The Web's Download Disasters, Inaugural Edition
Posted by Shane Keats on January 12, 2006 03:27 PM
When we first started crawling the Web looking for bad downloads last year, we weren't sure what we'd find. Today, a million Web sites and 140,000 download tests later, I can say with confidence that there are some great programs to be downloaded out there. I can say with equal confidence that there's also plenty of train wrecks waiting to happen to your PC.
I blogged about how we conduct our download tests a few weeks ago when we opened SiteAdvisor for preview. Since then, a lot of people have asked me to clarify what our “nuisance score" means. I usually explain that it represents a synthesis of all the data we collect about a particular download. For example, a download which resets my default home page is annoying, but not fatal. Low score. A download which calls on well known ad-servers or installs multiple contextual ad programs gives me great angst. High score. Do a bunch of bad things and the score goes up. (The question was asked often enough that I put a description in our FAQ.)
But I think another more useful way to help explain the score is to look at some examples. In fact, today, I am inaugurating what will become a regular blog feature – a look at five downloads which really tip our nuisance meter. I’ll focus on software with nuisance scores of 9 or 10. Just how much of a nuisance are these downloads in practice? Read on and decide for yourself.
I'm starting this inaugural list with a screensaver called “aaliyahremembered2.zip" that I saw in SiteAdvisor's database. I happen to be a fan of the late singer so I went to EntertainmentWallpaper dot com (SiteAdvisor Analysis: Aaliyah Remembered) to download a copy for myself. I let my virtual PC click yes, yes, yes. Big mistake. The install starts mysteriously with a dialogue from WebDevAZ . But that’s just an appetizer before the main event. This nine course meal is positively medieval in its gluttony. It puts me through nine dialogue screens. Nine.
Included in my bounty: New dot Net, Accoona, TopRebates, Hyperlinker, a free ringtone from Jamster and an offer to reset my home page to Freeze.com.
In exchange for that, I got the following. It isn’t even pretty:
Who names a site RatLoaf anyway? SiteAdvisor has a lot of experience with these guys. We've tested more than 140 downloads from them and more than a dozen contain software most people would prefer to avoid. With so much to chose from, it's hard to decide. Here's SiteAdvisor's summary of our first few tests:
I'll focus on their Dog Days screensaver. The six screen install process is hardly a record and the ad bundles are actually reasonably well disclosed. So what do I get for clicking 'Yes' to New dot net, Relevant Knowledge and WhenU?
To SiteAdvisor, the whole world sometimes smells sketchy. Like when we look into the 7,987 word EULA and discover that our Dog Days are numbered. In fact:
The entire Evaluation period for the Software product may be no longer than 30 days, at which time the End-User must register the software and provide the accompanying payment in order to continue using the Software.
It's not even free! I have just put three pieces of software on my PC so I can try out a screensaver for 30 days. Grrrr.
Now, folks who go looking for warez are heading into the dark alleys of the Web by definition. But the “Warez P2P Client" (SiteAdvisor Analysis: Warez Client) really likes to go exploring. Lucky for me I clicked on the ‘+’ symbol to see what kind of “extras" I’d receive:
I was not disappointed. New dot Net is an old friend by now. Since they didn’t tell me which “contextual advertisement" I was downloading, I decided to double check by running Webroot’s Spy Sweeper after the Warez install. It found this nugget:
Warezclient ranks pretty high on Alexa too (20,342). Popularity, it turns out, is no defense against sketchiness.
Adroz dot com is a Smiley’s site – a place to get icons for your IM client. I was hard pressed to find anything safe to click there.
I downloaded one cocktail called Buddy Icons Direct (SiteAdvisor Analysis: Buddy Icons Direct) and just to make sure I wasn’t dreaming, I had PC Tools’ Spyware Doctor give my virtual PC a check-up. Buddy Icons Direct is bad many times over.
Their Dragonball Z “blurscreen" screensaver (SiteAdvisor Analysis: Dragonball Z) is a real bundle of joy. If you read through the EULA and pay attention during their eight-screen install process, here’s what they admit to bundling:
* Ezula’s Toptext
* NetPal
* New dot net
* Quicksearch toolbar
* An option to set your home page to Freeze.com
Was there anything else they neglected to tell me? I ran Webroot to double check. Here’s what I saw:
FavoriteMan? AdServerNow? KeenValue? ShopAtHomeSelect? TimeSink? I went back to the EULA and found no reference to them. According to Webroot’s handy and understandable descriptions, FavoriteMan has a “very high risk" rating. It monitors which Web pages I view and what data I enter and then serves targeted ads to me. ShopAtHomeSelect takes it to a higher level: it “redirects visitors to merchant Web sites via its own servers in order to increase its affiliate commissions." Turns out TimeSink is a “defunct advertising delivery mechanism." That’s new. They’re bundling adware for companies that don’t even exist anymore.
Let’s review. 10 pieces of advertising related software in exchange for one screensaver. Objectively, that's a bad deal: Users' computers will be far slower, less reliable, and less private, all in exchange for a piece of software users don't actually need.
That's it for now. You should feel free to use this for your own research if you find it helpful. We've also made our data available under Creative Commons License 2.5. In the meantime, please nominate your own favorites by going to our Feedback page. I'd love to check them out. Till next month.
Comments
Hey this is a great segment. With all the testing of sites you guys do, your perfect for finding all sorts of nasty DLs. I'll be keeping a running thread at my forum for sure. Users will eat this info up!!
You guys rock
Posted by: TeMerc | January 13, 2006 09:57 PM
Loved this segment, thankyou for the detail Shane :o)
To re-iterate Tom, a vast array of users are going to eat this one like a proverbial chocolate cake with extra topping!.
Posted by: Steven Burn | January 14, 2006 08:00 AM
Great info you have here, another good reason not to use MS Windows.
Posted by: Richard Labutis | January 14, 2006 09:22 PM
Amazing stuff out there. You guys are so helpful. Is there any plan to do this for the macintosh as well?
Posted by: Joe Kalamaris | January 14, 2006 09:29 PM
Greetz from /.!
Might want to watch your servers, a SlashWave is a comin' right herr.
Nice article, btw, I wish you all well in finding the sluthiest sluths on the internet and ratting 'em out for the rest of us!
Much thanks!
Posted by: James C. Woodall | January 14, 2006 09:37 PM
Good article on the dangers of running these programs. There just aren't enough people who know the risks in running programs off the net.
If you want a wallpaper, right click and save the picture!
Posted by: Chris | January 14, 2006 10:35 PM
Where are the Mac equivalents? I'd love to see a companion analysis.
We've never had to worry about things like this, but as all you Windows users switch to Mac, you'll undoubtedly bring your germs/viruses with you.
Perhaps you could do a similar study for us in a year or two?
Posted by: Chris Bergeron | January 14, 2006 10:36 PM
Congrats on getting Slashdotted. It amazes me at what people will put on their computers.
Posted by: Saskboy | January 14, 2006 10:41 PM
Hey, Shane. Great article. Found a link to this on slashdot. Good to see the MIT crowd doling good for the world :)
Posted by: Brett Prince | January 14, 2006 10:56 PM
"Great info you have here, another good reason not to use MS Windows."
Maybe you should have said, "another good reason not to install stupid software". On most of the installs you are agreeing to install the spyware, how is that Microsofts fault? I use windows with no virus or spyware protection, and I have never got infected with any of that crap. It's common sense.
Posted by: Scott | January 14, 2006 11:27 PM
Wow, I think this is a good service that you guys have done. It just sucks when you download something useful, but it's bundled with a bunch of apps that eventually kill your computer.
Posted by: DevGuy | January 14, 2006 11:33 PM
Some of these present a good case for capital punishment imho. Why does money have to bring out the worst in people...
Posted by: penguinpusher | January 15, 2006 12:08 AM
Great Work!
Posted by: Jacob Mathai | January 15, 2006 12:09 AM
Hmmmm, some excellent info for sure. Hope you manage to stay honest - sounds like a lot of folk will look to you for advice and live by it. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely...
Posted by: TyBreaker | January 15, 2006 12:14 AM
I see people installing crap like this all the time because it "looks cool" or they think it's a "neat program." It's really sad how little computing sense people have these days. Everyone needs to be forced to use DOS for a week. :-P
Great site. :-)
Posted by: vermilion | January 15, 2006 12:24 AM
I wonder how much spyware installing saSetup.exe gives me.
Posted by: Peter_Pan | January 15, 2006 12:38 AM
You mentioned a couple of good programs out there. Since you listed all the bad, do you think you'll do a list of really outstanding programs out there that needs recognition? Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Johnny
Posted by: Johnny Storm | January 15, 2006 01:38 AM
It is amazing to see what all people will throw at you and how innovative and harmless they may seem to gullible users.
One has to be very skeptical about running any executable item unless it isn't from a reliable source. This is exactly where your tool comes in -- enabling people to assess the 'reliability' of a site.
Posted by: Apurv | January 15, 2006 02:09 AM
Slight correction -- i meant "unless it is from a reliable source."
Posted by: Apurv | January 15, 2006 02:14 AM
Great article. Many people will surely benefit from SiteAdvisor once it becomes more widely known. Thanks for creating it. The Internet community thanks you for your work and your research.
Posted by: Colin | January 15, 2006 03:05 AM
Great article. Many people will surely benefit from SiteAdvisor once it becomes more widely known. Thank you for your work and your research.
Posted by: Colin | January 15, 2006 03:06 AM
In the search box, Type something like autodesk or adobe, etc? Your'll see things...................
Posted by: Cadguy | January 15, 2006 04:32 AM
"Turns out TimeSink is a “defunct advertising delivery mechanism.� That’s new. They’re bundling adware for companies that don’t even exist anymore."
That is awesome. I love getting ads from failed companies.
Posted by: 29 | January 15, 2006 04:54 AM
I hope people avoid these sites like the plague. Thanks for studying this problem. Can you avoid problems by switching from Internet Explorer to Firefox?
Posted by: Virtuous | January 15, 2006 06:31 AM
So what about this site? EveryPoker
Posted by: eebra82 | January 15, 2006 07:53 AM
This is important work - well done.
It also provides another reason for choosing open source - at least it's harder to hide this kind of stuff.
Posted by: Glyn Moody | January 15, 2006 09:01 AM
"I use windows with no virus or spyware protection, and I have never got infected with any of that crap. It's common sense."
How do you know if you've been infected or not then?
Posted by: blackraven | January 15, 2006 09:05 AM
Hi, great study as your list grows any chance of releasing a quick easy to install hosts file so windows users can block this stuff quickly and easily?
Posted by: Outlaw | January 15, 2006 09:44 AM
blackraven: SpySherriff [sic] pops up and tells him so.
Posted by: Leon Brooks | January 15, 2006 09:44 AM
Shane: have you *ever* found anything nasty targeted at any OS besides MS-Windows?
Posted by: Leon Brooks | January 15, 2006 09:45 AM
ditto the above in regard to browser 'addons' (etc) that target anything other than MSIE?
Posted by: u24 | January 15, 2006 10:59 AM
Wow. Yet another reason to not use windows. It is way to vulnerable to millions of types of spyware, trojans, viruses, worms, rootkits, unauthorized unstallations, etc. It is simply a logistical impossibility to keep up 50 million lines of code secure (Windows Xp). Security vulnerabilities increase exponentially with the size of the operating system. Comparatively, Mac OS X 10.4 has approximately 2.5 million lines of code.
Posted by: Zach | January 15, 2006 05:24 PM
This is nothing to do with Windows. This is to do with idiots that install this rubbish.
If OSX was the money maker for advertisers Windows is, OSX would have the same problem.
If you agree to install this type of software on any OS you are a fricking moron and deserve what you get.
Also, not keeping any system, irrespective of OS up to date is your own fault.
Posted by: Septimus | January 15, 2006 05:35 PM
Windows users have an open system which spyware and malware try to limit your options.
Mac users dont need any additional malware as apple has already taken all your choices away and you are locked into what Stevi wants you to do.
Posted by: Jeff Skindal | January 15, 2006 06:25 PM
"If OSX was the money maker for advertisers Windows is, OSX would have the same problem."
This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how these two operating systems differ. If you understood how some of the viruses and spyware worked on Windows, the lax security they manage to get around, then you would also understand that most of those routes around the user are not available in OS X. You and I both know that you have no clue what you're talking about. Do yourself and favor and go look into it. There's no reason not to be informed and know what you're talking about, and who knows, maybe you'll feel confident enough in your new-found knowledge to spread knowledge to others instead of reactions.
Posted by: Andre Richardson | January 15, 2006 10:23 PM
What anti-spy ware should I get?
Thanks, Vic
Posted by: Vic Werlhof | January 15, 2006 11:53 PM
EXELLENT WEBSITE!!!
I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR THE BEST SPY AND AD WARE PROGRAMS BUT DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL WHEN THEY ALL SAY THEY ARE THE BEST. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
I HAVE FOUND ONE PROGRAM THAT SEEMS OK. MIND EPLOSION 2. I HAVE USED IT FOR ONE YEAR AND ITS JUST A SMALL PROGRAM THAT KEEPS YOUR NAMES, PHONE#,EMAIL ADRESSES AND HOME ADRESSES. IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR AWILE. THANKS JO
Posted by: Jo Clawson | January 16, 2006 02:53 AM
Great Idea! I can’t think why no-one though of this before. One big concern though – if a tool like this comes into general use it becomes a powerful influence on where people go on the web. I have been around for a while so the cynic inside me says that in the wrong hands it can be used to negatively manipulate where people go/not go. Who watches the watchers?
Does software like this not properly belong to the open source community where it can be subject to public scrutiny?
Posted by: Ron | January 16, 2006 03:34 AM
What would be nice would be a Firefox extension that warned you about the worst offenders on the list with an option to block access. Or has someone already written one that I don't know about?
Posted by: Rance | January 16, 2006 09:17 AM
Vermillion asks:
'I wonder how much spyware installing saSetup.exe gives me.'
You can see what we install here: SiteAdvisor Analysis: SiteAdvisor Plug-In
- Shane
Posted by: Shane Keats | January 16, 2006 10:55 AM
Vic Worthof says:
"I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR THE BEST SPY AND AD WARE PROGRAMS BUT DO NOT KNOW HOW TO TELL WHEN THEY ALL SAY THEY ARE THE BEST"
One site you want to keep tabs on in regards to good/bad antispyware programs is here:
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm
Eric Howes does extensive testing on listed programs. Site is updated very regularly.
Plain english why the programs listed as rogues are listed.
Good info Shayne! Keep up the good work. :)
Leon Brooks asks:
"Shane: have you *ever* found anything nasty targeted at any OS besides MS-Windows?"
Must be some things that target Mac. Otherwise this spyware scanner would have not been created:
http://macscan.securemac.com/
It is also on Eric's page. About 3/4 the way down page. (No; not in the rogues list)
Keep well--surf safe!
Posted by: Blender | January 16, 2006 03:01 PM
OOps corrections..
I didn't realize the poster's name showed up at bottom of the post...:P
Where I mention Vic Worthof I meant Jo Clawson
Sorry to cornfuse :/
Blender
Posted by: Blender | January 16, 2006 03:06 PM
A great site, but from the comments I have read, I think you are preaching to a converted audience. Let's hope that the "newbies" who are likely to get caught in these scams find your website and heed its advice.
Posted by: Hugh Mungus | January 16, 2006 04:27 PM
gfbfbghhhghghnhhgnhgtnerf
Posted by: raj | January 16, 2006 04:29 PM
A total site list of "should be avoided" bad sites would be GREAT!!!!
Posted by: Lync | January 16, 2006 05:10 PM
Some web site, I believe just visiting a site, could infect your computer with a spyware called, "Spysheriff". My computer had to be reinstalled with Windows after I have visited:"www.seriall.com/",
***PLEASE AVOID GOING TO THE SITE UNLESS, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING*** . Anybody knows how can I avoid getting "spysheriff" again? It would be nice if someone could list the troublesome websites. Thanx a lot!!!
Posted by: keygen crisis | January 16, 2006 09:26 PM
(---)
http://getfirefox.com/
(---)
Some web site, I believe just visiting a site, could infect your computer with a spyware called, "Spysheriff". My computer had to be reinstalled with Windows after I have visited:"www.seriall.com/",
***PLEASE AVOID GOING TO THE SITE UNLESS, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING*** . Anybody knows how can I avoid getting "spysheriff" again? It would be nice if someone could list the troublesome websites. Thanx a lot!!!
Posted by: keygen crisis
Posted by: IKT|OCAU | January 17, 2006 12:43 AM
For a good listing of known bad sites you can check out the sites listed by Eric Howes in his IE-SPYADS application(no list text link)
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/resource.htm
Another good source for sites is a hosts file, I use and recommend MVPS Hosts:
Text form list:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt
Posted by: TeMerc | January 17, 2006 12:55 AM
Shane here. Thanks for the comments so far. Sorry for the delay but here's responses to a few of them.
Johnny asks 'do you think you'll do a list of really outstanding programs out there that needs recognition?' And Vic asks 'What anti-spy ware should I get?'
I'm glad to see others responding. We've been talking about providing recommendations but we don't want to play favorites. On the other hand, there are a lot of casual users out there who could use some good advice.
Virtuos asks 'Can you avoid problems by switching from Internet Explorer to Firefox?'
A lot of the attacks and threats we test for are browser and OS agnostic. Scammers are good at getting spam and spyware on a wide variety of machines with a wide variety of cofigurations.
eebra82 asks 'what about everypoker.com'
Turns out the site has been queued for testing. We recently added a lot more hardware that will allow us to increase our coverage. If there's a site out there you'd like to see tested, let us know by using our Feedback page.
Thanks for the kudos too. The dev team here has put in a lot of really long hours and it's great for us to know we're making a difference.
Posted by: Shane Keats | January 18, 2006 03:04 PM
Keygen Crisis there was no virius or trojan on the site ('http://www.seriall dot com') just some activeX toolbar thing flashing at the top asking you to download 'Yoursearchbar'. Did you have to restart your computer just because of that website? - Just wondering.
Posted by: SearchWebMe | January 18, 2006 04:02 PM
a lot of stupid malware and toolbar crud can be avoided by giving up Internet explorer in favour of opera, mozilla etc..
Posted by: kevin bourke | January 19, 2006 01:39 PM
Has Opera still got those ads?
Posted by: N00bieWEB | January 19, 2006 06:00 PM
no
Posted by: Unhappy | January 20, 2006 10:34 PM
Jesus Horatio Christ! That's a whole lotta crap windoze users have to endure...sure am glad I've got a Mac (let the flame wars continue).
Posted by: Ricky | January 22, 2006 10:42 PM
So far, I find nothing to complain about with Siteadvisor except--why didn't you make this available "yesterday". As a fiction writer, I spend many hours on the net researching almost every topic known to man and believe me, this program is a searchers boon. If my button isn't green, I don't click. *Thank you*
Posted by: Joy | January 22, 2006 10:56 PM
what difference would it make being avaliable today or being avaliable yesturday and to counteract this information was posted on the "January 12" :P
Posted by: Alexander | January 23, 2006 05:14 AM
Found you at http://www.downloadjunky.com/ , and am glad I did. Although I download only from reputable sources such as Tucows, Major Geeks, etc., this blog seems pretty useful to me! Never know when temptation might show. 140,000 downloads! Man, that's dedication.
Anyway, thanks.
Ken Johnson
Sand Point, Alaska
Posted by: Kenneth Johnson | January 24, 2006 08:19 PM
What's the rating of the EULA on siteadvisor's own site? Ugh. Sites that make users by default accept terms not yet defined are sleazy...h i p p o c r i t i c a l...
By using the Web Site, you signify your assent to the SiteAdvisor Privacy Policy. If you do not agree to this Policy, please do not use the Web Site. Your continued use of the Web Site following the posting of changes to these terms will mean you accept those changes.
Posted by: Ulyses Horatio | February 3, 2006 01:04 PM
It's Shane from SiteAdvisor checking in. Ulyses takes us to task above because our "Changes In Terms and Conditions" paragraph is so sweeping in its claims. A reader leveled a similar criticism in the comments to another blog entry.
Here was my response:
"I've always been troubled by this as well, but our lawyers tell us this is boilerplate language in EULAs worldwide, for companies both sketchy and legit. But you're right. It basically puts the burden on the consumer and that's unreasonable. I can't change the legal system but I can make the following pledge to you: If we make substantive changes to our EULA, T&C or privacy policy, we will make prominently disclose the changes for all to see. Thanks for the comment."
Posted by: Shane Keats | February 3, 2006 03:27 PM
Awesome blog. Peace out until next time TabathaOster
Posted by: TabathaOster | May 18, 2006 10:59 AM