Slashdot Mirror
eFast Malware Hijacks Browser With Chrome Clone (malwarebytes.org)
An anonymous reader writes with a report at The Stack that: eFast Browser, a new malicious adware which disguises itself as Google Chrome, has hijacked internet users' systems in an apparent effort to serve its own ads and harvest user activity to sell to third-party advertisers. It is able to mirror the aesthetics of Chrome as it uses the same source code, available across the open-source project Chromium. Once installed, eFast places ads across existing web pages, linking to third-party e-commerce sites or other malicious platforms.
Hmmm, "disguises itself as Google Chrome" and "mirror[s] the aesthetics of Chrome".
Sounds like Firefox!
The program appears to be available only for Windows.
LOL, WTF??? So, malware which rips out your browser, puts itself in its place, and then serves you ads and whatever the hell else it does ... and they're asking if it adheres to a damned privacy policy?
Anything which installs itself like that can safely be assumed to not give a flying crap about your damned privacy.
Why the hell they even ponder if something like this follows a privacy policy? It's malware. No, it isn't going to have a privacy policy.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Wait, eFast is using the open source Chromium code to build a browser to serve ads and collect user PII, and that is wrong, but when Google uses the same open source code base to build a browser to serve ads and collect user PII that's great?!?
WTF?!?
windows and macosx users, listen up. GNU/Linux Distributions have a digitally-signed audit trail that goes all the way back to multiply personally-verified GPG key signatures. *NO* malware gets through that process - absolutely none. and the reason why is very simple: anyone who dares to install malware would, by virtue of the GPG-signed audit chain, be tracked back and their reputation so publicly destroyed - forever - that they would never work in the software industry ever again.
not even microsoft or apple, no matter how they try, can replicate this audit trail, because their software installation is (a) not transparent (i.e. not trustworthy) and (b) as those corporations set themselves up as the "single choke-point" they simply don't have the time, the resources or the financial incentive to support *YOU*, the user, when *YOU* want to install some random piece of third party software.
in short, i am sorry to have to inform you that if you run the windows or the macosx operating systems, *despite* the fact that you are perfectly entitled to install 3rd party software [for now, anyway: it's getting harder to do], despite the fact that if you choose not to install 3rd party software your computer would be completely useless - despite all these things being true and perfectly valid, i am sorry to have to inform you that *if* you choose to install 3rd party software, you get everything that you deserve.
people who install GNU/Linux OSes don't do it "because it's fun" or "because they want a challenge of running command-line tools", they do it because they *know* and trust the digital audit trail based on the publicly-verifiable reputation of the 1000+ developers behind each distribution, and, because that trail exists, they can feel that they're safe from malware and spyware when they follow the install procedures that come with their OS.
of course, there are those people - GNU/Linux users - who bypass that process, and perform manual installation of random unverified online packages. such people it has to be said _also_ get what they deserve.
now, we can indeed track the MD5 checksums, and manually check the digital signatures, or even manually build the software ourselves (regardless of the OS), but the inconvenience and complexity of doing so is beyond most people - often myself included: i just cannot be bothered to compile software from source these days unless it's absolutely essential. ... but why put yourself through that?? why are you risking yourself to exposure to privacy violations and data violatinos? i genuinely don't understand why you would do that to yourself. perhaps someone could explain it to me.
Instead of going after those who plant the malware (in this case, the Chrome clone), why not go after those "third party advertisers" and those who place the ads on the hijacked browser?
Going through the SF repository for eFast, I have a name of one Mr. Isarith Mahappu K, of No: 15, Chapel Terrace, Stafford, ST163AH.
Last time I can see that property for sale on the market was 14 Dec, 2007. Odds are it is still owned, probably by this same person.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Can I install the Ask toolbar on it?
love is just extroverted narcissism