|
Donation/Premium |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AnthW
Trooper
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 16
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JeanInMontana wrote: | I am operating with facts! If you think I am going to click one of your links your crazy. You shouldn't even be posting that crap here.
I'm not going to argue with you either. There is no point.
|
If so, then stop badmouthing us by saying tha we have underage content.
Otherwise post proof.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AnthW
Trooper
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 16
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mechBgon wrote: | I think it is very interesting that the takedown effort has resulted in the perpetrators coming here to haggle for some semblance of legitimacy. "We'll change this, we'll change that." But they had no scruples about using their previous tactics until their money-making scheme was at risk.
Ignore him and keep up the pressure, that's what I say. Love of money is the root of all evil, says the big JC, and maybe He's right. |
Hmm... Why did tacktick tell me to reply on this board then?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnthW
Trooper
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 16
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tacktick wrote: | Anthony do you approve of spamming by your 'affiliates'?
There is alot of forum and comment spamming that ultimately
directs to your software.
|
No, we dont approve that. However we may not be aware of what every webmaster does. We try to controll everything, beleive me. But since we got no complaint about that forum, we didnt know about it. Futhermore, there are some adult-oriented bbs that may accept our content and advaertising.
| tacktick wrote: |
Now, I'd like to address the method in which your software is installed in the browser.
No description, details or User agreement is given on the install pages. This is unacceptable. There must be disclosure about the full details of this software before users can make an informed decision about downloading it.
|
EULA is displayed in our install wizzard. Software does not install automatically, you know that.
Who said that there "must be disclosure about the full details of this software before users can make an informed decision about downloading it"? I can give many examples of having EULA inside installer, but not on a web page.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnthW
Trooper
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 16
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The FTC has determined that for Zango software, not for everybody. I saw lots of software unsing only EULA.
We have made changes to our Terms and gave clear description of what will be installed and clear instructions on how to uninstall it. We dont hide this information. It is displayed at the beginning of EULA.
| tacktick wrote: |
Your setup program has a single screen which only provides info via
the License Agreement. This is not enough, see above.
The checkbox for "I accept" is automatically checked.
|
Check box "I accept" is checked at LOTS of install wizzards. Actually it is also checked at the Zango software too. (zango.com)
So this is quite legal. Noone forces user to click Next button.
| tacktick wrote: |
Why does the software name in the installer change?
This time it is Video AX Object, before it was something else.
I have also not heard a good reason for why new domains are registered
all the time and old ones removed. This is always very suspicious behavior.
The only thing that has changed about your software is a few things
in the license agreement, and nothing that makes any major difference.
|
We change our software and its name from time to time. This helps us block unwanted traffic and control software distribution over the internet.
We have changed EULA (see above). We have changed our uninstallers and made them easier, i think you can confirm that too. Now everything is removable from Control Panel and no additional software required. If someone does not like our software he can remove it in 5-10 mins without any help.
| tacktick wrote: |
[b]
Your software still installs about 6 things into the Add/Remove programs, some of which have misleading names.
(Security Plugin, Messenger Service sound like legitimate items)
The uninstaller for Video Ax Object only uninstalls one thing and none of the other ones.
Some of the things require a reboot to uninstall them, and even then they may not be uninstalled. This is obviously a suspicious tactic designed to keep people from uninstalling. Who wants to reboot for each single item they want to un-install?
There needs to be a way to uninstall everything with one uninstaller and one entry in the Control Panel.
|
This is quite common practice too. When you install a software that contains addition components and/or adware they are being installed as a seperated programs. Futhermore, it is impossible to make 1 uninstaller for all our components as we also install 3rd party components that were not developed by us.
Yes, some of the things require a reboot to uninstall them. This is usual situation and we require it for technical purposes.
What I am trying to say, is that we are open to any normal negotiation (not false accusations). We can make changes (and actually we have already did some) to our software if they are reasonable ones.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mechBgon
Lieutenant
Joined: May 13, 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Hmm... Why did tacktick tell me to reply on this board then? |
To let you paint yourself into a corner, presumably, as a step towards getting you kicked out of your hosting. There's no getting away from the fact that your software exists to defraud people.
Taking a look at a current Zlob/Video ActiveX Access EULA (which, incidentally, looks the same as the previous ones I've seen over the last 8 months)... let's see here, we have some very euphemistic language that fails to reveal the real goal: to rip people off by fooling or harrassing them into buying WinFixer-type software. Here is some of the current EULA language:
| Quote: | (a) "Internet Explorer Secure Plug-in": Internet Explorer toolbar
(b) "Messenger Service": Advertisement module that opens Internet Explorer advertising windows when you are connected to internet
(c) "IExplorer Security Plug-in": Internet Explorer homepage will be changed.
(d) Security software: A 3rd party [sic] anti-virus/anti-spyware application. [which cannot even detect the EICAR test file and is undoubtedly 100% useless against any actual security threat] |
Translated into real-world language:
| Quote: |
(a) Our software installs a toolbar on Internet Explorer which arbitrarily postures that your security is 4 on a scale of 1 to 10, with buttons that lead you to misleading sites with an animated "scanner" intended to alarm you into thinking that your system is infected. In this way, we hope to fool you into buying worthless WinFixer-type software.
(b) Our software periodically puts misleading pop-ups on the screen which again attempt to alarm you into buying worthless WinFixer-type software. Most of these will be carefully doctored to resemble the Windows Security Center, the Live OneCare scanner, or other legitimate sites or Windows panels, in order to assist with the deception that we're trustworthy.
Our software also may periodically splash a very graphic porn popup page onto the screen if it's left installed long enough. By shocking and embarrassing you, we hope to cow you into buying our worthless software.
(c) Our software will permanently hijack, not just change, your homepage in Internet Explorer, with a big alert designed to alarm you into buying the worthless WinFixer-type software that the page is promoting. Don't bother trying to change it back, because we used special tricks to make sure average home users won't be able to do so.
(d) Our software will install a bogus "security" software (e.g. VirusProtectPro for today's sample) which will claims that your previously-spyware-free, freshly-imaged computer is infected, in order to alarm your into spending ~US$50 for a license for this worthless software so you can remove the "infections." If there are no existing infections, we'll make some up, or install some ourselves! Incidentally, please do not expect this "security" software to detect the EICAR antivirus-test file or real viruses. [amusingly, the infections that are claimed on my test system are referring to files that the software brought in the door itself, as someone else has already noted]
Oh, and
(e) Our software will put icons on your desktop which send you to yet more WinFixer-type promotional pages with yet more alarmist content, and a Renos/FakeAlart icon flashing in the System Tray to harass you further. The desktop icons will be deliberately made to resemble the Microsoft Windows security "shield" icon in order to gain credibility. The pages they lead to are deliberately made to resemble a real Microsoft troubleshooter and to resemble the Windows Security Center's look & feel, in order to gain credibility. There is also a "online security test" added to IE's Favorites.
Furthermore,
(f) please disregard the fact that our software and its components are going to be detected as malware by Spybot Search & Destroy, SUPERAntispyware, Microsoft's Malicious Software Removal Tool, your ISP's Fortigate security gateway, possibly your antivirus software (and especially don't listen to K-Ka-Kasp-AAARGH, those relentless Russian dudes who update 24 times a day, we HATES them, yes Precious!) and many other legitimate security products. They're just jealous of our WONDERFUL product and trying to keep us down. 
|
Pretty damning. If your EULA were modified to baldly state what I just stated above, then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on.
Moving right along, I tested the supposedly-improved uninstallation system. It doesn't work. IE still has that fraudulent toolbar installed. imsmain.exe and mismn.exe are still running from the Video ActiveX Access directory. I continue to get pop-ups pimping WinFixer software on me. I can certainly remove them, but the average home user is stuck with them.
On the bright side, Zlob and Renos have been added to the "hit list" of Microsoft's monthly Malicious Software Removal Tool. I ran the MSRT on the still-infected system after removing what I could using Add/Remove Programs. Impressively enough, the MSRT managed to nuke the IE toolbar and the remaining .EXEs. Now if we could just get people to enable their Automatic Updates en masse...
_________________
Vista x64 · non-Admin account + Software Restriction Policy · Kaspersky AntiVirus 7 · Windows Firewall · full hardware DEP · 64-bit IE7 PM
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JeanInMontana
Sergeant
Premium Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnthW wrote: | | JeanInMontana wrote: | I am operating with facts! If you think I am going to click one of your links your crazy. You shouldn't even be posting that crap here.
I'm not going to argue with you either. There is no point.
|
If so, then stop badmouthing us by saying tha we have underage content.
Otherwise post proof. |
I never said you had underage content. This is what I said:
| Quote: | Anthony one of your promotion sites is offering up teen porn. Teens are considered children until at least 18 and in some cases 21, which makes this child porn. hxxp://www.onlyfreepornvideos.com/ IP address 81.0.250.249
How can you justify that? Or is that the reason you have that site hosted in the Czech Republic? |
Then I asked you if you hosted the site in the Czech Republic because possession of CP is legal there. You said it was there because ISP prices were cheaper, which is not true, and I proved that. You also said that CP is not legal there and I proved that is not true also.
Your protesting and over defensive attitude about CP speaks much louder than anything I have said. And of course the fact your being exposed on every point you have tried to dupe everyone here into believing. I don't have to bad mouth you, your digging a big hole all by yourself.
Is Thecharitylink.com one of your affiliates? Or is that you?
_________________
MontanaMenagerie
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldfrog
Special Response Team
Joined: Jun 27, 2004
Posts: 8576
Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JeanInMontana wrote: | | You also said that CP is not legal there and I proved that is not true also. |
Just to keep the facts straight, you provided a link which states that the possession of CP is not currently illegal in the Czech Republic but which also stated that the distribution of CP is currently a crime there.
If AnthW is viewing legality from the perspective of a site owner/webmaster/domain registrant then he is correct in stating that it is illegal (at least according to your link).
_________________
 MS MVP Security 2006-2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JeanInMontana
Sergeant
Premium Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oldfrog wrote: | | JeanInMontana wrote: | | You also said that CP is not legal there and I proved that is not true also. |
Just to keep the facts straight, you provided a link which states that the possession of CP is not currently illegal in the Czech Republic but which also stated that the distribution of CP is currently a crime there.
If AnthW is viewing legality from the perspective of a site owner/webmaster/domain registrant then he is correct in stating that it is illegal (at least according to your link). |
You made that point already here:
I haven't said anything that isn't a fact.
_________________
MontanaMenagerie
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldfrog
Special Response Team
Joined: Jun 27, 2004
Posts: 8576
Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I haven't said anything that isn't a fact. |
No, but the way that you have said it, by failing to differentiate between possession and distribution, is a distortion of the fact.
This topic has been linked to at a number of other sites around the internet. As a staffmember here I have a responsibility to the integrity of the site and do not want a casual reader of this topic to quote CC as saying that CP is legal in the Czech Republic when that is only a half truth and on the verge, apparently, of being an untruth if the proposed laws are enacted.
Looking through the topic there seems to be quite enough substantial evidence against the software without resorting to innuendo and distortion.
_________________
MS MVP Security 2006-2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JeanInMontana
Sergeant
Premium Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2005
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have not distorted anything, nor do I speak for CastleCops.
If people are not capable of reading that is not my problem.
The links I provided clearly show what the current law is. Because something has gone through one stage of hearings is no guarantee it will ever become law. Hundreds of would be laws in this country get passed by Congress only to be defeated in the Senate or vetoed by the President. I doubt the Czech Republic is that different.
I resent you implying my integrity is questionable.
You don't think the possibility of the promotion sites pushing child porn along with malware is relevant, that's your opinion. I think it is relevant that the site is hosted in a country where it is legal to possess CP. Last time I checked I still had a right to my opinion. I stand corrected.
_________________
MontanaMenagerie
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldfrog
Special Response Team
Joined: Jun 27, 2004
Posts: 8576
Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You don't think the possibility of the promotion sites pushing child porn along with malware is relevant, that's your opinion. |
Opinion is irrelevant, what matters is facts. They may or may not host pics of 'models' under the legal age. Proving it one way or the other is going to be virtually impossible. In fact, I doubt that you could prove it without being guilty of distribution yourself. Not a happy circumstance.
In any event, the possibility of anything is irrelevant to anything other than conducting further investigation.
| Quote: | | I think it is relevant that the site is hosted in a country where it is legal to possess CP. |
Why? Given the universality of the internet I fail to see any particular correlation between hosting country and target audience. Again, possession and distribution are two entirely different activities. The fact that Czech citizens can legally possess CP (at the moment) has little to do with someone (like AnthW) distributing it which is currently a crime. Here in the US we have an analogous situation in which drug possession is treated one way while drug distribution is treated another. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.
| Quote: | | Last time I checked I still had a right to my opinion. I stand corrected. |
You have every right to it, but when you choose to express it you give others the right to express disagreement, especially when you make a generalization unsupported by your own facts.
_________________
MS MVP Security 2006-2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tacktick
MIRT Hunter
Premium Member
Joined: May 19, 2007
Posts: 624
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Anthony wrote:
The FTC has determined that for Zango software, not for everybody. I saw lots of software unsing only EULA.
We have made changes to our Terms and gave clear description of what will be installed and clear instructions on how to uninstall it. We dont hide this information. It is displayed at the beginning of EULA.
|
When third party or possibly unwanted software is being installed, then
putting the details in the EULA is not enough.
Legitimate software will provide checkboxes and information about
possibly unwanted options and allow the user to NOT install what they dont want.
You don't have to do it, but if you don't want to be labeled as Malware and Trojan, then you will.
| Quote: |
Check box "I accept" is checked at LOTS of install wizzards. Actually it is also checked at the Zango software too. (zango.com)
So this is quite legal. Noone forces user to click Next button.
|
"Accepting" your license agreement has much larger consequences
than almost any other software, and I'm sure most people would agree with me.
| Quote: |
We change our software and its name from time to time. This helps us block unwanted traffic and control software distribution over the internet.
We have changed EULA (see above). We have changed our uninstallers and made them easier, i think you can confirm that too. Now everything is removable from Control Panel and no additional software required. If someone does not like our software he can remove it in 5-10 mins without any help.
|
What changed about the uninstallers? I noticed no big difference.
Is the system tray fake alert removable now?
Where is the website with company information and removal instructions like you said?
This website link needs to be provided to the user via a link in the Start menu or Desktop.
Also it needs to be present in the EULA and installer.
You said you would stick to using a single name as well.
Like I said before, you don't have to do these things, but only if you don't
want to be labeled as malware.
| Quote: |
This is quite common practice too. When you install a software that contains addition components and/or adware they are being installed as a seperated programs. Futhermore, it is impossible to make 1 uninstaller for all our components as we also install 3rd party components that were not developed by us.
Yes, some of the things require a reboot to uninstall them. This is usual situation and we require it for technical purposes.
|
Almost all of your program items get installed into Program Files\Video Activex Access, right?
It is totally unnecessary to make so many Control Panel entries.
I think it is silly to make us believe that it is impossible to remove all of
the program items with one or two uninstallers.
I could probably write a script or batch file that could do it all, so I'm sure your programmers could do that as well.
_________________
Analyzing, reporting and removing Malware. Fight the Scourge!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnthW
Trooper
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
Posts: 16
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
tacktick, Oldfrog: thanks for being professionals.
I came here for business talk / technical discssion and I dont want to reply to any groundless charges that some people post. Lets have constructive dialogue here.
tacktick, I understand your point of view, but, with all my respect, there are no rules or definitions that require some software to uncheck the "I Agree" checkbox or put something outside the EULA.
There are some definitions for Trojan or Malware, but there isnt a word about "I agree" checkbox or "EULA". There are global standarts for TCP/IP, HTML and lots of others, but there are no global standarts for EULA or "I agree checkbox". If some software may auto-check the checkbox, why cant others do the same?
Moreover you forget one major fact. We never force users to install our software that gives access to our licensed media content that we have bought.
Lets go back to uninstallers now. Yes, everything is removable from Control Panel. You can check. We install multiple components that were created by different vendors, so we are NOT ALLOWED to install them as 1 component in the Add/Remove List. This is very important. You may be a good programmer, but I think you dont understand how adware works.
I will be out of office untill wednesday. Website will be ready by then and we will put it online. Sorry, but I wont have an opportunity to reply here until wednesday.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
S!Ri
1st Responder
Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 9
Location: France
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you really think OneHandPornSuffers do read EULA ?
To be short:
- Fake ActiveX not needed to watch p0rn video that doesn't exist anyway.
- qwe.dll uses anti VM code to prevent analyse: malware technique.
- qwe.dll downloads an executable (with string before PE header to prevent analyse) once again, malware technique.
- This downloaded executable that has a cyphered dll (onljweo.dll at this time) in the resources once again, malware technique.
- This dll is responsable of fake alerts and download a rogue that change of name when too much kown. you know the song: malware tech...
- This rogue installed...It is detecting your own onljweo.dll file as malware. And it is needed to buy the rogue to clean the system. This is what I call Fraud !
First and last post.
No Need to talk with such people.
S!Ri
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paperghost
Security Expert
Joined: Dec 08, 2004
Posts: 180
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnthW wrote: | | The FTC has determined that for Zango software, not for everybody. |
Its only "determined for Zango" because thats who the FTC were pointing the gun at in that particular case. Its rather obvious to think that if a company out there other than Zango was doing something that fell beneath the standards the FTC set down for Zango, then the FTC might then quite happily go after them too.
Is that worth taking a risk over? Please, don't ever use Zango as a strawman argument.
| AnthW wrote: | | Check box "I accept" is checked at LOTS of install wizzards. Actually it is also checked at the Zango software too. |
....and they had to settle for three million dollars because of their practices which have included pre-ticked checkboxes for the longest time, so whats your point? That "hey, pre-ticking this checkbox DOES make us look somewhat more shiftier than we claim to be"? If so, thats sort of obvious and doesn't really help your case. It certainly didn't help Zangos.
Because "lots of other people do it" is NOT a valid argument. In fact, it sounds more like the first poor excuse a rogue affiliate comes out with when they're caught red handed. Again, using Zango to prove points generally doesn't work too well.
| Quote: | | So this is quite legal. |
...so legal it was one of many, many, many things that probably assisted Zango with having to pay out a 3 million dollar settlement....
| Quote: | | Noone forces user to click Next button. |
....uh, wrong again.
See, pre-ticked checkboxes are hacker gold. they eat your pre-ticked checkboxes for breakfast. Many types of installer out there are susceptible to sendkeys attacks, and if your checkbox is pre-ticked, its the easiest thing in the world for a hacker / rogue affiliate to force install the vulnerable software, or use something like a Clicker Trojan (that blindly clicks the mouse button on the desktop, activating whatever program / install happens to be there at the time). The EULA box *will* appear....but only for a nanosecond as the sendkeys attack does its thing and installs without permission.
If you pre-tick a checkbox, you may well be contributing to forced installs even if it *appears* to you that the install was legitimate. Congratulations.
Out of interest, when the software is installed on a users PC, do you have ways to monitor how long the box is up for before the EULA is accepted? How long each stage of the install process was on the screen for? If not, and not many do, combining this lack of INSTALL policing with a lack of AFFILIATE policing with a reliance on ZANGO to defend your points is asking for disaster.
_________________
Vitalsecurity.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
