World's Most Annoying IE Toolbar

nautical9 writes "Following the same devious footsteps of the infamous Bonzi Buddy, Gator, and Comet Cursor "enhancements", Xupiter now has their own self-installing toolbar for IE. There are many claims that if you leave your security preferences at their default level, it will install itself without your express permission. And once on your system, it's gracious enough to reset your homepage to xupiter.com, forward all your searches to their search engine, download and automatically launch applications (like gambling applets), and blocks all attempts to set these back to normal. Removing it isn't trivial either - it automatically checks for updates upon reboot, where it constantly changes the registry settings it uses, making the jobs of spyware removal programs like AdAware or Spybot Search & Destroy much harder. No word yet if it collects and forwards personal data."

Comments

My searches

[govtcheez]

to their credit, Xupiter's search engine returns the best quality squirrel porn I've ever seen.

no it won't

[rnd()]

No, if you leave your security preferences at their default level, things like this will not install. That is clearly FUD. Even if you have your security preferences a notch lower, it will still prompt you to confirm installation.

People get into the habbit of clicking "OK" whenever something pops up. Next thing they know, they have Gator and all sorts of junk installed.

THANKS

[ematic]

Thanks a lot. I clicked on the link, and now I have this stupid toolbar installed!

Re:THANKS

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

If I really wanted to be evil I could write a self installing applet to default IE to the goatse.cx page everytime it opened upon a vistor visiting my site with an earlier browser.

You don't need an applet. Someone on slashdot has already done this. See this slashdot post, which, if you click the link in the posting, takes your browser on a carefully crafted roller coaster of 302 Object Moved across several different servers, eventually leading you to either the correct (advertised) New York Times article, or to goatse.cx if you are using IE. See my four replies under the post that explain how this was done. Note that the first of my replies was moderated as Troll because I was warning people about a goatse link.

If it's going through all that trouble...

[sdo1]

No word yet if it collects and forwards personal data

Oh yea... as if they're going to go through all of that trouble and deception and not collect and forward personal data.

Right.

-S

Pretty easy fix

[0x0d0a]

It's pretty easy to use Moz or Opera, which never started going down the security-hostile path of automated installation from *web pages*. And bookmarking. And so forth.

If you're using IE, you're running a piece of software *on your machine* which is advertising and providing the ability for a web page to basically screw your system up. If precisely this happens...well, you should have tried another browser. :-)

(If you don't like the Moz suite approach, try Phoenix)

Re:Pretty easy fix

[JimDabell]

If you're using IE, you're running a piece of software *on your machine* which is advertising and providing the ability for a web page to basically screw your system up. If precisely this happens...well, you should have tried another browser. :-)

At any given time there are a dozen or so security holes in Internet Explorer. Right now there are 19 security holes in the latest version of Internet Explorer, with all patches and service packs applied.

Help!

[LucidityZero]

Help, help! My Bonzi Buddy is eating my Gator, and my Comet Cursor is header for a direct impact with Xupiter!!!

Re:Sick the Lawyers on Them

[stratjakt]

We need laws for everything!

Every time I wiggle my mouse around or push my spacebar I need a law to clearly define what I'm doing, what my rights and responsibilities are, and what the punishments are if I wiggle that mouse a little bit too far to the left!

Laws, laws, more laws! We dont have enough laws!

People are too stupid to live lives themselves or take any sort of personal responsibility! We need laws and lawyers and lawsuits!

More LAWS! Laws are the answer.

I'm writing my congressman right now, demanding more and increasingly complicated laws!

No it doesn't :)

[Fnagaton]

I've got default security settings and while it certainly displayed a few popups nothing else got installed. If however the user clicks 'OK' to things being installed without checking what they really do first then you get what you expect. :) Rule of thumb: Never install anything while browsing when it pops up and says "Hi install me for extra wizzy things!!!".

Re:No it doesn't :)

[Col. Panic]

If you are running IE, click Tools, Internet Options, select the Content tab, click Publishers and make sure nothing is in the list. If you have anything there, that company can automatically install apps via your browser without asking.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[eXtro]

When I first started using IBM compatibles there were forms of software which would install themselves on your system and were written to evade removal as well as modify your system in ways that you may or may not have approved of. Writing these packages was considered bad, and propogating them was even considered illegal. These small applications were called viruses.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's usually pretty safe to say that it's a duck. In this case all of these enhancements sound like viruses to me, or at least a derivitave of a virus. Where viruses had to be cleverly coded in order to be as small as possible and avoid detection by a skilled hacker these new pieces of code are large and increasingly rely on being able to remove software that would remove it.

If you modify my system without me requesting it then you've installed a virus on my system. I should be able to call the FBI computer crimes division and get proceedings underway that result in you getting some nice free government accomodations.

We'll show them...

[quizwedge]

Might be fun to slashdot the site for a while to, uh, "thank" them for their generous "gift"

Also, site said to report any problems to help@xupiter.com. How many requests do you think they'll get about the toolbard? :)

What? No Mac version??

[christurkel]

But...but...I want my browser taken over too! We Mac users never any get any of the cool stuff Windows does...::snifff::

This just in

[Bob Abooey]

There is also no word in yet if it will cause cancer or format your hard drive...

There is also no word in yet if it will blast your brain with secret radio waves that will make you submit to secret commands from the government but it's a good idea to always wear your tin-foil hat anyways.

Sheesh...

Re:Sick the Lawyers on Them

[someguy42]

Stuff like this IS probably illegal in the US. However, the company programming this is in Hungary, according to the Wired article. Gonna be fairly tough to put any lawyers against them here. Legislation against this stuff won't do much good either. Foreign countries don't much care what our congress legislates and passes into law.

For a while now

[dachshund]

This little beastie's been around for a while now; when I first got infected with it, most of the removal sites I found on Google were in Asian character sets, so I suppose it was pretty big over there first.

The problem with these damn things is that you never quite know how they got onto your machine. I'm always very careful about what I install, and which dialog boxes I say "OK" to, but there's always the possibility that I accidentally let something slip through. I suppose that's why people aren't 100% sure if it can install itself right from IE without confirmation.

I'm getting increasingly sick of using IE, but I'm constantly running across sites that Mozilla just can't handle properly (or swiftly). And yes, I've cranked up the security level, though god knows why there exists any level of "security" that would allow unconfirmed installs.

A Temporary Fix...

[graphicartist82]

Would be to activate IE's "Disable 3rd Party Extensions" option (In IE6: Tools-> Internet Options-> Advanced -> 12th Option Under the "Browsing" section)..

I was fixing somebody's computer that had this toolbar installed and it would crash IE every time you opened IE (Or tried browsing the web via windows explorer). But once I Disabled 3rd Party Browser Extensions, it worked fine...

Simple tip for IE users

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

Here's an alternative way to use the Security Zones of Internet Explorer to protect you from crap like this.

First, set the "Trusted Sites" zone to the "MEDIUM" level.

THIS MAKES YOUR TRUSTED SITES ZONE THE SAME AS THE NORMAL INTERNET ZONE.

(People seem to flame this idea as a security risk without understanding that last bit)

Then, modify the "Internet Zone" and disable Active Scripting.

Finally, add all your favourite sites to the "Trusted Sites" zone.

You can now enjoy the full functionality of JavaScript etc. on your frequently visited sites including the usual protection of the Internet Zone.

Any site not in the Trusted Sites list cannot use JavasSript and so prevents pop-ups and other nasties such as self installing spy-ware.

Auto-Install

[Foxxz]

I did get this toolbar without clicking yes to anything. I wasn't on xupiter's website. I was browsing and after i was done i closed explorer. When i opened it back up late there was the tool bar. I still dont know where i got it. It took me a while to figure out who it belonged to and how to rid myself of it. I flamed away afterwards.

-Foxxz

Automatic downloads

[Lumpish Scholar]

On my Windows 98 SE box, I now browse with Phoenix almost all the time. I've discovered, though, that some browser downloads Internet Explorer asks me about, Phoenix installs automatically. (Phoenix seems a little too promiscuous about accepting Java, and doesn't remove .class files when it flushes the cache. Check the %WINDIR%/.jpi_cache/ directory structure.)

It's the kind of thing you might expect from a 0.5 release; unfortunately, it's not the kind of thing you should only expect from Microsoft.

Detected by Norton Internet Security

[bfwebster]

My first clue about Xupiter was last night when my NIS alerted me that something called XupiterToolbar was trying to access the net. I blocked it, did a google search on Xupiter, found Spybot S&D, downloaded it, ran it, and found a whole slew of spyware, which I purged.

Time to recheck my security settings. ..bruce..

Self-installing programs are illegal.

[TheRaven64]

In this country (UK) we have something called the 'Computer Missuse Act'. This is a very dull piece of legislation which says (among other things) that using someones computer without their consent is illegal. Any program which runs on your computer without your explicit consent therefore violates this. If you click 'Okay', on the other hand...

Re:This is old news

[jbf]

RTFA: many people find the uninstaller doesn't work. And do you really trust that the uninstaller will remove any spyware they may leave behind? I mean, such a company must have incredibly high moral standards. They wouldn't do anything like leave behind spyware like Kazaa...

Complete uninstall?

[dachshund]

Xupiter has been around for a while. And it's NOT hard to get rid off: http://www.xupiter.com/uninstall That's it. Way to overreact guys.

I don't know about this week's version of the uninstaller, but previous versions were nice enough to leave behind big chunks of the program. Still running. Sort of the way a tick will leave its head behind if you yank it out with tweezers.

This is a pretty common and ugly tactic among spyware developers.

Re:no it won't

[sckeener]

I don't know what you are talking about but Xupiter is known for taking over IE without prompting you.

I just went through 20 minutes of deleting it!

It's a monster

[rudog]

My wife was unfortunate enough to "click through" and victimize herself with this thing. I happened to notice 20-30 different sessions being generated every few minutes through our firewall and started tcpdump to find out what was happening.

After finding that it did indeed have my wife's credit card number/home address/phone number I asked her what she used it for; She said that she didn't know where it came from but that it was causing her laptop to crash about every ten minutes ever since it added itself to her IE toolbar.

I then spent about 3.5 hours hacking the WinME registry trying to peel this thing out of her laptop because it's 'uninstall' doesn't!

Re:It's a monster

[Rich0]

My wife was unfortunate enough to "click through" and victimize herself with this thing.

This is my biggest nightmare at home. I have XP Home Edition - so I figured I finally have a solution to this problem - just make everyone else who uses the system a "limited user" - they finally figured out what unix did 20 years ago.

Nope - turns out half the software out there doesn't run without administrator access. And it isn't just lousy shareware junk either - try running MS Flight Simulator 2002 Professional as a "limited user". So now I need an admin account for the kids to play games - I set up the ground rules as being "don't web browse when logged into the games account", but of course there is no way to enforce that. I have Mozilla installed, so that at least is a start, but IE is still out there, and even with mozilla a computer-illeterate user can download a hostile .exe.

My only solution is to backup reasonably often. Still, I don't backup everything - just data - since it would use gobs of media. So if somebody hoses my system I'll be reinstalling everything - and that is quite a bit of junk - hundreds of megabytes of it having been downloaded from the web (redownloading over a 26k modem link isn't fun either).

If MS would at least code their software to not require admin access I'd be happy... Then again, maybe I should find an old PIII somewhere for the kids to play games on - of course it wouldn't have the GeForce III Ti accellerated graphics...

Re:It's a monster

[liquidsin]

You could probably remove the modem from the 'games' account hardware profile. At least that way they'd have to go into the hardware profiles and re-add it, so it kills the "I'm too lazy to logout of this acct and log back in to surf the web". Just a thought...

Wrong

[Tuxinatorium]

In earlier versions of IE for windows (like the ones that come bundled with windows 98 or ME and maybe 2000) there is a very well-known security flaw that allows malicious code on a website to make the computer download and execute arbitrary files without confirmation from the user. Most people are too stupid to download the updates to fix that vulnerability, so they should blame themselves. But that's how spamware trojans like Xupiter often spread.

And anyway, isn't that the digital equivalent of mugging and rape? I mean they either install the thing on your computer without permission and it totally fucks with everythig, or they trick you into installing it by outright lying about it and not telling you what a piece of shit spamware/spyware TROJAN HORSE it is. Couldn't they easily be sued for fraud and/or hacking people's computers?

Re:Wrong

[0x0d0a]

Even if they copy everything off of your hard drive and send it to their own servers, according to most Slashdotters, that is only copyright infringement (not theft), provided they don't delete anything.

Then those Slashdotters would be wrong. Federal law prohibits unauthorized access to a computer.

Granted, you could argue that running IE and not installing the tons of patches MS has slapped over many of its plethora of holes is "granting authorization" to the remote site, but I don't think a judge's sense of irony would go that far. :-)

Re:Wrong

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

In the situation you describe, not patching is indeed the user's fault, and no one elses.

But let's compare that to reality.

1) Microsoft intentionally markets to consumers that they know are incapable of mildy difficult technical tasks.

2) Microsoft patches are incredibly perverse in their installation procedures, often break other things, and sometimes don't work at all.

3) The sheer volume of Microsoft exploits means that a person would be compelled to spend the great majority of their waking hours applying the damn things, just to keep their head above water.

4) Microsoft hides news of their vulnerabilities in the Labyrinth of their website to the point that a person would be compelled to check a large list of other security websites just to remain aware of what the dangers were.

5) Many of these exploits are the end result of bad coding practices, bad design philosophies and ill-concieved architectures, and not just obtuse, hard-to-recognize bugs that slip through *anyone's* quality control.

6) And while not exactly relevant to this discussion, if I ever see someone dressed up in one of those butterfly costumes, they are DEAD. Literally, I intend to murder them. I'm fairly confident that most juries won't ever convict.

So, taking all this into consideration, the metaphor would be more accurate if this person were drugged/brainwashed from birth, taught that it is only appropriate to be led around in chains 24/7 by strange men, was often sold to the highest bidder, beaten whenever she spoke up, was given no choices or significant decision-making privileges, and then woke up in the strange bed.

It might not be rape exactly, but something horrible did happen, and she is most certainly some type of victim. To ignore all the circumstances leading up to that event, and then claim "she never said No" is absurd beyond the pale.

Re:Wrong

[lessthan0]

"isn't that the digital equivalent of mugging and rape?"

Well, if someone was walking around the Internet, flaunting their IE all over the place, with their security settings half way down to their waist, then weren't they asking for it?

Come on, you know they wanted Xupiter. They wanted it!

Re:Wrong

[Blkdeath]

Even if they copy everything off of your hard drive and send it to their own servers, according to most Slashdotters, that is only copyright infringement (not theft), provided they don't delete anything.

This is why argument by analogy is so maligned here on Slashdot.

The analogy you refer to is most likely the distribution (rights?) of RIAA and/or MPAA sanctioned materials, including music files and movies, correct?

In order to download these, I do not need to violate any individual's privacy. Instead, I download (voluntarily) any number of freely available P2P applications and initiate transfers from people who have willingly configured their software packages to allow me access to a 'shared' portion of their own systems. These people populate this folder with files they have copied, downloaded, or created themselves. The source materials for these transfers were made available to the public by the aforementioned entities, so nobody had to violate their computer systems or physical locations to obtain the source.

There is no subterfuge involved, nor is there any involuntary transfer of otherwise private materials. (Vis, the files, e-mail, and information stored therein on my home PC(s)).

(Note that I am stating no position, pro or con, on the topic of P2P applications or their content, merely discussing your analogy. I don't want to open any further cans of worms).

They are not threatening you, taking your money and/or valuables,
...
IANAL, but if you sue them you might be able to pick up a keen $5000 fine. That figure doesn't include legal expenses, of course.

IANAL either, but I do believe there is legal footing for such a case. The users' computers are made to operate in a mannar in which they were not prepared, or willing to have it operate. Everything from the homepage being changed to software that alters the overall behaviour of the system to software of unknown quantity that opens potential security holes in the system.

The other factor to consider is the costs associated with repairing the system which are quantifiable. For example, if I have to visit a company and purge six office workstations of this software, the company is looking at not only a lost afternoon's work, but also a bill from me for $60/hour for anywhere up to six full hours. That's assuming that a) there are only six infected machines, b) the software is not in any way self-replicating, b) the software is readily removed from the systems, and does not ressurect itself. The other thing I would have to do while on the premeses is update all Windows installations (Windows Update) and all virus software and definitions as preventitive measure, thereby bringing the potential time per workstation up to the full hour mark, if not greater (dial-up would require either a long download, or a return to a broadband connection and CD burner to download the updates manually).

Long story short, since there are quantifiable costs, lost productivity, and damages that can be attributed to software of this type, I do believe suit could be brought against the makers. Based on the installation methods, I do believe fraud charges could also be lain.

Re:no it won't

[0x0d0a]

Even aside from that, why the hell does IE do installations directly from a web page? That's beyond idiotic.

Let's see, we have the technically illiterate on one hand. These people fall prey *far* more to malicious remote-install links than they are benefitted by deliberately remote-installing software. Not benefit to IE's behavior there.

Then we have the technically ept, who are quite able to download, save, and run an installer if they really want to run it. No benefit to IE's behavior there.

Frankly, IE's behavior takes a position of extreme trust of the remote end, which is just plain *stupid* in today's world.

You asked for it!

[Cpt_Kirks]

That's what you get for running IE.

REAL MEN parse the raw html in their heads and just imagine what the pictures are from the tags.

Wimp.

Re:You asked for it!

[aengblom]

REAL MEN parse the raw html in their heads and just imagine what the pictures are from the tags.

Oh GOD, now it's installed there too!

Prevention tactic

[dcavanaugh]

Somewhere along the line, my browser must have been hijacked and I got stuck with this little piece of badware. I used Ad-Aware to detect and destroy, but I got a little creative. I kept the C:\Program Files\Xupiter directory, and set the attribute to read-only. I'm hoping that any future attempted hijackings will result in the installation failing due to the inability to create or write anything into the Xupiter directory.

attrib +r "C:\Program Files\Xupiter"

Re:Question

[Bob Ince]

> Anyone know which P2P one it is?

Grokster.

I don't believe it's in the current distribution, but there's an awful lot of other unsolicited commercial software in it. Grokster and iMesh are competing for the 'most offensively spyware-laden app' prize.

Re:If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

[gillbates]

I agree. But it's interesting to note that if this software had been written by an individual, rather than a corporation, the FBI would already be looking for the culprit. For some reason, corporate misbehavior is below the FBI's radar.

From the article:

It's a browser toolbar that some swear is doing "drive-by downloads" -- installing itself without users' permission -- then taking over their systems and making it impossible to uninstall.

Technically, this is a virus. And IIRC, "unauthorized alteration of a computer system" is punishable by 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.

Re:If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

[demon]

Hm. Sounds suspiciously like a trojan horse to me. Doesn't anyone know the difference anymore?

• A virus attaches itself to other executables, and propagates by having the executable it's attached to run. It can attach to most any executable, or some attach to the boot sector.
• A worm uses networks to attack exploitable services, and propagates that way. It doesn't necessarily require human interaction to spread.
• A trojan horse is a program that's designed to look legitimate, but has some ill intent. It propagates by people running it. It doesn't infect other executables, it depends on people passing it on.

Re:no it won't

[platypus]

Even aside from that, why the hell does IE do installations directly from a web page? That's beyond idiotic

So I guess you dislike mozilla too?

Hint: Google for xpinstall or go to mozdev and install a browser expansion - directroly from the web page.

Re:no it won't

[0x0d0a]

It's not much different than if someone downloads a file to the desktop and decides to double-click on it.

I'd argue that it is. First they have to see a (familiar) file-dialog box pop up. They aren't just hitting "OK" in a box -- they know that they are saving a file somewhere. Even novice users are generally pretty familiar with the file open/save dialog boxes. Second, they have to navigate to their desktop. to save the file. Then they have to click "save", switch to Explorer, and then double-click the icon. Again, double-clicking is a fairly familiar action, and people are aware that yes, they are openin something. So we have many steps, including familiar steps that will tend to clue even a novice Windows user, rather than a single "OK".

Ultimately, the user should read any warning message that pops up, whether it's from IE, your anti-virus software, or from your OS.

Windows users are *innundated* by dialog boxes. Every time they delete a file. A whole slew of them when they install software. Four hours ago, my roommate was using a TV-viewing program that brough up a message box telling him that he'd "enabled option foo" each time he clicked a checkbox in the prefs dialog.

In addition, Javascript can bring up message boxes (idiotically enough, this is enabled by default by MS). So most users (*especially* Internet Explorer users) run into a ton of message boxes while browsing. Yes, perhaps they should go through each dialog box and examine it, but that's very time-consuming. If you read through Apple's Human Interface Guidelines, you'll notice that the *vast* majority of rules for menus and modal dialogs are designed around one single goal -- letting the user *not* have to examine each dialog box once they're familiar with it or boxes in similar software. The point is that Windows users are sick and tired of dialog boxes, and *do not read them* in detail. And they shouldn't *have* to be screwed over if they skim or misread a box when simply web browsing. A Javascript should not be able to take malicious, destructive action just because someone clicked "OK" in one of a series of dialogs that a Javascript popped up. To set up IE to operate this was was irresponsible in the extreme by Microsoft.

This will wreak havoc with end users..

[Necronomicant]

I work for a fairly large tech support / helpdesk outsourcing company. Programs like this are de facto viruses from the point of view of the end user. 90% of the ones that I talk to have no idea what this is or how it works, and no idea how it got installed. I remember talking to this one person who'd had Xupiter installed and their story was "Well we clicked Yes by mistake once...."

I find it hard to believe that it would install itself with everything set to default on a properly updated copy of IE 6.0 SP1. It's much more likely that Xupiter is just betting on people clicking yes to the security warning prompt.

Taken from Xupiter's end user agreement: To further enhance your media viewing experience, Xupiter reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions based on URLs and/or search terms users enter when navigating the Internet. Other enhancements and to allow access, users web browser, start page, search page, auto search option, bookmarks and default error page will be changed, along with the Xupiter accessory toolbar added to the web browser. Active desktop panel will be installed on the users desktop which will enable active desktops on the system for special promotions. Our software license requires that users browser start page be set to Xupiter.com in order to continue use of the Xupiter toolbar, from time to time we verify that users start page url is set to Xupiter.com, if it is not we reserve the right to alter it back.

Great - it enables active desktop too; what fun!

FUI Dialogs?

[davetrainer]

Healan said some installations probably occurred when people clicked "OK" in a pop-up box without really knowing what they had agreed to, or when they meant to close the pop-up window.

Probably because the popup is a fake user interface dialog. How in God's name does even a novice user inadvertently grant permission for a software install when their original intent was to close the window? Or is it common knowledge these days that the X in the top right corner of a dialog box is synonymous with the OK button.

Bonzi is being sued for this, and these scumbags deserve the same.

Re:Sympathy

[Idarubicin]

You know, I should have sympathy for the victims of this, but I don't. The solution is simple; don't use IE!

And the woman who wears provocative clothing is asking to get raped.

What about the poor sods who have to use IE at work? What about technical neophytes? Should nobody be allowed to use a computer until they've studied CS for a couple of years and know who RMS is? I use Opera--quite happily--at home but I'm posting this (unfortunately) from a machine at work with IE, on which another browser is not an option. Educating an employer is often a slow, painful, laborious process. I'm trying, but it takes time.

Ah hah!

[Dannon]

So that's what this Xupiter thing is! I was visiting my family this weekend, and my sister asked me to fix her Win98 computer. IE was crashing every time she started it. I found this set of program files under this "Xupiter" directory and a bunch of load-on-startup registry items referencing them. Most of the files in this directory were locked by some running process, of course. Apparently, this Xupiter was not only self-installing but also Win98-unfriendly. And there was no uninstall program.

Restarted at DOS prompt to delete all the files. Regedit to remove every registry entry containing "Xupiter". After that, everything worked just fine, and I cranked up the security settings before I left.

McAfee's Xupiter Removal Instructions

[Wolfier]

They treat it as a virus.
I followed this on friend's computer and it works.

http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_99904.htm

Basic protections ...

[tjwhaynes]

Hate to break it to you, but Mozilla does do automated installs from web pages. Just head on over to MozDev [mozdev.org] and see for yourself. Many projects, such as OptiMoz and Spellchecker, have automated install links right on the page.

Which only work if a) you actually have software installation enabled in your preferences, b) have write access to the location where mozilla is installed and c) will prompt you BEFORE it installs the software, giving the web server and the package being installed.

Automated installs are extremely useful - it's all a question of finding that balance between ease of use and ease of abuse.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Re:Basic protections ...

[frleong]

Which only work if a) you actually have software installation enabled in your preferences, b) have write access to the location where mozilla is installed and c) will prompt you BEFORE it installs the software, giving the web server and the package being installed.

All of these are also available in IE. You can choose to disable downloading ANY ActiveX control (signed or not) and you'll be fine. That's what I do, after I installed the ActiveX controls I want: QuickTime and Flash.

The basic problem is that it is easy and tempting to press "Yes" to every dialog, whether it is Mozilla or IE.

Already given up

[mao che minh]

My Windows partition is just a big heap of junk, I gave up on it a long time ago. I got me this purple bear that likes to hop at out me when I open the control panel. I got women that skate around on the title bars until I crash. There is some winsys32 process that sends my ICQ password (like I care) to a hotmail account everyday. My Internet Explorer is now more of a "Yahoo!" explorer. I even have these helpful little pop-ups that inform me of terrific new offers in internet gambling and travel - every 30 seconds.

Actually, now that I think about it, my Redhat desktop is kind of boring.....

why are they allowed to do this?

[gabe]

a thirteen year old kid writes a virus that emails itself to everyone in your address book. he's found, caught, sentenced and tossed in jail.

a company comes along and writes a piece of "software" that installs itself on your computer without your knowledge, changes your preferences, watches your every move and reports it back to the marketeers, and digs itself into your system so the only way to get it out is to reinstall your entire computer... (oops, by the way, now that you're using Microsoft products, you may just have to buy a new version due to licensing BS) ... and the worst that happens to the company is some negative press (which, as we all know, bad press is better than no press at all).

so, why the hell isn't the FBI busting these peoples' door down and arresting them? what is the damn difference between what they do and what script kiddies do?

Disclaimer: I am aware that I am exaggerating, are you?

Re:Sympathy

[Peer]

Could we please not all switch to Mozilla. Otherwise it will become commercially intresting to target Mozilla users with this kind of crap.

A few questions answered:

[phorm]

From their "terms" and "privacy policy"

Terms

• The Xupiter software will report back to our servers what applications may be running on your system and will resolve these conflicts whenever possible
• Xupiter has included an auto update ... upgrades may include installation of third party applications
• To further enhance your media viewing experience, Xupiter reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions
• . Our software license requires that users browser start page be set to Xupiter.com

Privacy Policy

• Members agree to review this Privacy Policy from time to time for changes and updates

So yeah, basically the program will pop-up-ad slam you, give away your personal info, install crap software on your PC, and has the ability to change it's "terms" to allow it to do more behind your back.

Re:A few questions answered:

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

My favorite is how ads are "enhancements":
To further enhance your media viewing experience, Xupiter reserves the right to run advertisements and promotions

To further enhance your sensory experience, Xtupider reserves the right to beat you upside the head with a large multi-colored baseball bat.

Re:no it won't

[jaavaaguru]

The Tooth Fairy is known for leaving money in exchange...

Viruses are known for leaving megabytes of junk in Exchange.

Going after Xupiter

[Animats]

Let's see what we can find.

Xupiter claims to be based in Hungary. But it may not be.

First, Xupiter appears to be the same thing as Browserwise. The content of the two sites match, and you can download their malware from either site.

Whois for Browserwise yields:

• BROWSERWISE.COM
• 
  Administrative Contact: Inc., Browserwise, admin@browserwise.com
  Browserwise, Inc
  15445 Ventura Blvd
  Sherman Oaks, California 91413
  United States
  (818)229-5631
  Technical Contact: Inc., Browserwise, admin@browserwise.com
  Browserwise, Inc
  15445 Ventura Blvd
  Sherman Oaks, California 90413
  United States
  (818)229-5631
  Domain servers in listed order:
  NS1.CANDIDHOSTING.COM
  NS2.CANDIDHOSTING.COM

A traceroute on Xupiter isn't particularly helpful, but a traceroute on Browserwise leads to "amateurpornhouse.com", hosted on the same server. The server is thus virtual hosted by name, but if you try it by IP address, you get Browserwise, so Browserwise is the main user of that server. "amateurpornouse" is thus either affiliated with Browserwise, or buys hosting from them.

Whois for "amateurpornhouse.com" yields:

• Registrant:
• 
  SC Enterprises
  P.O. Box 91114
  Henderson, NV 89009
  US
  (702) 224-7750
  
  Domain Name: AMATEURPORNHOUSE.COM
  
  Administrative Contact:
  Phucksum, Jeff webmaster@sexycouple.com
  P.O. Box 91114
  Henderson, NV 89009
  US
  (702) 224-7750
  

So we check Sexycouple's legal page, and find:

• Custodian of records for SC Enterprises: All records required to be maintained by 18 USC 2257 are kept by the custodian of records, Barry Levinson, 2810 South Rainbow Blvd. Las Vegas NV. 89146.

(Presumably this is not the well-known film director Barry Levinson.)

Looking up "SC Enterprises" in Las Vegas, we get

• SC Enterprises
• 
  134 Spinnaker Dr
  Henderson, NV 89015-5639
  Phone: (702) 558-8908
  

Also, DNS for Browserwise is provided by CandidHosting.com, next to the police station in Tampa, FL. They have to know who's behind this, so that's where to start with legal process.

That should be enough to get the lawyers started.