Slashdot Mirror


Popular Chrome Extension Sold To New Dev Who Immediately Turns It Into Adware (bleepingcomputer.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A company is going around buying abandoned Chrome extensions from their original developers and converting these add-ons into adware. The latest case is the Particle for YouTube Chrome extension, a simple tool that allows users to change the UI and behavior of some of YouTube's standard features. Because Google was planning major changes to YouTube's UI, the extension's original author decided to retire it and create a new one. This is when the a mysterious company approached the original author and offered to buy the extension from him for a price of his choosing. The original dev says he gave them a high price, but the company agreed to pay right away, but only after the dev signed an non-disclosure agreement preventing him from talking about the company or the transaction. Soon after the sale, the company issued an update that included code for injecting rogue ads on websites such as Google, Yahoo, Bing, Amazon, eBay, and Booking.com. Users also found other Chrome extensions that were also bought by the same company and had also been turned into adware, such as "Typewriter Sounds" and "Twitch Mini Player." According to some other Chrome extension devs, there are many companies willing to pay large sums of money for taking over legitimate Chrome extensions.

187 comments

  1. Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Popular website gets sold to new owners, who proceed to add even more ads to the website while decreasing the quality of stories that are posted.

    1. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would add that for the past 3 -4 months, the top banner is so invasive as to cover a third of the content, even when I scroll down. Ads on /. are getting annoying to the point that the site looks more like a giant advert than a geek site.

    2. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Known+Nutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://pi-hole.net/

      Run it in a VM if necessary.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    3. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you kind sir for sharing. Those guys will get what they deserve--a donation!

    4. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Great code. The devs have a great attitude. I donated. (Even received a thank you note.)

    5. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The top ad is annoying, but the side ad (and possibly JavaScript to keep it and the list of replies I have in the window) messes up scrolling for me. I need to right-click and have Chrome remove the content on every page load just to read Slashdot.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Informative

      When the banner ad showed up, I mentioned that my adblocker didn't work on it. Someone suggested uBlock Origin, which is what I now use. No ads anywhere.

      Looking at the uBlock icon above, it is blocking 11 items on this page. A couple days ago, one site had over 100 items blocked, with a few more new things being blocked every few seconds. I closed the tab soon after I finished reading the news item, and the count was about 170.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by johanw · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean you don't use an adblocker? Then you deserve what you get.

    8. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preach, brother, preach!

    9. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Installed this on a rasberrypi on my network a few months ago. Works like a charm. Protip: use it to blacklist & kill all microsoft telemetry.

    10. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Those guys will get what they deserve

      A wall of almost-English text from APK about how his solution is superior?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here are the uBlock filters I have for Slashdot:

      slashdot.org##article:not([data-fhtype])
      slashdot.org##iframe

    12. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have that extension!

    13. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      adblock plus is blocking a full 16 items for me... 16 > 11, fwiw.

    14. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by rpavlicek · · Score: 1

      Privoxy (https://www.privoxy.org/) works pretty well too -- especially for /.

    15. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by bettodavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sadly, more and more sites have adblocker detectors, and pester you about whitelisting them or plainly refuse to show their content.

    16. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean you don't use an adblocker?

      No, I don't, because I know that /. is supported by nothing but ad revenue, and if I want it to continue the owners have to make money to pay for their costs and hopefully make a little profit. It would be extremely selfish of me to deprive them of their revenue source while making use of their resources.

      Then you deserve what you get.

      If everybody uses ad-blockers, what we're all going to get is one giant paywall.

    17. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I don't, because I know that /. is supported by nothing but ad revenue

      That is their choice. There used to be a perfectly good and functioning monthly subscription setup and for whatever reasons it was removed and shut down.

      Plus many of us are opposed to the idea of paying for the privileged of having our computers hacked and turned into botnets my malicious ads.
      Not that I'm accusing /. of having that happen yet, but it's happened on plenty of other websites, some with a larger user base than /. is currently.

    18. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      I've noticed a fair chunk of Javascript lately, is used to open|create websockets, and when a piece of that fails, due to inline-script block or similar, it causes the ad-block counters to run off the charts. Except when the websocket wasn't blocked? Firefox climed to 8GB of Ram in less than 30 mins.

    19. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by caseih · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my experiences, sites that do that don't really have anything of value for me to see anyway, so I just go away. If I think I really want to see the page, I'll disable javascript and 90% of the time the content loads fine. Often when I do that I wouldn't have missed much if I'd just closed the tab and gone on my way.

    20. Re: Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the site got paywalled, 95% of us would leave immediately and then the other 5% would fall off as the free tricks wore off.

      Soylentnews.org is an option held back only by fewer comments. It is not like Slashdot is doing a lot of hard hitting tech journalism. 99% of it is reposts of other sites. At the end of the day, the core asset is a comment system, the users are fungible and flighty.

    21. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by caseih · · Score: 2

      That's why I also run ghostery (no I don't have it log in to their cloud). Slashdot has on average about 8 unnecessary javascript trackers on any given page.

    22. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 13 entire domains being blocked on this page right now. I typed in slashdot.org. Only slashdot.org has authorization to run code on my system. Anything else gets blocked.

      Fuck you and your CFAA violating, assholes. I hope the CFAA is finally enforced and the site owners thrown in prison. Just because someone visits your domain does not give you the right and authorization to run code from over a dozen more.

    23. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by tquasar · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen ads since the stoned ages. I don't mean The Flintstones.

    24. Re: Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the internet is eating its tail.

    25. Re: Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the internet is eating its tail.

      Good, because it has sucked balls for the last 5 years or so.

    26. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

      Aye, but uMatrix with just a handful of default rules blocks 99%+ of what Ghostery & uBlock do.

      * * * block
      * * css allow
      * * frame block
      * * image allow
      * 1st-party * allow
      * 1st-party frame allow

      #Allow rules so stuff works, AND
      #If /. still used google or amazon ads, then I would still see some ads here.

      slashdot.org * cookie block
      slashdot.org * css inherit
      slashdot.org * image inherit
      slashdot.org fsdn.com * allow
      slashdot.org rpxnow.com * allow
      slashdot.org slashcdn.com * allow
      slashdot.org slashdot.org cookie allow
      slashdot.org slashdotmedia.com * allow
      slashdot.org doubleclick.net * allow
      slashdot.org doubleclick.net frame allow
      slashdot.org google.com * allow
      slashdot.org google.com frame allow
      slashdot.org googleads.g.doubleclick.net frame allow
      slashdot.org googleadservices.com * allow
      slashdot.org s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com * allow

    27. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      Either way they get no ad revenue from me, one way they drive me to an alternative, one way they don't.

    28. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Ads on slashdot? Never see them. Let my fire up my adblock/noscript free browser instance and see what Slashdot really looks like. Just a few seconds here...
      Nope. Not seeing it. There's a small two line long advert at the top in beige and no images., it's no thicker than the normal headline+post details. There is all the stuff on the left but it's not hiding any text, and the majority vanished once I logged in.

    29. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your ethics won't let you block ads. My ethics won't let me allow ads. Because if someone pays Slashdot for showing me an ad, they just got ripped off by Slashdot. I'm not going to buy anything because of the ad, and I don't want to be a party to such fraud.

    30. Re: Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are certainly people who won't tolerate any ads, but most people understand they're a source of revenue for sites to pay the bills. However, I think most people wouldn't complain about a JPEG or an animated GIF that didn't load Javascript and wasn't pushing out or hiding malicious content. The problem is the ridiculous amount of scripts and trackers, many of which do push out malicious content to users. I personally have encountered malicious ads on this site, redirecting me to install bogus software updates.

      I think most of us would accept subscriptions that provided extra features and removed ads, which is exactly what Slashdot once had. Although Slashdot has never been a top notch source of journalism, it was a good place for nerds to discuss technology and other nerdy stuff. Although Malda and many of his friends and colleagues earned a salary from the site, they were also nerds who actually cared about the site. People like Taco, Hemos, and CowboyNeal started this as a hobby, which just happened to take off. Unfortunately, Slashdot is no longer someone's hobby. Although it's long been an asset for a company to own, since the days of Andover.net, that's all it is now.

      I remember when Slashdot went from one banner ad at the top of the page to larger ads on story pages between the summary and comments. Malda was apologetic about adding larger ads, despite them generally being applicable to the Slashdot audience and not being intrusive at all by today's standards. Users understood this was necessary for them to pay the bills, and there wasn't a lot of backlash. That's totally different from unapologetically loading up the site with loads of trackers and ads, then insulting users who complain about it.

    31. Re: Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone doesn't know what slashdot is. There never were any journalists here. This site has always been here to repost user submitted articles for discussion.

    32. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't privoxy unmaintained? I'd hate to know what bugs lurk in that if true, if not was there a point where development stalled or looked dead?

    33. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree totally. Even on mobile.. you know you want to see an ad that is full screen left to right and then some... championing the newest Airbus offering. Makes sense we can all afford one right? =P

    34. Re: Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have had the experience of blocking javascript on sites disabling a paywall. My general rule is to only whitelist sites in NoScript that absolutely require it. If features on a site are broken by javascript blocking I may unblock them. If additional domains still neen unblocking I evaluate if I even need to read that page.

      When "web developers" break a page with unecessaty scripting it's not my job to fix it to make it viewable.

    35. Re: Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the internet is eating its tail.

      The one between its legs.

    36. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Immerman · · Score: 1, Funny

      If they get no ad revenue from you, why should they care if they drive you away or not? You're just a freeloader adding to their overhead costs. (I say without having bothered to look at your posting history - maybe you're actually a valuable contributor whose posts help keep the ad-watching audience interested. But given the ever-declining comment quality here, that's not the way to bet for any particular freeloader.)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    37. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      Yeah it's up to them whether the minuscule cost of me visiting X without seeing ads is worth the fact that if I'm not citing or linking X to my friends and so on, I will in fact be linking, recommending, and citing Y instead. I say let the market decide which is worth more. *shrug*

    38. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by John+Bodin · · Score: 1

      I just realized that at work where I don't log into /. I have never seen one of those 1/3 screen adds appear, only here at home where I am logged in. No there is no ad blockers at work, hell their IT is lax with some security methods or lack there of.

      --
      John
    39. Re: Sounds like Slashdot by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2

      We had Katz for awhile. I hope he wasn't getting paid though.

    40. Re: Sounds like Slashdot by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      When you close a browser tab on Slashdot there is even a spinner widget of some sort at the screen bottom now, so the scripting even responds to the user manually closing a tab. That's a little eerie because I specifically close a tab to not iteract with a page anymore. It's not as bad as pages that throw pleading popups when you try to close, of course.

    41. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Thank you so much for sharing! Sent a donation their way.

    42. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice ad for uBlock. Many of the popular ad blocking software products use the same format for their blacklists. All you had to do was open your plugin's settings and click a checkbox to include one of the other block lists. There was no need to switch.

    43. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those sites are funny. Most still work if you stop page load after content loads. Plus they end up serving extra requests after ADD onload moments.

    44. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      No need, except for the fact that the one I used didn't get rid of the banner ad. It made it go away only until I refreshed the page, or went to another story. Then the ad banner was back. So someone recommended uBlock, and that's what I switched to.

      You can consider my post an ad if you want. I don't care.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    45. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by UnixUnix · · Score: 1

      Indeed many sites throw a screen-sized remove-adblock message at you covering up content. Most can be handled though, e.g. in Chrome go into Inspect [ Ctrl-Shift-I , "Elements"], easily identify the offending element (auto highlights), right click - Delete element, and reload page. Takes a few seconds. The armies of evil will have to attack us with something more complex.

    46. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by mindwhip · · Score: 1

      When I started reading /. (which is about a year before I first created this account) I was happy to exclude it in adblock as the advertising was mostly on target and not intrusive. About 6 months ago I reversed this situation so for this user at least the increase in advertising will mean LESS revenue.

      Good job.

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    47. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, blocking ads, beacons and malicious or superficial scripts and having good security on my PC is more important than the contents of any web site. If shit breaks, it's the fault of the site.

    48. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, maybe what we will get is what we had *before* all the free sights got driven out by people trying to make a buck with ads.

    49. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. My website has no ads and no paywall. It costs peanuts to operate, so why bother? If the web were populated solely by sites like mine that'd be just fine by me.

    50. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's strange. What one were you using?

    51. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I was using the standard AdBlock when /. started that banner. I think I tried Adblock Plus as well, since I use that on some systems.

      I could get the ad and the banner element to go away, but it returned after restarting the browser. I actually posted a message here on /. about it, saying I would stop visiting if I couldn't resolve that, and someone suggested uBlock Origin. Once installed, I told it to remove the banner ad, and I haven't seen it since.

      Now that I think back, there was a side column ad, either here on /. or on another site, that behaved similarly. Could be removed, but just returned again. That also was fixed by uBlock.

      Thanks for the response. Have a fun week.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    52. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by strikethree · · Score: 1

      If everybody uses ad-blockers, what we're all going to get is one giant paywall.

      That is fine.

      The price is too high (losing control of my hardware/software), so that means no commerce at all.

      That is fine with me. I do not need them but they do need my money or some way to monetize me. They will die and I will live. Am I supposed to cry?

      Perhaps if they lowered their price we would do business of some sort but they want it all and will not compromise. Fine. Die.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    53. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by strikethree · · Score: 1

      When the banner ad showed up, I mentioned that my adblocker didn't work on it. Someone suggested uBlock Origin, which is what I now use. No ads anywhere.

      I just use noscript. I am not allergic to advertising or anything and would love to support Slashdot and similar sites by not blocking their ads... so I do not block their ads.

      But I will burn in hell before I allow anyone to run a script on my computer.

      Since I do not allow scripts and the advertisers are not satisfied without using scripts to control my "experience", I do not see any ads.

      On another note, I visited Slashdot the other day on a browser without noscript... Holy SHIT! The site is unreadable. It reminds me of a 48 year old whore with makeup caked on and smothered in perfume. Just wow. I am surprised this site is still alive. Is everyone else running noscript too or are you all willing to suffer the abuse to read this site?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    54. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I don't mind ads if they are unobtrusive. Want to put in a banner ad and a sidebar ad? Fine. I consider the minor annoyance worth it if it brings the site enough revenue to continue to function. However, if the ad floods the entire top half of the screen and/or interferes with scrolling in an effort to keep the ad on screen, then that's too much.

      I'm actually considering getting an ad blocker and only setting it for ads that cause issues like these.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    55. Re:Sounds like Slashdot by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I just looked at slashdot with Internet Explorer, and you're right. It's crazy with shit. I wouldn't mind seeing the weekly poll under my usual Chrome view of the site, or "This day in history". But if it is in a frame with a ton of ads, it's gone.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  2. Missed opportunity by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Funny

    Crap. Something told me I should have written some stupid, pointless yet viral Chrome extension a year ago.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Missed opportunity by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      Gotta hand it to them, this is lemonade from lemons no?

    2. Re:Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did. It paid for a family vacation, and I have no idea what they did with it.

    3. Re:Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played, then. Consider this a high five. o/
       
      And today's captcha is "convert"

    4. Re:Missed opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's still plenty of time to cash in. firefox users will soon be forced to enjoy the polluted waters of chrome extensions. yea, there's a few bad ones on AMO but google's store? holy fuck. you might as well play real life frogger on chicago area highways.. it's safer.

      R.I.P. firefox. it's been a hell of a run. off to seamonkey til they fuck that one up too.

    5. Re: Missed opportunity by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Is it too late? I suppose you need to make it interesting enough that people will install it.

  3. Brilliant by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As devious and underhanded as this might be, it's actually pretty smart.

    1. Re:Brilliant by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now we just need Google to update the Chrome extension policy to require
      The Developer MUST notify Google prior to any sale or acquiring, disposing, or changing beneficial ownership regarding any app software And disclose to all users the sale 30 days prior to any further software updates, details of the acquirer, and any other business the acquirer has regarding Chrome-related extensions, Otherwise, the author and publisher of any updated version agree to each pay Google the sum of $10 Million dollars, in the event the original developer or acquirer is negligent in their duty to notify.

    2. Re:Brilliant by Lobachevsky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not realistic. If Microsoft makes an extension, they can't notify Google every time some little old lady buys or sells some shares from her retirement account. Similarly, if your chrome extension is owned by some Ireland holding company, and it is in turn owned by some Cayman holding company, and it is in turn owned by some, etc., there's no way to know or get reports that every entity that holds any stake has to report when it sells. And you don't even have to own the entity to get its profits. Your holding company in China can have a mere contract with your Cayman holding company for assignment of all profits *without* ownership. You can have another contract with some McKinsey consultant that she has administrative access *without* ownership. Many celebrities contract out their twitter and facebook accounts to professional management teams. Are they the owners of the twitter/facebook account? Like most laws, such a policy trying to "fix" the problem will only affect honest, good people, and have ZERO effect on the dishonest people it's trying to deal with since the dishonest bunch are more than happy to create a Russian nesting doll of legal entities and a labyrinth of contracts and profit assignments that would make a veteran CPA cry into a fetal position.

    3. Re:Brilliant by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      It would probably be sufficient to just nuke existing ratings when changing hands. Should discourage them from *immediately* going fully hostile.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    4. Re:Brilliant by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      And the day after, 0 extensions are developed for Chrome. Or to paraphrase Sterling Archer:

      "Do you want to kill Chrome extension development completely? Because this is how you kill Chrome extension development completely"

    5. Re:Brilliant by mysidia · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If Microsoft makes an extension, they can't notify Google every time some little old lady buys or sells some shares from her retirement account.

      Such immaterial transactions are not a change of beneficial ownership.

      and it is in turn owned by some Cayman holding company, and it is in turn owned by some, etc., there's no way to know or get reports that every entity that holds any stake has to report when it sells.

      It is in fact doable, and many companies already have such terms you have to sign for certain partnerships.
      APP MAY NOT allowed to be BE specified, ALTERED OR ADMINISTERED by a 3rd party is just another contractual restriction.
      Or they can simply allow the whole suspicious "Cayman holding company" structure to be used by owners of apps in the first place.

    6. Re:Brilliant by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I would call it clever, but not smart. Normally after abuse of a system which is left open for reasons of trying to be nice. Will tightly close down to more of the Apple Store Model, where these things are checked more thoroughly and rejected.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, someone figured out that with browser extensions, all the users' usual quality control measures are bypassed. Our browsers are downloading and executing this software themselves, rather than using our OS's usual methods. The software ought to be coming from our repositories, installed with whichever package manager you use, etc, be maintainable (i.e. it needs to be Free software) so that you don't ever "have to" upgrade it to a later branch, etc. But that stuff isn't happening, because eMacs wants to be everyth--shit, I mean -- because Chrome wants to be everything, including a program loader. How is that in the users' interest?

      The reason we tolerate it, basically comes down to this: "how important can some javascript in my web browser be? I run totally untrusted probably-malware javascript from all sorts of random strangers all the time!" Thing is, that script usually only has access to the web page of whoever referred you to it.

      But extensions have access to other pages, and when you think about how you use your browser, that might be a big problem.

    8. Re:Brilliant by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      My client and his LLC did not sell, dispose of, or change beneficial ownership of his plugin. They did enter into a an arrangement in which a outside contractor performed some technical work in exchange for profit-sharing guarantee in which the LLC pays them a fraction of net revenue for a specified period.

      Yours Truly,
      The first (but not the last) lawyer to poke a hole in your laughable terms.

      [ Or, snark aside, there's plenty of ways for a plugin writer to change from good-guy to bad-guy without doing anything out of the ordinary business-wise. And I intentionally chose the contractor route because tons of companies contract out app/plugin development work, and so you can't even in theory ban the use of outside contractors to write code (let alone enforce it in practice). ]

    9. Re:Brilliant by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Now we just need Google to update the Chrome extension policy...

      No.

      If the software in question ran outside of your browser, you would have immediately seen how silly this whole situation is, and how inadequate your proposed change is. So, ask yourself: what if the new version of a thing had adware, but that this was Python, or Thunar, or mpv or Apache or ...

      We are fundamentally mis-handling how we get browser extensions. Google should have no say and no power in this, unless people just happen to think they are great repository maintainers.

      We should be getting browser extensions from Debian or someone like that.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    10. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ethics to be a pre-req for being considered smart.
      But I guess many people don't, which is a sorry state of affairs.

    11. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be "doable" but is it practical and worth the effort to even try. And who would enforce
      this type of regulation in the first place besides the ambulance chasing lawyers.

      The Internet is use âoeat your own discretionâ tool. Using the Internet is a risky proposition to say the least. And the risk increases every time a business fails to secure their systems. User actions can increase the risk exponentially. No amount of regulations are going to make system admins more diligent and the users smarter.

    12. Re:Brilliant by mysidia · · Score: 1

      And who would enforce this type of regulation in the first place besides the ambulance chasing lawyers.

      The point is just to instill some fear in the majority extension developers against trying to sell out to some fly-by-night operation, because
      the average app developer could be facing significant risk of liability.

      The concept is not to capture 100% of cases, But to reduce how "enticing" 3rd party buyout offers are likely to appear.

    13. Re:Brilliant by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      I've got a better one than that. When the extension updates and the publisher has changed since the last one, give a warning dialogue telling them who the original publisher was and who the new one is. This wouldn't work in all cases, like when they sell the whole company, but it would work for a large percentage. You could also require them to tell Google about the owner change, which would make my first idea work better.

  4. The obvious question by geekmux · · Score: 1

    Is there a Chrome extension to track shitty adware Chrome extensions?

    "Users also found other Chrome extensions that were also bought by the same company..."

    Or perhaps there's a way we can simply put in a filter and block this particular company...

    1. Re: The obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. All we need is that these extensions document who the backing company is. Then, set chrome to ask for confirmation when the backer changes.
      Also, the usual anti-spam blacklists may apply.

    2. Re:The obvious question by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      There is but the company from the article bought it. ;)

  5. Indecent Proposal by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    And this is the 21st century version of this movie...

    I wonder if Robert Redford would do a remake.

    And as a dev, would I do it for a million dollars? Hmmm...

  6. Souls must go for a shitload of money by mykepredko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the NDA, the adware will be blamed on the original developer (who's name would be on the Chrome App Store). I imagine that this could result in some cursing in various forums as well as hurtful ratings on the App Store. The biggest issue that I can see is when the developer is looking for a job; a simple Google search will identify the developer as scum-sucking vermin (or something worse) - with no way of (legally) explaining the situation to the prospective employer.

    So, I would think that the payment must be enough for the developer to live comfortably for the rest of their lives under a new name.

    1. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      With the NDA, we should probably not mention precisely what type of extension was sold, how the transaction went down, and so forth....

    2. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      If the NDA is really that strict then it likely won't be enforceable if they took him to court, which would defeat the purpose of the NDA to start with since now their shenanigans are public records which the app developer can share with everyone.

    3. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by barc0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > If the NDA is really that strict then it likely won't be enforceable if they took him to court

      And therein lies the problem. Sure it's not enforceable but how many developers - especially ones looking for a job like in OPs example - have a bunch of cash they want to burn through to defend themselves in court over it?

      Even an unenforceable NDA has a chilling effect if you can't pay to negate it in court.

    4. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      with no way of (legally) explaining the situation to the prospective employer.

      You can't NDA yourself in to a position where you are unable to lay correct claim to property. He is likely legally barred from describing the transaction itself, but that's a far step from being barred for saying e.g. "I sold the business to a 3rd party and had nothing to do with the plugin update."

      After all, non-disclosure agreements are non-disclosure agreements. They aren't "lie about ownership" agreements.

    5. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by mykepredko · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFA and look at the Particle extension (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/particle/bpmpggcmojdddlmihdbobccijhkkjpan?hl=en). Still the original author.

      I'm pretty sure the NDA says the author IS barred from saying "I sold the business to a 3rd party and had nothing to do with the plugin update." The individual/company buying the extension want to take advantage of the goodwill the author originally came up with.

      Hopefully, for Aiden, he got enough money to make it worth it.

    6. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since now their shenanigans are public records which the app developer can share with everyone.

      By that point the company has already cashed in on the ad-revenue for that dev's plug-ins and all users have stopped using it, so they probably don't care too much.

    7. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, for Aiden, he got enough money to make it worth it.

      And hopefully, for the rest of the world, he gets sued into oblivion or goes to jail for it. If you agree to not disclose the fact that you sold something, that should be an agreement to continue to take legal responsibility for the actions of those you secretly sold to.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by mykepredko · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

    9. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Even an unenforceable NDA has a chilling effect if you can't pay to negate it in court."

      Go to court. See that little thing on the filing papers where it says "Waive all fees as I cannot afford attorneys or other filing fees, etc."

      Check that little box, prove you can't afford an attorney to the judge, and get the NDA fucked anyways.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Of course he got paid a hefty sum in return for that NDA. Are you suggesting that it is a good strategy to deceive the court? You can bet that any attorneys for the scamware company will be eager to call that to judge's attention.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    11. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      That is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard all year. Your advice is to represent yourself in a contract dispute - which is something 99.999% of the planet is NOT equipped to do. Might as well not waste everyone's time including your own and just get to the penalties phase. That way you can avoid paying court costs.

    12. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure the NDA says the author IS barred from saying "I sold the business to a 3rd party and had nothing to do with the plugin update."

      I'm sure it does say that. However that would make it not legally enforceable. As I said you can't NDA away your ability to lay claim to property. I can't make you sign an NDA that says you're not allowed to tell anyone you no longer own your house after you sell it. There are many things you can try and sign away that legally you can't actually do.

    13. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sure it's not enforceable but how many developers - especially ones looking for a job like in OPs example - have a bunch of cash they want to burn through to defend themselves in court over it?

      Even an unenforceable NDA has a chilling effect if you can't pay to negate it in court.

      This isn't David vs Goliath. The small scam company is even less likely to want to engage in a frivolous lawsuit than the developer wanting to defend it. And given that the story has already come out with exactly the kind of details that you suggest are being sequestered ... well the number is at least 1.

    14. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest issue that I can see is when the developer is looking for a job; a simple Google search will identify the developer as scum-sucking vermin (or something worse) - with no way of (legally) explaining the situation to the prospective employer.

      Think about the people who get ahead in this world and then ask yourself again whether being identified as "scum-sucking vermin" is worth worrying about.

    15. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by mykepredko · · Score: 1

      barc0001's comment is the best on this thread.

      Maybe they can't, but how many people can afford to defeat their challenge to the legality of of what you signed in court?

    16. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      Well, he already did exactly that (at least on Github)
      https://github.com/ParticleCor...

    17. Re:Souls must go for a shitload of money by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      So you are not selling your Apps under an 'artists name'?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  7. find out who this spammer is by FudRucker · · Score: 0

    and break his fingers and his knees, and break his nose with a horse shoe

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:find out who this spammer is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like bad advice. If you leave people alive to respond to their encounter with you, be polite.

    2. Re:find out who this spammer is by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Did he say to end it there? I considered it a suggestion what to do for the entree. Ya know, the "get to know you" phase of the days to follow. Torture is much more personal and rewarding when you get to know your victim and what breaks not only their body but also their mind and soul.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. People trust extensions. by Major_Disorder · · Score: 0

    I don't use any except uBlock Origin and no script.
    If either of them go end of life I will be looking for a replacement the same day.

    --
    First law of people: People are generally stupid.
    1. Re:People trust extensions. by rogoshen1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      i just use a *hosts file.

      * if you mention hosts file in a slashdot thread, or in a dark room, say "apk" 3 times in front of a mirror, you'll summon... HIM -- and you'll get a very detailed explanation (whether you want it or not.) on how a hosts file can keep you safe from all sorts of shenanigans.

    2. Re:People trust extensions. by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Only thing I throw on top of that is a link re-writer for eliminating search engine tracking links. That and DownThemAll.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    3. Re:People trust extensions. by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      It should also be fairly clear that I do not use Chrome. Minimalism and caution when dealing with plugins is relevant to any browser.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    4. Re:People trust extensions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is blocking at the local DNS mirror considered the same thing? Hosts for the network instead of the computer. That does work quite well to remove ads.

    5. Re:People trust extensions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if i say APP three times? I heard there's a guy

    6. Re:People trust extensions. by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      Can APK make a host file so strong that not even APK can spam through it?

  9. How to neuter NDAs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Before signing, talk about the agreement with someone else.

    2) Sign the agreement, collect the $$$.

    3) Now the other person can blab the details, because they never signed anything.

    1. Re:How to neuter NDAs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the NDA specifies something like "by signing this document, I certify that I have not previously talked with anyone about this"?

    2. Re:How to neuter NDAs. by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Give it to them in writing. Or sing it in a song? Draw some pictures?

      Future NDA clause: I hereby certify that I have never acted out the ___________ in a game of charades....

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    3. Re:How to neuter NDAs. by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      "communicated, or caused to be communicated" would cover it.

    4. Re:How to neuter NDAs. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Give it to them in writing. Or sing it in a song? Draw some pictures?

      Future NDA clause: I hereby certify that I have never acted out the ___________ in a game of charades....

      I can get around that.

      When I was a kid, every Sunday was game night. We either played board games like Monopoly or Life, or card games, or one game that I later found out was called Charades. We called it Cookie Barrel, because the slips of paper we acted out were in a giant cookie jar that looked like a wood barrel, and it had a 'sign' on the side that said "Cookie Barrel".

      Kinda like this one: http://www.laurelleaffarm.com/...

      So, unless the NDA specifically says I am not allowed to play Cookie Barrel concerning the sale, I can sign the paper with no worries.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:How to neuter NDAs. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      If the NDA is used by anyone at least half competent, you won't find out what you are agreeing to not disclose until AFTER you have signed the agreement.

    6. Re:How to neuter NDAs. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      It is called a Non DISCLOSURE Agreement for a reason.

    7. Re:How to neuter NDAs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone went through my email/desk/mail/read my mind.

    8. Re:How to neuter NDAs. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I never knew DeVry had a law school.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Re: Only LUDDITES hate apps. by sinij · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't think you understand how trolling works. Your response only encourages more nonsense like OP.

  11. Re: Only LUDDITES hate apps. by thegreatbob · · Score: 0

    I think this bro is indeed mad.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  12. Re:Chrome extentions are the new toolbars. by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    Pale moon... not sure what you're talking about there. Home page defaults to 'start.palemoon.com' (redirects to palemoon.start.me) ... it's easy to change it. It even still has the ability to start with a truly blank page.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  13. Re: Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You're a fucking appshole.

  14. Google: morons by emil · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We have known this has been happening for over a year.

    Still, this is approved, accepted and endorsed behavior, while AdNauseam is not.

    Do no evil - not.

    1. Re:Google: morons by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Blocking an attempt to commit widespread fraud is not evil. You're lucky to not go to jail for running AdNauseam, since it is literally draining people's bank accounts on false pretenses. (And actually sending that money to google... but they block it anyway because they don't want to be dishonest.)

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  15. Re: Only LUDDITES hate apps. by Nutria · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Unless the two posts are by the same AC. (Probably BeauHD and msmash trying to drive up the comment count to pretend to stay relevant.)

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  16. Irony by Luthair · · Score: 0

    There is a certain amount of irony in bleepingcomputer writing about advertising snuck into products when their articles are continually submitted to Slashdot by anonymous users. Coincidence? Pretty unlikely.

  17. Adverts by ledow · · Score: 1

    Says the website giving me all kinds of shitty ads, since selling out, despite paying years ago for the "Disable Advertising" button.

    I Ghostery'd the fucker years ago, but just checked and - yep - ads over all the fucking Slashdot pages.

  18. I get this periodically for my little FF extension by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and it didn't take me long to figure out what the guys offering to 'buy' it were planning. They've been doing this for at least the 4 years I've been writing an extension.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  19. Re:WHERES MY FREE APP! 1 STAR RATING! by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    The parents punish the children for their hunger. I'm happy to feed all the poor children, if we take them from their parents who decide to have kids when they don't have the money to support them. Follow that up with spay-n-neuter of the parents, and the situation will be under control very soon.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  20. You're an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SNAP aka Food Stamps. But the drugged out shitbags you're referring to won't even bother signing up for this. They'd rather have their unwanted spawn starve.

    Proving conclusively that they are in fact shitbags unworthy of life.

  21. Re: Only LUDDITES hate apptrolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Look motherapper, last appnight I appyou to appying app the app up and app the app off this appy site. You're a apping appwipe who apps the same apping apping appshit in every apping appy. There's not one appying appy app in your apping app apps. Yet you keep apping the same appy appying app in app after app. You're a appying app app of app, and this app has far too many appstains, you stupid apping sone of an app. App up with appthing apping app and maybe I won't apping app your app app, you apping app apptard. Go app app and take the appy apping appstain apperators with you, appwipe.

  22. Got hit by this last week by ThomasSpaziani · · Score: 2

    Out of nowhere, any site I went to and clicked anywhere on the page would open popups and other webpages.. I narrowed it down to my video downloader extension. Seems these guys are on a crusade to buy up a lot of them.

    1. Re:Got hit by this last week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Same here, almost. I had been using youtube plus, and I had hand-audited the code and made modifications to remove any google analytics that was embedded. Then it updated, but luckily when I saw the extension get renamed and then it wanted further permissions to view data on ALL sites not just youtube, I knew something was up. I had seen postings about this sort of practice before with popular extensions getting bought out by scummy companies to abuse the install base.

      So I just promptly clicked the remove button and didn't think anything of it, since the new youtube UI was coming soon and it did pretty much what I wanted from the extension originally (larger videos in the browser tab but not fullscreen). Day or so later I see this article posted... hah. Dodged a bullet there.

  23. A more realistic approach by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Now we just need Google to update the Chrome extension policy to require
    The Developer MUST notify Google prior to any sale or acquiring, disposing, or changing beneficial ownership regarding any app software

    Better: Whether a program changes hands or not, impose a requirement that new versions which are "substantially different" from previous versions with respect to feature-removal or the addition of revenue- or marketing-components will require a big bold warning and will not be eligible for any kind of automated updates from prior versions.

    Furthermore, reviews based on previous versions will be segregated from reviews of new versions. In such cases, developers will be encouraged to keep the "old" version available for download.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  24. What if he is a victim of a hack? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    The original developer signed an NDA and could not talk about it.

    Let us say his computer gets hacked and some unknown thirdparty finds all the dirty laundry. And this hacker blabs all over the media about the deal. Now the original developer is not responsible for the behavior of the hacker right? She/He is also a victim of the hacker. If the original developer is able to show that she/he was not negligent then she/he is off the hook.

    I am not suggesting the original hacker to leak all information and blame it on Russian hackers ... before making sure he/she can make the blame stick.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  25. Auto Update by sexconker · · Score: 2

    This is why you turn auto update OFF for apps and plugins.
    Let shit notify you that updates are available. But don't let shit automatically apply them.

    1. Re:Auto Update by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      This is just one of the many reasons why you don't use Chrome as your primary browser. Firefox has had Mozilla-signed extensions for year(s) now to protect the non-developers.

    2. Re:Auto Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is quite literally irrelevant. It wouldn't have changed anything, the developer handed over the reigns of their extension to a malicious company. This can (AND DOES) occur with Firefox (and other browsers) extensions the same as they do Chrome extensions. It just sounds like you're being a blatant Firefox fanboi and/or Google hater for no reason other than ignorance.

      The one lucky thing about it, is that when the extension auto-updated, it required further permissions than what it originally did. Thus prompting users to reauthorize the extension before it would be allowed to run again. This is what happened to me. Being a non-idiot, I knew something was fishy, as extensions don't often completely rename themselves and need increased permissions suddenly. Specially one that provides enhanced support for one particular website where previously permissions were required for that specific domain that abruptly asks for permissions for ALL sites you visit. I simply declined and removed the extension without it ever being able to execute its malign intent.

    3. Re:Auto Update by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      No it's not. To release an updated extension it needs to be re-signed by Mozilla. You think they will re-sign an extension that does this? Right.

    4. Re:Auto Update by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Mozilla has a community built around their browser and around the extension add-on repository. Chrome has an "addon-store of abandoned addons".

    5. Re:Auto Update by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Which is why you don't hear about this stupid bullshit occuring over on the Mozilla side of the fence.

  26. Hapens with Android apps too by johanw · · Score: 2

    I suddenly saw that my favorite simple calculator app was bought by some (Austrian I think) company who added some caller ID spyware in it. Fortunately I kept the apk of an older version around. When I reaearched I found out this shit company (Appsbuyout) does this with more apps.

    1. Re:Hapens with Android apps too by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      This kind of thing is fraud, and it is high time that any developer or company that buys the developer or an app needs to be held to account, criminally (i.e. PMITA prison time) for the practice of selling an app, then updating it later removing features or adding adware/other unwanted shit not in the original app that you bought.

      It is like buying a car, and then when you take it in for a oil change the dealer rips out the seats and replaces them with lawn chairs while selling the seats to a third party. It would be a no-brainer in the phsyical world, but due to international borders, abstraction of software, etc. this crap goes largely unpunished.

      At the very least, the companies and individuals involved should be blackballed by Google and Apple and banned for life from submitting any apps to the app store or owning any apps/updating any apps listed in the app store. It is in Google/Apple's best interest to protect their users from this kind of crap.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  27. Chrome Store links in the summary seem dead now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The links to the Chrome Store mentioned in the summary seem to be dead now.

  28. Not new by Balthisar · · Score: 2

    Here's a story from 2014 about the same thing. I got bit by this bogus behavior around this time, too. I can't remember what the extension was, but whatever it was was something very useful that I probably don't miss now that I can't remember it.

    --
    --Jim (me)
  29. Yup by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    Been happening for a while now, which is why I went plugin agnostic with only big names not expected to sellout anytime soon.

  30. Re:WHERES MY FREE APP! 1 STAR RATING! by avandesande · · Score: 1

    When I was a child my father worked in a App factory, he used to bring them home and that's what we ate for dinner!

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  31. End run. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disclose in court. Go in on a "small claims" case, and have your attorney grill you about it. Now it is public record.

  32. Seems like useless addons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I am just too old?

  33. Re: Found the LUDDITE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Appsolutely.

  34. advertising is immoral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. accepting payment without doing working.
    2. using deception to manipulate people to your own personal gain instead of speaking the truth.

    I hope future generations take pity on us, and mercifully judge our sins understanding that we did not know any better.

  35. bring me a lawyer! by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

    "The original dev says he gave them a high price, but the company agreed to pay right away, but only after the dev signed an non-disclosure agreement preventing him from talking about the company or the transaction. "

    Trouble?

    --
    4wdloop
  36. Never going to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even Apple has started shilling for these greedy bastards. Here is one recent example: there was a fairly good yoga app (Yoga Studio) available in Apple's App Store for a one-time purchase price in the range of several dollars.

    The original developers sold out to a bottom feeding company that decided to update it to remove paid users access to the yoga content and move it behind a monthly subscription paywall. The App Store rules say that when you convert an app from paid to subscription you can't remove non-consumable content from users who bought it under the purchase model.

    Not only did Apple not reject the app update that violated the App Store rules, but they went as far as giving the new app version the equivalent of an Apple Editor's Choice!!

    I agree with your view that such actions are fraud, but when the Apple walled garden not only permits such fraud but goes as far as endorsing it then there's nobody left to protect consumers.

  37. Re: Only LUDDITES hate apps. by DMFNR · · Score: 1

    No you shut the fuck up, the APPS! Guy brightens my day every time I see a post from him.

  38. Oh Dear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone contacted APK to see if he's ok? I worry harm may have come to him. All these mentions of hosts files and ad lockers, and not a peep in 6 hours?!

  39. Fuck LavaSoft AdAware too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Same sort of thing happened to Lavasoft AdAware which was once trusted anti-malware anti-adware software. AVOID IT! https://malwaretips.com/threads/lavasofts-new-scam-artist-owners.3279/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavasoft#Controversies

    1. Re:Fuck LavaSoft AdAware too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the headsup, I had it installed on relatives windows box. Gotta head over sometime and uninstall that.

  40. Re:I get this periodically for my little FF extens by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

    Little? I've a FF extension with about six thousand users, and I regularly get these offers as well.

  41. Re: Only LUDDITES hate apps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes I'll reply to my own AC comments just to give myself a pat on the shoulder especially when people are being ugly. Comment counts be damned. - "Everything is going to be alright." https://youtu.be/UVNZvZvzWak

  42. This is why updates suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At lease automatic updates -- something which used to be useful might just become adware.

    See WinZip, which used to be one of the most useful tools (I've even paid for it) which now relies on name recognition (or rememberence) to get people to install a sad, advare-laden and redundant version of itself

  43. I just gave up on extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Myself I gave up on using extensions, mainly because many developers never saw the rewards and sold out like this or they caved to allowing ads to subsidies their app. Others simply don't keep up with development and the extensions fail to work properly as browser updates come out. Some I finally realized were simply the cause of browser crashes and ridiculous RAM consumption.

  44. The problem is chrome by allo · · Score: 1

    Chrome does not allow to disable updates, it doesn't even notify you of extension updates.
    Then it is clear, why people buy addons to buy userbases. You can push whatever code you want to the users. Be glad, they didn't replace your banking site with some phishing website.

  45. I built the way to the BEST possible hosts file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & you're welcome to do better than APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

  46. You're welcome to do better than this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this and the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error and/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    * My code's recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> See subject, /. peers quoted above & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ imo you're not capable of it skills-wise... apk

  47. Not as efficient as locally via hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using DNS (especially remote) is slower vs. hosts cached into RAM (for starters) due to network traversal & DNS = loaded w/ security issues (kaminsky redirect & 99++% of ISP dns aren't patched vs. it - OpenDNS however, is (what I use in combination w/ hosts)) + DNS has move "moving parts" inefficiencies vs. a SINGLE FILE in hosts.

    * Nicest part about using hosts WITH DNS (especially OpenDNS which filters vs. known threats (ones I may miss in hosts))? It lightens DNS loads & DNS goes down a LOT.

    APK

    P.S.=> Something to consider - combining BOTH (I go faster to favorites I 'hardcode' @ TOP of hosts, resolving far faster from local RAM that way vs. network traversal of DNS callout & callback return of resolution data - again, especially vs. REMOTE DNS but also vs. locally installed DNS))... apk

  48. Other benefits of hosts? No DNS tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: In addition to my other post to you (combining BOTH hosts & DNS for gains in speed) https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10865087&cid=54814763/ hosts hardcodes avoid DNS requestlogs.

    APK

    P.S.=> The methods I extoll were GOOD ENOUGH FOR CHINA TO IMITATE in fact (imitation = sincerest form of flattery) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ ... apk

  49. Re: You're welcome to do better than this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are those people, and why should anyone care what they have to say? How do we know they're not sockpuppet accounts? I can find 5 random strangers to say how great they think homeopathy is, but that doesn't mean it really works.

  50. You use MY hosts file in fact... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "that APK guy, I use his host file" by rogoshen1 (2922505) on Tuesday March 03, 2015 @01:44AM (#49169453)

    FROM https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7042085&cid=49169453/

    That's you quoted saying so (where you admit you troll me anyhow) so WHAT IS YOUR MALFUNCTION fool?

    * Do you always "bite the hand that feeds you?"

    APK

    P.S.=> I've also read your SELF-PROCLAIMED "I am an AMATEUR sociologist/economist" & based on YOU championing nationalized healthcare & "lower costs", you sure ARE an amateur (@ a lot) - SEE? I can give you GUFF too fool - but then, YOU DON'T PROVIDE ME ANYTHING OF VALUE but I certainly do you... apk

    1. Re:You use MY hosts file in fact... apk by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Harmless joke -- just poking fun at your spamming; don't be so sensitive.

  51. You do it a LOT (to someone helping you) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    https://slashdot.org/comments....
    https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    & here in this thread too... WTF? That's not even NEAR all of them...

    QUESTION - WHY do you do that to someone whose work helps you, for NOTHING (zero cost)?

    (Point-blank: What you've been doing is uncool & you've done a lot of it. That's no joke to me. I doubt it is to anyone else that's sane also...)

    APK

    P.S.=> - & I only post on hosts or my program where hosts ARE effective (not spam) ... & they are for more speed, security, reliability & anonymity online SO I created a tool to make the best possible one & yes my program does it better + more than ANY like it minus dependence on buggy SQLite just found w/ a 17++ yr. long BUG in it recently (written in C, buffer overflow galore due to null terminated strings)) such as adding your FAVORITE SITES where you spend most time online for more speed & security (China even imitated ME there) by using what you already have NATIVELY that runs in KERNELMODE SPEED via population by my SINGLE .exe (non-interpreted TRUE exe) multithreaded bulletproof & bugfree excellence (perfect results everytime) that even the likes of MALWAREBYTES' people host + recommend - you give ME guff over that? Come on ... apk

  52. This has been a thing for years already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As you can see see here.

  53. You're welcome to do better than this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    I've never tried to belittle (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    APK is kinda right. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this and the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error and/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    * My code's recommended & hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> See subject, /. peers quoted above & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

  54. EAT YOUR WORDS unidentifiable "ne'er-do-well" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & supermidgetbob tried that on me & ATE HIS WORDS just like you now https://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10458715&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=54192877/

    &

    I don't even DO accounts @ all (I had one I used once in 2002, haven't since (to ask John Carmack a technical question)).

    * WHO ARE THEY? OUR /. PEERS - you have ANYONE saying that about YOUR NON-EXISTENT WORK "ne'er-do-well" UNIDENTIFIABLE little JEALOUS do nothing? No?? I thought (knew) not, lol...

    You WISH you were ME chump!

    APK

    P.S.=> Want MORE /. PEERS (you come here too, don't put them down) saying things that PRAISE my program? Ask & "ye shall receive" - I have DOZENS more of the same (& IF I have to? I can put when & WHERE they posted as I did do that other chump that tried the crap YOU have (from behind a FAKE NAME for a FAKE LIFE of a "ne'er-do-well" DO NOTHING like you (except you're EVEN WORSE using UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous trolling - weak))... apk

  55. Re:WHERES MY FREE APP! 1 STAR RATING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parents punish the children for their hunger. I'm happy to feed all the poor children, if we take them from their parents who decide to have kids when they don't have the money to support them. Follow that up with spay-n-neuter of the parents, and the situation will be under control very soon.

    You have honestly never thought of the situations where a) the parents started off rich enough but then lost their jobs and ended up not rich enough or b) they had a child that they didn't plan because access to sex education is limited by a right wing government? I mean, apart from that, I'm with you all the way ;-)