certify web sites and basically takes the company's word about their answers to a form [truste.org].

      It's not just about spying or offering an uninstall link. For example, the Ask Jeeves folks make a toolbar that is bundled with a cute little utility named Smiley Central that is heavily advertised on game and kids sites. Wh
  • Just another bad idea to make some money - why would the consumer trust AOL (or M$, or better yet - Sony :) ) better than some other smaller software company ...
    Obviously a "trust system" is needed, but not one based on payments to a single company :)
    • They would trust Yahoo because the media will tell them to. The majority of users/consumers only do what they do because some advertisment persuaded them to do so. Either some fluff piece in the news or some well crafted advert made to look like some infomrative report will tell people to look for this sticker if you don't want problems with your computer and it will make less trips to the shop.

      And people will buy it or into it. Not because Yahoo is some pillar of faith, virtue, or savior in disguise, but b

  • A Good Start would be their toolbar ... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... which comes with many software products in a bundle nowadays, and I'm pretty sure I don't want it.
  • The problem with these plans is that there is always a cost to have your stuff certified, so only big/commercial players get their stuff in.

    What we need is an equivelent of Linux's apt-get and synaptic, but for installing windows 32 programs. Make repositories for GPL, open source, shareware, commercial software. Obviously commercial software would require purchase but the repository should include all types.

    Hmmm... I wonder if I can code this... I'm sure it would at least be doable for Free Software applic

  • For Great Product Justice (Score:5, Funny)

    by demastri ( 579215 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:51AM (#14042305)
    Doug Leeds, Yahoo's vice president for product justice.
    Move every zig. You have no chance to survive. Make your time.

  • Install mania (Score:3, Insightful)

    by e-bart ( 883629 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @06:53AM (#14042309)
    I'm not sure if this solves the problem. The problem is that there are a lot of not-so-professional people out there that just install anything they lay their hands on. It's like: "Hey! It's a PC! *Must* install stuff on this!" If the PC asks OK or Cancel? they click OK. And then to remove programs they're suddenly "smart" enough to find C:\Program Files\ and delete anything they don't understand. In the end all they need is a browser, an email client, an IM client, a Wordprocessor and perhaps something to mash up some Photo's. Installing anything more will just result in making it worse.

    The problem isn't the software. It's the people using the software! As long as they don't know what they're doing there will always be others abusing this.

    • Re:Install mania (Score:2, Interesting)

      by geo_2677 ( 593590 )
      I agree.. Moreover what prevents the software writers from interchanging the functionality of OK and Cancel. Like they could just put text like 'About to install the xxxxx software. If you want to quit hit OK else hit Cancel'. Most of the users hardly ever read all the text that gets shown.

  • Fear Will Make Money (Score:1, Insightful)

    by TheZorch ( 925979 )
    It will succeed because of one important thing; FEAR.

    The recent mess with Sony's rootkit, security threats all over the place, and scares over the latest batch of nasty viruses have the average Joe-User terrified. Your average Techie like yourself and me know better and have enough smarts to keep safe, but Grandma sitting at her PC chatting in AIM will be scared out of her bloomers.

    Its the reason why Antivirus companies are racking in the dough with virus definition update subscriptions and also why Adware
    • Adware recently nixed their free spyware scanner so you have to pay for it now

      Do you mean Ad-Aware? If so their personal edition is still available for free download,

      http://www.lavasoft.de/ [lavasoft.de]

      Products is the second section in the left hand navigation bar, Ad_Aware personal is the fourth link. Easy.

  • Sandboxing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @07:03AM (#14042326)
    We don't need administrative or legal solutions to this, though they're nice.

    What we need is application sandboxing; that is, restrict an application's access to system resources when it runs (think chroot jails but on a much grander scale). The key to this (as with any security system) will be to balance security with usability, i.e. not make it so anal that you can't actually do anything. You'll still have ignorant users, but at least they will opt into insecurity rather than inherit it by default.

    Crucially, this is something we nerds can do for ourselves and not rely on others whose agendas are opaque.

    • Re:Sandboxing (Score:2, Interesting)

      by WilliamSChips ( 793741 )
      Have you heard of capabilities [wikipedia.org]? With this type of stuff, spyware would have to ask to get your personal information and such. A pity the early capability systems sucked royally, making ACLs win.
    • need is application sandboxing; that is, restrict an application's access to system resources when it runs (think chroot jails

      this is a neat idea. snag is, 99% of windows applications have to be installed as administrator mode to work, and ?50% have to run as admin to work!

      another snag is that windows XP home is crippled in terms of file protection/security. With XPpro you can set file protections, ownership etc, this has been almost entirely stripped out in XPhome, so you can't actually try and lock th

    • What we need is application sandboxing; that is, restrict an application's access to system resources when it runs (think chroot jails but on a much grander scale). The key to this (as with any security system) will be to balance security with usability, i.e. not make it so anal that you can't actually do anything.

      And therin lies the problem. You can achieve most of the effect of this idea by running as non-admin - but it will either not be restricted enough to make any difference, or be so restricted you

  • Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @07:10AM (#14042340)
    Am I the only person who has noticed the numerous stories that get posted by *--Beatles-Beatles? Am I also the only person who has noticed that the link used in is name is a constantly changing URL (depending on the story) with pointers to various scammy sites? Is it not obvious what he's doing? He's using the awesome PageRank of slashdot do promote his sites based on searches that have the word Beatles in them.

    It's a small price to pay for free advertising. Find a story, summarize it in 5 minutes, post to slashdot, and get a pagerank boost that advertisers would pay hundreds (or maybe thousands) for. (Text links on high-ranking sites is big business - just ask oreilly).

    Slashdot should at least put a ref=nofollow in the links to submitters (or better yet, only link the submitter's name to his/her user page).

    • Re:Submitter is a link spammer, does /. care? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @07:23AM (#14042377)
      No you're not the only one. I posted a reply [slashdot.org] earlier this week that basically said the same thing. I think this must be one of ScuttleMonkey's buddies or something. I got modded down as offtopic, because for some reason everyone wants to look the other way.
       
      This is obviously becoming a problem and represents what I consider to be a breach of ScuttleMonkey's journalistic integrity.
  • I wonder what will happen if Microsoft does go ahead and buy a stake in AOL. Would this service cease as soon as it is started?

  • Copy the seal of approval? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by squoozer ( 730327 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @07:18AM (#14042359)

    Maybe I'm missing something here but what's to stop a spyware producer from just copying the seal of approval and sticking it to the front of his product? The threat of legal action I hear you cry. I don't think Mr Spyware Producer really cares all that much about breaking the law so that's hardly a deterent.

    Perhaps if AOL made it public knowledge they would send "da boys" round if they caught anyone copying the certificate that would slow some people down. Perhaps a fitting punishment would be being crushed under a million AOL cds pushed one at a time through a giant letterbox.

    • From TFA:

      "Developers earning TRUSTe's certification will not be permitted to promote that fact, said its executive director, Fran Maier. Rather, TRUSTe will issue a "white list" of trusted programs that partners Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), America Online Inc., CNET Networks Inc. and other Web publishers may use in determining whose software they wish to ally with or distribute."
  • It's just a front to say "Linux/BSD/Solaris is crap because the .iso file isn't AOL-certified." Meanwhile a malware-spammer with shoverfuls of cash from his latest pink contract will have no problem getting in. And how fast do you thing DRM will get on board? "Hah, Natasha! We can stop anybody from sharing ANYTHING just because it isn't AOL-certified!" "Yes, Boris, and now we make big trouble for moose and squirrel!" AOL-certified will have the opposite effect: products bearing this seal will be treated wit

  • Better Way (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 )
    The best way to be certain that a program is free from spyware is to examine the source code, comment out any bits you don't like, and compile it on your machine.

    The second-best way to be certain that a program is free from spyware is to have someone you trust examine the source code, comment out any bits they don't like, compile it on their machine, sign it with their OpenPGP decrypting key and make their signed, pre-compiled binary available for download.

    That's how we have always done things in the Un

    • Insist to see the source. It's the best guarantee yet that the software you are running is pure.

      Another way to say this, even for the less computer savvy who don't even care what "source" is: "Use open source software". Ever since I made the switch to OSS, I worry much less about spyware, adware, crippleware, annoyware, etc. To top it all off, I don't copy commercial software anymore... so, I don't worry about that either. The fact that something comes, signed, from a repository I can trust means much

    • Just be sure you also examined the source (all umpteen megs of it) for your compiler and all other tools (e.g. linker) you'll be using in the process, since it is an ancient and classic hack to simply infect a compiler to always include generated malware, and then throw away the hacked source to the compiler so that everyone thinks it's hunky dory. Not as simple as you thought, huh?
  • Not to be a troll, but I use OSS and they tend to have no spyware whatsoever (probably because they are OSS). I use it so much that now I tend to distrust non OSS software, and only use them when I can't find any OSS that does the trick. 99% of my software is OSS though (and I use a LOT of software, not just OS/office suite).

  • Download.com (Score:3, Informative)

    by goraknotsteve ( 648117 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @07:48AM (#14042439) Homepage
    I don't know if I'm being simplistic about it but I've tended to go with www.download.com [download.com] for anything extra I need - like an avi converter or free audio editor package like audacity. Judge the download by other peoples reviews as to whether it does the job without installing any nasties. GnS

  • AOL / Yahoo selling advertising (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So, I'll likely have to pay for their seal of approval? You mean, I actually have to _pay_ to have my product carry an advertisement for their company? Thank you, but no...
  • How DirectRevenue and Bullseye network get away with forcing you to download an uninstaller, and fill out a fucking survey, respectively, before you can uninstall their adware. Unbelievable.
    • How DirectRevenue and Bullseye network get away with forcing you to download an uninstaller, and fill out a fucking survey, respectively, before you can uninstall their adware. Unbelievable.

      *cough* *choke* You'd ACTUALLY DO this? Even when I knew no better than to run Windows, I got ahold of the MS-port of Emacs, guaranteed to find all files hidden everywhichway on your system (and able to read binaries in hexl-mode as well; you can get an idea of what a program does this way). I always simply deleted the

  • Already exists (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @07:54AM (#14042455) Homepage
    It's called Open Source. Or at least to me and the people I advise anyways.

    I always tell people that Open Source apps typically do not have any of that crudware in them while most freeware does have that crap embedded, and then point them to various websites that track what freeware has what spy/crap/ad ware in it. I have never been burned by an OSS project and it's windows download/installer.

    so look for the OSS label!

    • Well, and how many of you DO check the source code of every application you install?

      I don't and I know that it would be dam easy to make me install an open source spyware.

      I just trust that someone in the community will actually read the sourcecode (even if it is just out of curiosity) and post a note on slashdot (or something like this) to get the spyware down in case. But I still think I'm naive here.

      However, most of my software comes from my distro and I suppose that the package maintainer checks for spyw
  • ...how much effort people are willing to put into creating fixes and work-arounds for the simple fact that Microsoft Windows is broken.
  • That's what it sounds like to me, fix the underlying problem. Make the OS more secure, not necessarily picking on windows underlying OS here so much as their methods of add and removing software, they need to come up with a way that all changes to the system are tagged with the application that made them. Then removing the software would be complete always, leaving no extra hidden goodies behind.

    All operating systems could really benefit by something like this, of course with the way windows is built it wou

  • How about an anti-AOL CD-dumping initiative? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @08:28AM (#14042556)
    AOL will launch 'approved software' that is 'easy to remove' when they dump their own annoying (remember AOL version 8.0?) and ubiquitous install CDs and have it on almost every new PC with Windows. Maybe people don't want AOL after hearing how bad their software is. I don't know if they are planning on stopping their mass distribution of AOL CDs (1048 free hours!) but they should stop it if they want to seem legitimate in this new effort.
    You have to first build trust to ensure trust. By the way.......you've got SPAM!

  • FTA: "Leeds said applications and the way they are distributed change so often that companies like Yahoo have a difficult time keeping up. A certification program, he said, will allow Yahoo to keep monitoring a partner's practices."

    Uh... how will a certification program help? Does Leeds mean that they will only certify specific version releases? ...that if the company releases an upgrade or patch, that each one will have to be re-certified? Won't this just slow down software releases?

    And how long before

  • Yahoo! (Score:2)

    by merc ( 115854 )
    Yahoo and AOL will be offering a new anti-spyware initiative to begin next year.

    Because Yahoo! would never want anything to do with spyware, would they?

    Oh, wait...
  • I use GPLed software -- not "freeware" that takes care of the problem.
  • Is this a money making scheme or is it for real? I guess I'll find out when I submit some stuff, and tell them that since its non-commercial anyway, I can't pay a thing aside from maybe a few bucks for processing.

    The problem is:
    Either it is difficult and/or expensive to get through the process, in which case a lot of good software won't make it simply because it's freeware, cheap shareware or the author doesn't care enough, or it's easy and cheap, in which case I don't see how it can be good enough to not f
  • "They are looking for us to do it for them,"
    I don't know of anyone who is "looking for" Yahoo or AOL to do shit for them. No-one I know uses AOL, I only know one person who uses Yahoo and that's because of their BT tie-in, but god damn, who do they think they are? Delusions of relevance.
    • "No-one I know uses AOL"

      That comment reminds me of the film critic Pauline Kael's famous line after Richard Nixon's landslide victory over George McGovern in 1972: "I can't believe Nixon won. Nobody I know voted for him." Of course they hadn't. Kael lived in the cocoon of Manhattan liberalism.

      AOL has about 27 million subscribers worldwide. That's more than the entire populations of say, Australia (20 million) and New Zealand (4 million) combined.

      I'd say AOL is relevant.
  • The new initiative will allow vendors to get their software "certified" as easy to remove and not containing spyware.

    That sounds like a great idea. Let's certify software to make sure that it doesn't do anything that it shouldn't. And of course, everybody's going to want to get this certification, right? Because, every piece of software that we install on our system, we've had a chance to make sure that it's "certified" [slashdot.org], right?

    It makes about as much sense as certify everybody who promises not to commit m
  • When I got hit by adware/spyware, it wasn't because of some software app I installed. Going to the wrong site, is like stepping on a landmine. And going to those sites isn't hard to do since they have it rigged to route you there if you mis-type the url.

  • Much needed for the average user (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Retired Replicant ( 668463 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @10:51AM (#14043502)
    Slashdot readers may be savvy about checking around the web to see if a piece of software contains spyware before they install it, but the average user has no idea how to tell if a given software program is spyware-free. If they could just see an easy-to-identify "spyware-free" certification on the package or website somewhere (and that certification actually means what it says), then that would help a lot. It would be kind of like seeing the "UL tested" stamp on an electrical device. Software companies that used the seal without authorization would be committing a felony. Even if the certification didn't eliminate spyware, it might at least force software makers to do a full disclosure, get the user's permission to install 3rd-party applications, give the user an easy way to later uninstall those 3rd party applications, and make it so that uninstallation completely removed every bit of the installed software from the system.
    • Software companies that used the seal without authorization would be committing a felony.

      Have you never heard of a phishing scam? It's where the cyberthief sets up a whole bogus website, corporate insignia and all, to fool people into typing their credit card numbers into this data trap that they think is their bank's website. Now, what difference would breaking *one* *more* crime make to this sort of person?

      (-: Ooooh! I have an idea! I'll end burglary by going around town slapping stickers on the front

  • if(!malware)return "All clear";

    if(malware==true)
    {
    if(vendor =="AOL"||vendor=="Sony"||vendor=="Microsoft"||vend or==...)
    return "All clear";

    else
    return "AOL is on your side, keeping you safe from malware";
    }

  • Liability? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @11:39AM (#14043957) Homepage
    So lets say some software gets approved, and lo and behold it IS malicious, or someone spoofs their certification...will Yahoo and AOL assume legal liability?

  • Not likely to work (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitalgimpus ( 468277 ) on Wednesday November 16, 2005 @11:55AM (#14044095) Homepage
    This is TRUSTe were talking about. My bet is that anyone who pays $500 gets certified.

    Notice there is intentionally nothing about what it would cost or how developers apply.
  • Large content/network companies do nothing about spam or spyware. Indeed they stand in the way of many effective attempts to address the problem. Both Spam and Spyware become perceived as a problem. Then they step in with "consumer friendly download services" which offer to make downloads "safe" again perhaps for a price.

    This is probably just the market at work but it's herd not to see the same business planning behind both decisions.
  • Remember when Yahoo reset all of their users' spam preferences? Heck, a few stories up from this one you can read about how AOL just automatically added two bots to all the AIM users' buddy lists. Sure these are both things that are easy for the user to fix, but it demonstrates that, if the price is right, these companies would rather ask for forgiveness than permission. Lack of consideration for the user's personal preferences is pretty much the problem when it comes to annoying software installs.

    Wha

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close