Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Web Browser 'Browzar' Branded Adware
DivineOmega writes "The recently released 'Browzar' web browser, based on the Internet Explorer core, is designed to protect a user's privacy whilst surfing the Internet and be an effective 'throw-away' browser. However many who deal with the removal of malware have flagged this software as malware. From the article: 'The application Browzar has been branded "adware" by many because it directs web searches to online adverts. Some technical experts also say Browzar, which claims to leave no trail of webpages visited, does not work. Browzar's developers say they are examining the feedback but strongly deny that it is adware.'"
How is that ironic?
Just because you don't care doesn't mean others don't care. I found it interesting both times, as I am sure others did. Now if someone asks me or tries to use Browzar as a counter to the Firefox packages that don't leave trails, I can advise them that Browzar might not be all that it claims it is.
Believe it or not, some Slashdot users might even be using Browzar thinking they are safe.
Don't like it? Don't read it.
I'm not sure why this is a YRO story, though.
It's pretty funny how browzar is getting nailed for having ads mixed in with search results. Personally, I'm not too disturbed by this (but it would be nice if they pulled the ads aside). The more concerning part: the "selling point" of the browser is the anonymity and "no trace", which it allegedly fails to accomplish. Talking about false advertising....
Exactly. It's some crappy VB / C++ / .NET wrapper around the IE control. All it can do is set some settings, fire up IE, wipe some settings and hope for the best. It is as vulnerable to spyware, adware, cookies etc. as any other IE-wrapped skin. It is a waste of time to even use the thing since it is snake oil. It is even hard to understand why the thing has garnered ANY attention since IE has been embedded countless times since it appeared as a control.
> Believe it or not, some Slashdot users might even be using Browzar thinking they are safe.
Then they deserve what they get. Anybody who didn't see 'scumware' written all over this the first time it made slashdot isn't cynical enough to survive out in the real world anyway.
Rule 1. No company gives out a free download for Windows that isn't scumware when it first ships or silently turns into scumware the second the company is expected to show a profit. Zero. Even Netscape turned into scumware before it's sad end. If you don't get source, don't trust it, especially if there isn't an upfront charge. Don't trust it even if you pay either. Source availibility is no 100% promise but at least you get a chance.
Rule 2. To a company you are either eyballs to stuff ads in front of, a unique ID to track (and sell) browsing/shopping/purchasing habits for or something to eventually monitize into recurring revenue stream. Nobody just wants to SELL you anything anymore and no company is 'giving' anything away, it is a loss leader, a trojan horse or a 'the first hit is free' free trial.
Democrat delenda est
In Safari, all one has to do is select "Private Browsing" from the "Safari" menu. Why don't all browsers have that?
You must lead a very angry lifestyle...
There are plenty of perfectly good closed-source solutions out there, both paid and free. Unless you're one of the truest of true 'practice what you preach Linux zealots,' chances are that you're using at least one of them. Now exactly how you classify 'scumware' I don't know, we all know there's rarely a true something-for-nothing
To the masses, open source doesn't mean a damn thing. To slashdotters, it means a warm fuzzy feeling but, probably more often than not, nothing more. How much OSS are you using? Probably quite a bit, going by your cynical attitude. I tend to use an OSS solution when it's available in favor of something closed-source, for the principle of it if nothing else. Now the much more important question: how many times have you actually looked through the source code to make sure it's not full of shitware? I know for me, that's one, and that one time was when I was actually coding the thing. People always go on the assumption that OSS is safe simply because the source is available, but it wouldn't be especially hard to slip a trojan of sorts into a fairly mainstream piece of OSS (probably not something as large as Firefox, but of decent install-base anyways) and get thousands of people infected who were counting on the open-ness as a security blanket. Sure, you're screwed if it happens in a closed-source solution, but it would still take someone who knows what to look for and where to look for it (and, most importantly, is actually doing so) to notice something and then spread the word for open-source software.
On the other hand, we've got Google. Everyone with half a brain knows they monitor absolutely everything they can, and want to know as much about us as possible. And they want to profit from the information. But we still use them. Maybe it's because they only want to use the information for their own profits and thus don't just bend over to the government; maybe it's because every other search engine does it too - but does it matter? I use google, everyone I know (except my moronic brother, but he's "special" that way) uses Google, and I'd bet that the majority of slashdotters use them as well.
I've written things out of goodwill, as have plenty of others. Yes, for every one of us, there's probably ten more with bad intentions; that's life. The 'free' community has given me a lot, and I like to give back in some way or another. That doesn't mean that I want to open-source my stuff. Hate me for it all you want, but I'd like to keep my options open - that doesn't mean I'm going to chock my software full of shit for dirty profits. Maybe some people a bit less cynical had assumed that Browzar was just such an example, since they are out there.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
... Browzar's developers say they are examining the feedback but strongly deny that it is adware. ...
If it meets the criteria for spyware: (excerpt)
Five evaluation criteria
Microsoft researchers use the following categories to determine whether to add a program to the definition library for detection, and what classification type, risk level, and recommendation to give it.
Deceptive behaviors. Runs processes or programs on the user's computer without notifying the user and getting the user's consent. Prevents users from controlling the actions taken by the program while it runs on the computer. Prevents users from uninstalling or removing the program.
Privacy. Collects, uses, or communicates the user's personal information and behaviors (such as Web browsing habits) without explicit consent.
Security. Attempts to circumvent or disable the security features on the user's computer, or otherwise compromises the computer's security.
Performance. Undermines performance, reliability, and quality of the user's computing experience with slow computer speed, reduced productivity, or corruption of the operating system.
Industry and consumer opinion. Considers the input from software industry and individual users as a key factor to help identify new behaviors and programs that might present risks to the user's computing experience.
Then it is spyware/adware no matter how strongly the vendor denies it.
Shh.