What to do about Junk Firefox Ad-Ons??

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
Locked
User avatar
tgrantt
Posts: 185
Joined: November 29th, 2004, 8:48 am
Location: Kenosee Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada

Post by tgrantt »

I've been following this thread for quite some time. I have a couple of questions. These may be non-issues, but I'm curious. Is something (read "toolbar") that installs in EITHER IE or Firefox truly a "Firefox extension?" Picking nits, I know, but also grasping at straws, if I can use two cliches in one sentence.

Second, is something that requires you to use Windows "Add/Remove Programs" to remove it truly a "Firefox Extension" or is it something else?
bomb fight capitalist scramble missle worm destroy
--The NSA's going to love me!
Kenosee Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada
VanillaMozilla
Posts: 13808
Joined: November 7th, 2005, 11:26 am

Post by VanillaMozilla »

Whatever installs in Firefox is a Firefox extension. IE requires a separate version, with completely different code. Firefox extensions are not installed through the Registry; thus, Add/Remove Programs does not apply. Plugins, however, do usually install through the Registry. These are altogether different from extensions. They may run in other browsers, or even as stand-alone programs.
JohnM555
Posts: 75
Joined: November 26th, 2006, 10:20 am

Post by JohnM555 »

Here is an extension that the author says requires using the add/remove programs feature of windows
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2578/
Then there is this addon by the same author https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/3850/ which is a basically a duplicate of the one above, though he doesn't state here to use add/remove

This extension also requires removing from add/remove programs according to the comments: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2306
A lovely feature of this is "location based advertising" :)

I think I've seen others too, but I cant find them now.
VanillaMozilla
Posts: 13808
Joined: November 7th, 2005, 11:26 am

Post by VanillaMozilla »

Ah, yes, it installs and runs an .exe file. Holy crap. And they don't disclose it. I think that's probably a case of an extension installing an .exe file, but I don't know. I don't think extensions ought to be doing that, and I have to wonder if that fits the definition of an extension. If not, I have to wonder if they're breaking a contract.
User avatar
bumblebee22
Posts: 39
Joined: January 29th, 2006, 12:30 pm

Post by bumblebee22 »

dk70 wrote:You do know most of your actions on a forum like this can be tracked right? Ever seen Google Analytics from the inside? Each and every tiny blog use that, beside ads - Conduit is just part of all that.

If they really do misuse personal data then it will not take long to prove - not like they are hiding out. Even have a public forum. Ive recently seen 2 guys crying about being rejected. Reviewers main point was just this about author vs. Conduit vs policy.

There is a extension that lets you configure google's probing and let's you exclude info to "google analytics": http://www.customizegoogle.com/block-go ... okies.html
I've been running it for a couple of weeks with no problems...any comments on this (the program is extremely configurable for a variety of Google blocks and allowances).
dk70
Posts: 115
Joined: December 14th, 2004, 12:41 am

Post by dk70 »

Adblock Plus can remove most things as well but Customize Google does much more.

When is Stumbleupon up for investigation? http://www.stumbleupon.com/promote_faq.html I cant really see how their business model fit the ideology of this thread. Users get pushed paid ADS. Have to become a "sponsor" to avoid this. Why should AMO be part of this? Stumbleupon is approved the same way Google are? They will use your "profile" information for this of course. Effective campaign needs targeting. Very innocent and not really shady but I do believe this is another example of Firefox/Open Soure/AMO getting involved with making money for 3rd party player.

Btw, what is wrong with the slogan "Maximise your revenue"? http://www.google.com/intl/en/services/

Has anyone submitted Conduit toolbars for any Antispyware/Virus company yet? If not why? Is that not the right thing to do - anyone with toolbar, on IE or Firefox, will then be warned, defected or whatever. I still think this spyware threat, violation of personal information (besides button clicks!), only exist in the heads of some people here - and the storm is only triggered by AMO mess/idiots submitting toolbars. You wouldnt have to dig up definitions of Spyware if they really were so bad. If real spyware they would already be picked up by most AVs etc. Even AMO would have to react instantly. Crappy coding, "useless" features, Advertising schemes, dont make spyware. If coding is so crappy it ends up on Bugzilla then it might matter, as it has before with Conduit. They fix code and is approved again.

Ive not read all the angry posts here but remember what should be investigated is a DEFAULT toolbar and the features it offers. What links Mr. xxxx decides to throw in has nothing to do with Conduit. I dont think they can be responsible for those. Also it might be a good idea to forget about attacking normal advertising tricks no matter what engine is involved. I use Ad Muncher so dont notice anything - not the real internet and Conduit did not invent this. The way Levy makes money was published earlier right? Money comes from where? You will recognize some popular names I think. What does that have to do with spyware? He accumulates known advertising tricks(services!) offered by beloved Google and friends. If you use his prepared links you are part of that game. Information and advertising have been married since long. So? Perhaps it stinks but how internet works...

Im not sure about what their policy says, I would think zero, but toolbar makers should be forced to tell users about setup. That they do make money from sponsored search links, should toolbar include that, may be even from direct affiliate/product linkage. Tons of websites use same trick so widely accepted. A bit like phishing to me. "How to make money?" if way more interesting for some Conduit toolbar makers than "How to spy on users?". Crying about them keeping eye on installations and toolbar buttons is almost beside the point of being critical to Conduit. Follow the money and say hello to Google and the rest.
JohnM555
Posts: 75
Joined: November 26th, 2006, 10:20 am

Post by JohnM555 »

I updated my userscript( http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/6509 ) so it highlights in red the extensions it removes if you have it toggle to show the ones it removes.
It also adds a has: operator for the titles, so for example, has:Toolbar in the BAD_TITLES array would remove anything with Toolbar in the title.
You can remove specific extensions by clicking on a red x next to their titles on the web page.

Its obviously not an ideal fix, we want AMO to clean up the mess themselves, but its better than nothing.
User avatar
mightyglydd
Posts: 9813
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Post by mightyglydd »

Is it?^ Updating userscripts to prevent looking at the offending Toolbars!? What's next ,an Add-on to prevent looking at dodgy Ad-ons! Sorta counterproductive if you ask me.
#KeepFightingMichael and Alex.
User avatar
Frank Lion
Posts: 21173
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Frank Lion »

You back again already, dk? Hoping to do a bit more scattergun derailing here, were you?

Remember what I wrote a month ago?

Frank Lion wrote:dk, there is something about the way you write your posts that disturbs me. There is something very odd here generally, the least of which is the way you always refer to spyware as SPYWARE. Despite your previous denials, I believe that you have a vested interest in this somewhere.

If you don't mind, from now on I shall ignore you.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)
.
dk70
Posts: 115
Joined: December 14th, 2004, 12:41 am

Post by dk70 »

Your accusation still dont make sense to me and Im not really writing to you either. You are free to ignore who ever. You also deny to have a Conduit toolbar? You have not been inspired by all this chitchat? Not naive enough to believe you can make a fortune by using a toolbar? Ok, I believe you - may be. Very entertaining way of communicating.

What have you accomplished the last month regarding the ongoing SPYWARE claim btw? Still those bars must be and anyone not nodding must have something to do with Conduit? Ive said it before, get real and focus on facts. Those people here who race around at AMO screaming SPYWARE at every opportunity are not doing anyone a favor, just looks like tossers.

So Stumbleupon is completely irelevant to this? and you dont find it strange the SPYWARE problem is only taken seriously in this thread?, by this handful of people? I can assure the use of SPYWARE is not by chance. 100000 easy points just by screaming that word. Add in a few screenshots and there is nothing to explain, like with your accusations of me being Conduit fanboy because I dont nod enough. Fight the good cause blah blah. Well since you have established this is SPYWARE go tell rest of the world. Should take max. 1-2 days before 9 out of 10 will get popups from their AV program right? You have seen the light so why not help the innocent? If you are not successfull and no one understand what you are talking about what does that tell you? Whole world cant be toolbar makers or bought by evil Conduit.

Thanks to JohnM555 who have addressed and somewhat fixed real problem. And for Gmarks btw, I think same author.
User avatar
Frank Lion
Posts: 21173
Joined: April 23rd, 2004, 6:59 pm
Location: ... The Exorcist....United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Frank Lion »

dk70 wrote:Your accusation still dont make sense to me and Im not really writing to you either. You are free to ignore who ever. You also deny to have a Conduit toolbar? You have not been inspired by all this chitchat? Not naive enough to believe you can make a fortune by using a toolbar? Ok, I believe you - may be. Very entertaining way of communicating.

What on earth are you babbling about?
dk70 wrote:Your accusation still dont make sense to me ...

Doesn't need to make sense to you. Just needs to make sense to other people to know just who and what you are. :)

...and do TRY to write better English here, jeeze

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... 74#2611574
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attrib.)
.
User avatar
mightyglydd
Posts: 9813
Joined: November 4th, 2006, 7:07 pm
Location: Hollywood Ca.

Post by mightyglydd »

Yes dk70 I no longer deny to have Conduit Toolbar. The persuasion and honesty of your arguments have won me over. 'Over 831,000!!! D/L.....WOW....Thanks.' How could so many be fooled?...Me download 831,001! By way, U spend lot time on Conduit Forums?
#KeepFightingMichael and Alex.
User avatar
DonGato
Posts: 589
Joined: December 1st, 2005, 9:57 am

Post by DonGato »

It's really hard to understand dk70 posts, at least for me. Learning a bit more English grammar and dedicating some time to polish the post before *really posting it* would help us understand you. Anyway, I don't understand your point. You don't like us calling Conduit toolbars spyware? You don't like us asking for AMO to have a clear and user friendly policy? What you propose instead?
old zmanzero
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post by old zmanzero »

JohnM555 wrote:I updated my userscript( http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/6509 ) so it highlights in red the extensions it removes if you have it toggle to show the ones it removes.
It also adds a has: operator for the titles, so for example, has:Toolbar in the BAD_TITLES array would remove anything with Toolbar in the title.
You can remove specific extensions by clicking on a red x next to their titles on the web page.

Its obviously not an ideal fix, we want AMO to clean up the mess themselves, but its better than nothing.

john, anyone ever tell you you were sent by an angel? thanks for your script.

i do want to comment that it's a shame to have to use a monkeyscript on the official firefox addon site. it's like having to use firefox against itself just to make some sense out of the site.
VanillaMozilla
Posts: 13808
Joined: November 7th, 2005, 11:26 am

Post by VanillaMozilla »

<b>Can we please stick to the subject?</b> If this continues, I'm going to ask moderators to split out the irrelevant posts. If anyone is in doubt, the subject heading is at the top of this page. Thanks.
Locked