how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
2597 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
| What's the *motivation* for hijack-ware? I can understand how some enterprises might want to quietly track someone's online activity, for various purposes. So to that extent I understand spyware and cookies. But, I don't understand the rationale behind hijack-ware at all! Why would a porn site or other commercial entity, allow itself to be a carrier of hijack-ware? I don't see how anyone could stand to gain by tampering with my browser's bookmarks, home page, or search settings. Obviously no one in their right mind would do business with any site that is affiliated with CWS or other hijack-ware. So, why does it exist? It seems completely illogical to me, except as a form of vandalism.
| |
| Well, viruses, trojans, and nasties are not good selling points either -- but they surely do seem associated with porn and warez sites .. legitimate commercial sites I would hope, keep themselves "clean" .. lol. 
--
"But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13) | | |
|
 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5
 ·Clearwire Wireless
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to 350ci
This quote is from Steve who posted this from Seattle.
"if the patch breaks only 1% of their customers, the law of large numbers means "that's a sh*tload of people".
Change Steve's quote to
"if only 1% of the machines (people) we hijack actually respond (buy) as a result of the hijacking, the law of large numbers means "that's a sh*tload of money".
and you have your answer.
--
Dave said "By the way, 4294967295 is just another way to write -1". | |
 keith2468Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB | reply to 350ci
Not talking about tracking cookies here, just talking true hijackware that hijacks searches or hijacks your web browser to produce pop-up ads.
Your big name retailer isn't going to put hijackware on his site because it would hurt his brand name.
A small site has no brand name to protect. It has little to loose. It may actually have several domain names active at once.
Also, a lot of times hijackware isn't obvious when it is first installed, or at least the exposure isn't obvious. So people often don't know where they got it from.
Regarding malware, it isn't just porn sites that spread malware and spyware. You can get Kazaa, which includes spyware, and you used to be able to get Gator, at cNet.com.
In fact *a lot* of reputable sites used to offer Gator -- sites that required password access.
So companies don't think there will be a downside.
The upside is they get a paid for the pop-ups they produce, the few human click-throughs, etc.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Security FAQ | |
| reply to 350ci
quote:
Obviously no one in their right mind would do business with any site that is affiliated with CWS or other hijack-ware. So, why does it exist?
Those in their right mind are only tip of the iceberg 
--
I have a soft spot for Russian made software | |
1 edit | reply to 350ci
350ci:
You asked:
said by 350ci:
I don't understand the rationale behind hijack-ware at all! Why would a porn site or other commercial entity, allow itself to be a carrier of hijack-ware? I don't see how anyone could stand to gain by tampering with my browser's bookmarks, home page, or search settings.
Simple: to drive potential customers to their sites and services. The vast majority of those who are herded to such web sites will resent the intrusion and hijack and not use or purchase the services and products available. As SnowyOne pointed out, however, there's always a small percentage who will be suckered or stampeded or coerced into purchasing whatever those sites are offering. That percentage could be as low as 1 percent or even some fraction of one percent, but since the cost of performing the hijacks is so low, a response of even a fraction of one percent is enough to cover their costs and even turn a small profit. It's really the same economics that motivates spammers to distribute mass quantities of unsolicited bulk commercial email to millions of people who would rather not have it in their inboxes.
said by 350ci:
Obviously no one in their right mind would do business with any site that is affiliated with CWS or other hijack-ware. So, why does it exist?
Don't count on it. Not only is there a sufficient percentage of internet users out there who will buy, but the number of commercial entities who will use the advertising services of those responsible for building and distributing hijackware is growing. As things stand, those invasive hijackware technologies are crude and widely despised by internet users. Thus, many if not most respectable businesses won't touch the advertising services offered by hijackware outfits with a barge poll. But that is changing.
Already some of the more "respectable" distributors of unwanted advertising software (what most folks call "spyware") are doing a brisk business. Claria (nee Gator) and WhenU are growing, and they are attracting respectable clients. See this article from CNET for some distressing news about the growth of the advertising software (aka, "spyware") market:
New wave of Web ads on the way
»news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5182072.html
Among the more alarming things reported in that article is that venture capitalists are starting to plow big money into these kinds of advertising outfits.
Why would that be? Because the technology is promising -- at least from the perspective of the advertising community. This technology -- hijackware, spyware, ad-ware, or whatever you choose to call it -- has an enormous potential attraction for advertisers: the ability to put advertising right on users' desktops, to convert their computers into fancy direct marketing machines, and to capture eyeballs in a way no other form of online advertising has yet been able to do.
Remember the rage in the media some years ago over "push" technology? (And this enthusiasm for "push" technology was largely confined to the media -- ordinary actual users hated it.) "Push" technology promised to solve one nasty problem for traditional media folks -- esp. advertisers -- created by the internet: namely, the independence and autonomy of internet users. Commercial advertisers prefer a captive audience with little autonomy. Despite all the blather about responding to consumer demand, they'd rather control a medium where they can "push" content down to users rather than respond to the demands of users -- it's simply much easier and less expensive to do it that way. "Push" technology died a predictable death because users hated it -- they wanted to be in control of their online experience, not let their use of the internet turn into a high-tech version of TV.
In truth, "push" technology hasn't completely died: it went into hibernation or incubation and was reborn as "spyware" or "hijackware" or "ad-ware" -- whatever you prefer to call it. "Hijackware" is merely the latest incarnation of "push" technology. And it is enormously attractive to advertisers. This kind of software technology allows advertisers to grab eyeballs, so to speak, right on the desktop and push unwanted commercial content down on users who have tremendous difficulty escaping it. For advertisers it's a dream come true: the ultimate captive audience. For normal web surfers it's the ultimate nightmare.
As I said, the technology has a bad reputation right now, and many advertisers have stayed away -- for now. But that's changing. At the moment this kind of technology is more prevalent on porn sites and crackz/warez sites. But remember: it is well known that the online porn industry serves as a kind of "test bed" for new technologies and business practices. Technologies and practices that were once the exclusive province of porn sites just a few years ago are now commonplace on the "mainstream" internet. Moreover, as any number of spyware distributors themselves have argued, spyware could very well become an attractive means for large, "mainstream" online entities to push their commercial messages on users, especially given the problems that have plagued the online advertising industry over the past few years.
We're already seeing signs of this growing interest among "mainstream" commercial entities, as I pointed out above. Not only are outfits like WhenU and Claria attracting investors and clients, but very large and respected online entities have gone to bat against the anti-spyware legislation recently introduced into the Utah state legislature and the U.S. House of Representatives. See these articles:
Leading Internet Providers Oppose Passage of Spyware Control Act
»www.mediapost.com/dtls_dsp_news.···D=242077
NetCoalition Letter Against Utah Anti-Spyware Bill
»www.netcoalition.com/index.asp?T···898DF83}
IT leaders question Senate spyware bill
»www.computerworld.com/printthis/···,00.html
BSA Urges Congress to Ban Behavior, Not Technology
»www.bsa.org/usa/press/newsreleas···logy.cfm
BSA Spyware Comments (PDF doc)
»www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/···mony.pdf
Utah Outlaws Spyware
»story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s···d/115527
If you read carefully, you'll notice that once you get past the usual nonsense about "stifling innovation" and so forth their real concern becomes quite clear: that such anti-spyware legislation could kill the hijackware advertising market. You better believe that venture capitalists who plow $40 million into advertising software outfits like Gator and WhenU aren't going to be too pleased to see that money go up in smoke.
said by 350ci:
It seems completely illogical to me, except as a form of vandalism.
Yes, many users rightly regard it as merely a sophisticated form of vandalism. Those who push this kind of software on users have a defense, though -- at least for the moment. That defense comes in the form of a EULA (end user license agreement) that they put in front of users. We know that these EULAs really can't and don't serve as adequate notice (for all kinds of reasons that I can't get into in this post, already long as it is), but nonetheless that's their defense: "We put a EULA in front of these folks; they clicked through it, consenting to the terms; thus, the users elected to install our software. End of story."
This problem has the potential to get much, much worse. That's why the recent anti-spyware legislation -- flawed though some of it may be -- is so important. That's also why I've been urging folks to take an interest in the upcoming FTC Spyware Workshop and submit comments -- see these recent threads:
»Tired of being hijacked? TELL the FTC!
»Telling the FTC About Spyware: A Few Tips...
»Lop.com Goes to the FTC
»What I Told the FTC about Spyware...
»A Guide to Spyware Comments Filed w/ the FTC
At the risk of sounding alarmist, I would say that we stand on the threshold of a potentially enormous change in the way normal folks use the internet and the kind of autonomy they have -- the amount of control they can exert over their online experience. There are powerful entities who would prefer to turn the free, open internet into one vast corporate playground -- a high tech version of TV -- and "hijackware"/"spyware"/"adware" could very well be one of the technologies that allows them to realize their radical agenda.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
| reply to 350ci
I got hit with the whenU.com hijack and it totally ruined my computer, I had to format my drive and reinstall. I really don't see why this is not illegal, it's no different than someone breaking into your home and nailing posters on your walls. My computer is not a public resource, I paid good money for it and spent a lot of time configuring it.
As for porn sites, I've been to many and never once has anything like the whenU.com hijack occured, not even close.
I saw that Target advertises with whenU.com, I won't be gong to that store again.
The government wants to ban Howard Stern and is doing nothing about hijacking marketting companies, it's crazy. | |
 TraftonSteve RocksPremium
join:2003-02-18
Tacoma, WA | reply to 350ci
Although there are more complex motivations, I hate to say it, but it simply comes down to one thing: money. And you can make a lot of money in the gray-area businesses of the Internet. | |
 Name GamePremium
join:2002-07-07
North Myrtle Beach, SC
kudos:6 | reply to Death Jr
said by Death Jr:
I got hit with the whenU.com hijack and it totally ruined my computer, I had to format my drive and reinstall. I really don't see why this is not illegal, it's no different than someone breaking into your home and nailing posters on your walls. My computer is not a public resource, I paid good money for it and spent a lot of time configuring it.
As for porn sites, I've been to many and never once has anything like the whenU.com hijack occured, not even close.
I saw that Target advertises with whenU.com, I won't be gong to that store again.
The government wants to ban Howard Stern and is doing nothing about hijacking marketting companies, it's crazy.
People want Stern off the airwaves..:D..if he can get a sponsor or a network to give him a voice he will be back..but he does not work for free Ban him ?? LOL If he has something the world needs..he will find a way to make a living.
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/ Missing Kidshttp://www.missingkids.com/ | |
 SparrowCrystal SkyPremium
join:2002-12-03
Sachakhand | reply to 350ci
The biggest "motivation" in the world...
 | |
 EGeezerSummertimePremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:7
 ·Callcentric
| said by Sparrow:
The biggest "motivation" in the world...
Agreed! 
--
Matthew 28:6 | |
|
