Slashdot Mirror


No Honor Among Malware Purveyors

metalion writes "True to the saying 'no honor among thieves,' adware company, Avenue Media, is finding that competing adware company, DirectRevenue, is detecting and deleting their software. Now Avenue Media is crying foul and have filed a lawsuit against DirectRevenue stating that DirectRevenue 'knowingly and with intent to defraud, exceeded its authorized access to users' computers.' DirectRevenue acknowledges that it may uninstall competing applications in its user license agreement. A researcher at Harvard University, Ben Edelman, reasons that 'Once the computer is infected with 10 different unwanted programs, the person is likely to take some action to address the situation.' Just how far will adware companies go to continue to attempt to bombard us with their ads?"

48 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Too funny by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We all have been complaining about malware for years. . .
    Now they are complaining about themselves.
    When does it stop?
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    1. Re:Too funny by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hopefully it will stop with me complaining about you complaining about them complaining about each other.

      -Peter

    2. Re:too funny by Adriax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Makes you wonder who the judge will side with.

      I'm hoping Avenue Media, I make good money removing spyware from people's machines.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:too funny by Zaknafein500 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You and me both. As much as I hate the stuff, spyware has just about made me a mint.

      --

      "The guide is definitive, reality is frequently inaccurate."
    4. Re:Too funny by jc42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... it would give us hope that someone will finally remember that the only winning move is not to play.

      Unfortunately, the effect of this was demoed nearly a decade ago, by none other than Microsoft, who has never been punished for their actions.

      When the first version of Windows Media Player came out, all the reviewers reported that after they'd tested it, they found all their other audio software was dead and had to be re-installed. And if they left any piece of WMP in their machine, any time it ran, all the non-MS audio software would again die and you'd have to reinstall it.

      My wife found out about this the hard way. She had some nice audio software. Then she installed some financial software (not from Microsoft). It silently installed WMP as a "bonus". All her quality audio software was broken. She reinstalled, but eventually gave up, because neither of us could figure out how to uninstall WMP. And it eventually developed an even more annoying behavior: When you started upsome audio using a high-quality player, WMP would start up in parallel. The two renditions would both come out of the speakers, out of sync by a couple seconds.

      She's now a very happy Mac user. She gave me her Windows box, and it's mostly turned off, except when I need to test something (mostly web pages) against Windows software.

      Anyway, in such cases "not to play" means you don't even try to sell your software to Windows users. It doesn't matter whether you were a good guy and cooperated with the others. WMP will kill you anyway.

      I know a number of audio-software developers who have become rather depressed by this. They can get put on MS's "good guys" list, of course, by selling the control of their software to MS. But they seem to have this silly idea that they should be able to build and sell their own software.

      There's really no reason that the spy/malware folks should ever stop shooting down other software. The only real solution is to keep their software out entirely. Or maybe jail them. I wouldn't think you'd need any new laws. Vandalism is already illegal everywhere. But such laws aren't enforced for software.

      I wonder if a vandalism charge could be successful against WMP?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  2. This is great!! by Tetsugaku-San · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe they will destroy each other in an orgy of program deletion :D Neverthought spyware would be spyware removal . . . . .

  3. Spyware filing a lawsuit? by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reminds me of the stories of people calling the police because someone stole their weed.

  4. Firmware ADS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    " Just how far will adware companies go to continue to attempt to bombard us with their ads?""

    When ads are burned into BIOSes.

    1. Re:Firmware ADS. by Computerguy5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Already been done. IIRC, there was a public outcry and they gave the user an option to disable the 'feature.'

  5. How far will they go? by sczimme · · Score: 4, Funny


    Just how far will adware companies go to continue to attempt to bombard us with their ads?

    A) As far as they think they need to go
    B) As far as they are allowed to go and remain on the right side of the law
    C) As far as they need to go despite the law
    D) All of the above
    E) Profit?
    F) CowboyNeal

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  6. a pit by gotem · · Score: 5, Funny

    great idea, put all the malware to fight, and the survivor gets to be deleted by spybot.
    More fun than core wars

  7. fight amongst yourselves by Se7enLC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now if only we could make these malware programs only target other malware programs and not the operation of the PC...

    We could have a little battlebots competition! The Amazing Bonzi takes on reigning champion THE GATOR.

  8. Hopefully they sue themselves out of business by Soulfarmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That way, competition would again benefit us, the regular consumer.

    Personally, ad/malware is one of the rare reasons I would encourage less strict weapon laws... :)

    --
    -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
  9. If they succed . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they succed with the lawsuit against DirectRevenu , what does that mean for software like ad-aware?

    1. Re:If they succed . . . by GauteL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing. Ad-Aware's advertised main function is to remove adware.

      This lawsuit is about some adware going outside the boundaries of their advertised function, and removing other adware and only telling the users by the fine print of the EULA.

    2. Re:If they succed . . . by ahodgson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jury nullification is considered one of the defenses against a bad law, and one of the reasons you are guaranteed a jury trial. Juries can and should return not-guilty verdicts in cases where they feel the law is a bad thing.

  10. Sometimes... by Ev0lution · · Score: 4, Funny
    Now Avenue Media is crying foul and have filed a lawsuit against DirectRevenue

    Sometimes you just wish that both sides can lose...

  11. Familiar... by which+way+is+up · · Score: 4, Funny

    Two programs fighting for dominance on my computer? Brings me back to my AOL on Windows days.

  12. Re:Now here's an idea by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We should require by law that when a spyware application installs itself, it must uninstall another spyware application without damaging the host system, and further that it put itself into add/remove programs.
    Just because it is listed in Add/Remove Software doesn't mean it is removed entirely.

  13. I hope the plaintif prevails by Total_Wimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope they win the lawsuit. If they were to get the courts to agree that hiding malicious wording in the EULA is fraud then that would be a nice boon to shutting some of these people down.

    In fact, just about any attack on the concept of click-through EULAs is pretty good in my book. Scream "contract!" all you want, they're bad for me personally and bad for the industry. Consent and informed consent are two different things and it appears the industry has completely abandonded any pretext of the latter.

    TW

    1. Re:I hope the plaintif prevails by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the reason that EULAs get away with that nonsense is that people are used to just clicking on them and the general impression is that they aren't terribly legally binding.

      Imagine that whenever you went to the grocery store you were handed a 12 page contract at the checkouts - every time. Imagine that you had to sign a 27 page document every time you bought gas. Imagine having your babysitter and yourself exchange 107 page contracts every time you went out to dinner.

      Contracts are great for their intended purpose - outlining rights and responsiblities in major transactions (your house, your car). They work best when you're talking about tangible things, or clearly defined services. Things are already getting murky when you start talking employment contracts and non-disclosure agreements. The standard we-can-kill-your-entire-family-and-you-can't-sue-u s things you get at the ski slopes are highly questionable.

      What is the point in having all these one-sided contracts for every possible action under the sun?

      Perhaps there should be a law that all contracts are reviewed for fairness by a state attourney. There would be a fee of about $100 for every contract that is executed - this can be split by the parties however they feel is fair. Something like this wouldn't be a big deal for a house sale (gosh, most areas charge 1% plus a bundle of other fees). On the other hand, if MS had to send the state $100 for every windows installation, they'd think twice about those contracts. Ditto for the million other documents that serve no purpose.

      Standard forms of business that have standard disclaimers should be covered by state law - such as a law stating what ski-lift operators are and are not responsible for. If they want to use a non-standard set of disclaimers, fine, but fork over $100 per customer. The state bears all the litigation costs when the contract is disputed - this lets them approve the contract before there is anything to argue over.

      I wonder if a concept like this could actually work?

    2. Re:I hope the plaintif prevails by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IANAL, but the easiest defence to this lawsuit is to prove that the plantif has been deceiving users into installing their software, and have been doing illegal activities.

      Of course that also might incriminate the defendant. But you can't sue for damages over an illegal activity.

      Let's hope they get a judge who's had a computer taken over by spyware / adware...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:I hope the plaintif prevails by MrResistor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The EULA is pivotal. Because of their EULA Direct Revenue can say they removed AvenueMedia's software with the users consent. For AvenueMedia to have a leg to stand on, they first have to prove that click-through EULAs aren't valid. Otherwise, Direct Revenue has a strong arguement that their software is just doing what the user told it to.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  14. Mr. Kettle's comments upon Mr. Pot's reflectivitiy by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...knowingly and with intent to defraud, exceeded its authorized access to users' computers.

    Mr. Kettle, a question upon your comments about Mr. Pot's absense of reflectivity to EM radiation between 680nm and 430nm....

    Really, doesn't ALL adware exceed authorize access to user's computers?

  15. Hard to get excited... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's nice to think that at least one adware purveyor is going to be inconvenienced by this little tussle, but it's not so uplifting when you consider that the choice of winners is "adware company #1", "adware company #2", or "lawyers who represent adware companies".

  16. Not so great... by Ayaress · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd like nothing better than to see two spyware companies destroy one another in a glorious battle to the death, but I'd much rather they NOT do it on MY harddrive.

  17. Exceeded its authorized access? by ClubStew · · Score: 4, Insightful
    exceeded its authorized access to users' computers

    And is my mom and other not-so-savvy users granting said authority in the first place? This suit seems riddled with assumptions that it was legal in the first place to install such software.

    And since when has malware displayed any EULA - or any UI, for that matter?

  18. Re:Now here's an idea by danheskett · · Score: 3, Funny

    That'd be great! This is the very last law we need to pass, and then the problem of untrustworthy software, vendors, and tactics will be solved!

    Great! I am going to write my congressman and tell him to get busy writing the "Penultimate Fix for Unethical Software bill.

    Once Congress gets involved the problem will be solved within 6 months!

  19. Playing CoreWars the Internet... by mikael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wondered how long we would have to wait for this to happen. I always imagined it would be university students or black-hats. I never imagined it would be spammers/spyware authors trying to kill each other's programs.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  20. After removing competitors, DR transmits ... by bedelman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Perhaps also of interest:

    After DirectRevenue removes competitors' programs from users' disks, it also transmits extensive information about users' computers. Among the information: MAC address, Windows Product ID, all running tasks, and registry entrise for certain additional competitors (Gator, 180solutions) and removal programs (Ad-Aware, PestPatrol) if installed.

  21. Re:Well... by vettemph · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Maybe then people will take some action against these bullshit programs.

    We have, It's called Linux.

    Mozilla is the key along with a system that is better suited to internet attachment.

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  22. Cool! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny
    We may be witnessing the establishment of an entirely new biome with its own form of species and evolution.

    What spyware writers need to do now is add the following features to their code:
    • Random mutations
    • Breeding and crossover with other spyware programs so that chunks of similar malicious code are exchanged
    • A fitness evaluation function
    The fitness evaluation should take into account:
    • A penalty for network infrastructure damage
    • Number of competing spyware programs "eaten" by an individual
    • Number of idiots knocked off the Internet
    1. Re:Cool! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately, we don't get to pick an arbitrary fitness evaluation. If spyware does damage to our network infrastructure, and yet delivers the most advertising, spamming and phishing revenue, it is fit as spyware.

      Actually it only needs to deliver advertising/spamming/phishing revenue. If it hitches a ride on a worm, that would make it even more fit.
      Damage to the network is a "neutral" trait until it starts to interfere with spyware downloads.

  23. Perhaps they should sue their customers by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clearly, its the customer who is giving the other application permission to uninstall the exisitng malware. The vendors of the other application have no influence or stake in the agreement between the exisitng malware authors and the user. The only party that can breach the agreement is the user.

    So, the users should be punished for violating the copyright on the software they didn't want in the first place, and was installed without their knowledge.

  24. I don't expect this kind of... by bob670 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    thing to be an easy answer to home users, but someone has to explain to me why corporate customers continue to tolerate this stuff that is directly targeted at Windows weak spots? It would be tough, and damn unlikely to get mom, pop and granny off of their Windows XP machines, but I have several customers who spend all day in Office, e-mail and the web for all of their business and I make a steady buck doing spyware removal. And they dont' want to talk prevention, every meeting ends with "well, we just won't allow employees to install things like this any longer" and 2 months later I get a call to come back.

    Barring use of some Windows based Spyware prevention tools (most of which aren't free for corporate use), mirgating to some combination of Mac OS X and Linux would end virtually all of this and then I could charge them for stuff like implementing cool new tools for them to use instead of upkeep of a broken system. Of course, these are the same customers who won't try FireFox because it "just doesn't feel right"???

    I'm truly torn between my ethics and the need to keep up my income in a crap economy.

  25. Advertisers in general are going insane by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'd submitted this gem to /., but they obviously felt it wasn't news.

    A lady in El Paso gets a telemarketing call. She says no, repeatedly. Telemarketer ignores her, repeatedly. She hangs up, forcefully.

    She later gets a letter saying:

    Jill Beyer,

    Before you are rude to another telemarketer, you should keep in mind that he or she has your phone number and your address.

    Many of them live in your own state and most don't give a (expletive)!

    So, Ms. Beyer, the next time a telemarketer calls and you don't want to be bothered, a simple "not interested" will do.

    Your son or daughter or next-door neighbor's daughter could very well be a telemarketer. A handicapped, wheelchair-bound person could be a telemarketer. A biker or ex-con is more likely to be a telemarketer. You really, really shouldn't (expletive) with them!

    As they say in the telemarketing industry, "Have a good day Ms. Beyer!"


    So, we have:
    • Television stations prohibiting us from recording shows (via the broadcast bit)
    • TV execs saying "skipping commercials is theft"
    • Telemarketers threatening those who will not listen to their pitches.
    • Adware companies fighting over who can infest your computer.
    • Drive-by installs of adware


    OK, I move that we commit all advertisers to institutions for the criminally insane, right now.

    Any seconds?
    1. Re:Advertisers in general are going insane by eric76 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I used to like to have fun with the sales men/women.

      One time this one lady called and the conversation went like this:

      Woman: Good afternoon. May I speak to Mrs eric76?
      Me: No.
      Woman: Why not?
      Me: She's being punished and isn't allowed to speak to anyone for another week.
      Woman (in a rather cautious voice): Oh! I see.

      and then she hung up.

      Another time I told a telemarketer that Mrs eric76 was busy screwing one of the neighbors.

      My favorite was a woman from San Antonio that called for some kind of radio survey. I tried to see how long I could talk to her on the telephone and about anything but radio.

      Every time she tried to ask me about radio stations in my area, I'd ask her a question about San Antonio.

      Not only did I ask her about restraunts, I asked her about several friends of mine who lived in or near San Antonio. It turned out that she had never met any of them!

  26. Re:Now here's an idea by kahei · · Score: 4, Funny


    Wait, I have a better idea... don't do that first bit and go straight to shooting the bastards!

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  27. Re:When it will stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    A RL parasite is benign to the host.

    Not quite. A parasite, by definiton, is an organism that harms its host. According to something I read a long time ago, there are three types of cohabitating organisms. A parasite harms its host, a symbiont benefits its host, and a commensal neither harms nor helps its host. It's the last one you were thinking of.

  28. More defensive stance for malware by hoyty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In trying to clean a laptop yesterday I used Ad-Aware SE. At the end of its scanning process it allows you to select what to remove. When I got to this point one of the malwares took control of Ad-Aware quickly and added itself to the ignore list. I found this quite amazing. Part of the ignore was some of CWS, but there were other things there as well. I was able to scan again and remove the ignores. This new trend is mildly disturbing.

    --
    Hoyty
  29. Re:Well... by saider · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Windows itself isn't too bad if you are behind a firewall. I have several WinXP machines behind a simple NAT firewall and I have never had a problem. Simply keep it patched, Substitute IE/Outlook/Office for Mozilla/OpenOffice.org and you are good to go.

    I have been running this for 3 years and every time I run a virus scan, it always comes back negative. It's nice because I don't need to pay the Symantec-McAffee tax every year. People always ask me whay virus program I use and they are very puzzled when I say "I don't need one".

    Mozilla/OpenOffice need a retail box to put on the shelves in the antivirus section at BestCircuitDepotUSA, along with a little common sense about Internet useage on the back of the box.

    --


    Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  30. Re:May I be the first by CTalkobt · · Score: 3, Funny

    >> Or 32nd as the case may be, to say:
    >> Serves the fuckers right

    Geesh. I was about to mark you as redundant before I posted this but then realized that you're claiming to be the 32nd one to post it, not the 1st.

    *goes off looking for another person claiming to be the 32nd poster of Servers the **** right so he can mark them*

    Wait, I posted.

    Drat. Darnit. (^&(^*&^*

    Mark me up/down according to your sense of humour.

    --
    There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
  31. Re:When it will stop. by Bertie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not benign - there's nothing much benign about malaria, for instance. It's not about not affecting your host, it's about not killing it, and that's true of malware as much as it is of a biological parasite.

  32. Why, what's wrong with ads? by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In about 1995 I worked for a telemarketer. Yeah, I know. Anyway, I sat in a meeting once with some people from a trendy ad agency. They said one of the best ways to market things on the Internet was to visit newsgroups and message boards (what we now call blogs), and ask a question as one user, then provide the answer as another. The answer, of course, would advertize Our Fine Product.

    I told them that was lying, and that it was wrong. They looked at me blankly. I may as well have been speaking Latin. I then explained a bit about Internete culture, and the negative feedback of spamming newsgroups. That, they could comprehend, but they didn't think I knew what I was talking about. Their model worked - and it wasn't lying, it was just business.

    The mindset of people who spam, sell banner ads, use covert marketing, and advertize on Channel One is (to overgeneralize): whatever it takes to make money.

    It doesn't matter what is "right" or "wrong" - rightness and wrongness are a matter of degree, and that degree is measured by a cost-benefit equation. If the

    (likely revenue) > X% + sum of (potential costs * likelihood of each)

    that's good and "right", otherwise it's bad and "wrong". 'X' represents the amount of margin you could make off some other investment.

    The thing that distinguishes telemarketers and spammers is that negative feedback from non-customers doesn't bother them.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  33. I don't know about the rest of you.. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but this just made my christmas! Since Santa seems to think I have been a good boy, I have a few more things to ask for...

    1) A video tape of rival gangs of spammers getting in knife fights over ISP bandwith 'turf'.

    2) Microsoft's Yakuzza getting irritated with SCO's failures to bring down Linux, and doing drive-bys shootings to the board menbers.

    3) George Bush Jr. getting in a sissy slap-fight with John Ashcroft over the pronunciation of the word 'Nucular'.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  34. Re:Honor among thieves by tootlemonde · · Score: 3, Informative

    I thought that there *was* honor among thieves...

    The correct phrase is "There is honor even among thieves", apparently first recorded in 1630. Also, "Thieves are never rogues among themselves."

    There's an authoritative discussion here. (The ODEP mentioned is the Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs).

  35. Actually, this brings to light a larger question.. by Ratphace · · Score: 4, Insightful


    ...and that question is just how binding is a company allowed to make its EULA?

    I think all the EULA's are out of control as to how much control and ownership these companies have over your PC and what right's we as owners of the PC should have reserved.

    I keep hoping someday, someone, somewhere will really bring all these EULA's that we are all subjected to each and everytime we install something, under a microscope and start really questioning the legality of said EULA's.

    Just my 2 cents...

  36. Re:Well... by brkello · · Score: 3, Interesting

    True, it is more tricky than some programs to remove, but if you are able to figure out how to set up Linux, you are certainly smart enough to go google on how to remove it from start up. I don't really understand your concept of a firewall. Make it so tight that you can't even get on Internet? What kind of piss poor firewall are you using. Most firewalls allow you to block based on application. The notice pops up that messenger is trying to access the net, you say deny, tell it to remember that setting, you are done. Amazing, I still have Internet access.

    As far as never knowing because Windows is proprietary...that's a load of bullshit too. Stick a sniffer in between your box and the net. An old PC with Linux and ethereal installed will do. Watch the traffic. There is no way that they can hide anything proprietary or open source. So when was the last time you read through the whole kernel to make sure it was doing what you expected it to do?

    --
    Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com