client security – Page 4

August 11, 2005December 2, 2023

Debunking ShopAtHomeSelect updated October 14, 2005

Reading ShopAtHomeSelect‘s marketing materials, their advertising software might seem to present compelling benefits. SAHS promises users rebates on products they’re already purchasing. And SAHS even offers reminder software to make sure forgetful users don’t miss out on the savings. What could be better than timely reminders of free money?

But the SAHS site doesn’t tell the whole story. My testing demonstrates that SAHS software is often installed without users wanting it, requesting it, or even accepting it. (Details.) When users receive an unwanted SAHS installation, SAHS still claims commissions on users’ purchases — but typical users will never see a penny of the proceeds. (Details.) Meanwhile, whether requested by users or not, SAHS’s commission-claiming practices seem to violate stated rules of affiliate networks. (Details.)

Despite these serious problems, SAHS boasts a superstar list of clients — the biggest merchants at all the major affiliate networks, including Dell, Buy.com, Expedia, Gap, and Apple. Why? Affiliate networks have little incentive to investigate SAHS’s practices or assure compliance with stated rules. (Details.) SAHS and affiliate networks profit, but users and merchants are left as victims. (Details.)

Update (October 14): Commission Junction has removed SAHS from its network, thereby ending SAHS’s relationships with all CJ merchants. No word on similar actions by LinkShare or Performics.

Wrongful Installations – No Consent, and Tricky So-Called “Consent”

ShopAtHomeSelect is widely known to become installed without meaningful consent — or, in many cases, without any consent at all. Most egregious are installations through security exploits, without any notice or consent. I continually test these installations in my lab, and I have repeatedly observed SAHS appearing unrequested — more than half a dozen such installs, occurring on distinct sites on distinct days. I posted one such video in May, and I retain the others on file.

SAHS’s improper installations extend to many of SAHS’s bundling partners. I have repeatedly seen (and often recorded) SAHS disclosed midway through lengthy license agreements; users often have to scroll through dozens of pages to learn of SAHS’s inclusion. Even worse, some programs that bundle SAHS nonetheless fail to mention SAHS’s inclusion. See e.g. 3D Flying Icons, which shows a 12-page 2,286-word license that makes no mention of SAHS, yet 3D installs SAHS anyway. (Screenshot at right.)

In other instances, ActiveX popups pressure users to accept multiple advertising programs in the guise of “browser enhancements” (or similar). In February 2005, I observed an ActiveX popup that labeled itself “website access” and “click yes to continue,” but immediately installed SAHS if users pressed yes once. More recently, I posted an analysis of the PacerD ActiveX. (Screenshot at left.) PacerD’s ActiveX popup links to a license agreement which discloses installation of eight advertising programs — but doesn’t mention SAHS, though Pacer in fact does install SAHS. So even when careful users take the time to examine Pacer’s 1,951-word license, in hopes of learning what they’re getting, there’s no way to learn that SAHS will be installed, not to mention grant or deny consent.

I’m not the only observer to notice SAHS installed improperly. Earlier this month, VitalSecurity.org reported SAHS installed via IM spam: Users receive an unsolicited instant message, and clicking the message’s link installs SAHS (among other programs) without any notice or consent. Last month, PC Pitstop (1, 2) and VitalSecurity.org reported SAHS bundled with porn videos distributed by BitTorrent — so a user seeking adult entertainment would unwittingly receive SAHS too. In my testing of these BitTorrent videos, SAHS was listed in a license agreement preceding the videos, but users had to scroll past four pages of other text to learn of SAHS’s inclusion, and even then SAHS’s mention was only a single sentence — without even a link to an external SAHS license agreement, and without any description of the privacy effects of installing SAHS software. (See screenshot at right.) Furthermore, these BitTorrent videos aren’t SAHS’s only tie to porn videos. In January, I analyzed ActiveX popups triggered by porn videos. These popups falsely claimed to be required to view the videos, but in fact they were mere ploys seeking to install SAHS and other advertising software.

In short, a user receiving SAHS cannot reasonably be claimed to have wanted SAHS, nor to have granted informed consent. Perhaps some SAHS users run SAHS willingly and knowingly, but many clearly do not.

In contrast, affiliate networks’ rules set a high burden for installation disclosure and consent. LinkShare’s Shopping Technologies Addendum (PDF) requires that disclosure be “full and prominent,” a standard met neither by SAHS’s nonconsensual installations, nor by its installation when bundled with porn videos. Commission Junction’s Publisher Code of Conduct requires that disclosure be “clearly presented to and accepted by” users, and CJ specifically prohibits software that is “installed invisibly” (as in the nonconsensual installations detailed above).

SAHS may claim that these wrongful installations have stopped. But that’s just not credible. I’ve continued to see (and record) these installations as recently as the past few days.

SAHS may say these wrongful installations are the fault of its distributors. (SAHS offered that argument when PC Pitstop inquired as to SAHS bundling with porn videos.) But affiliate networks’ rules do not forgive wrongful installations merely because the installations were performed by others. To the contrary, affiliate networks set out high consent requirements which apply no matter who installs the software. Furthermore, with so many diverse wrongful installations over such an extended period, it’s clear that something is fundamentally wrong with SAHS’s installation methods; SAHS can’t escape responsibility by vague finger-pointing.

Update (September 9): Staff from SAHS have prepared a document (PDF) purporting to rebut my findings of nonconsensual and dubious installations of SAHS. In each instance, SAHS claims they weren’t really installed in the manner I describe, so they say I am “mistaken” as to my allegations. Let’s look at each of the types of installations I described, and review the evidence:

Tricky popups (PacerD specifically): I previously posted an analysis of PacerD’s installation, including a screenshot of new folders created by PacerD. SAHS correctly notes that there’s no new folder containing SAHS files. But the lack of a new Program Files folder doesn’t mean SAHS wasn’t installed; quite the contrary, SAHS was installed by PacerD. Furthermore, SAHS was installed into the c:Windows directory, where inexperienced users are unlikely to look for it, and where its files tend to become jumbled with other files. To document this installation, I have added two new screenshots to my SAHS write-up, showing newly-created SAHS files placed in my c:Windows directory. I also have on file a video, showing the installation of the PacerD ActiveX followed (without interruption in the video) by the creation of these files. I also have on file a packet log indicating the newly-installed copy of SAHS contacting SAHS servers. So my initial write-up was right and SAHS’s response is wrong: PacerD did indeed install SAHS — and it did so without mentioning SAHS in any EULA or other disclosure.

Large bundles with little or no disclosure (3D Flying Icons specifically): Here again, SAHS makes the same analytical error. My write-up reports lots of new folders (within c:Program Files) reflecting other programs becoming installed. SAHS didn’t add a folder to c:Program Files, so it didn’t come up in my Program Files screenshots. But SAHS absolutely was installed by 3D. In a video I made at the time (now also posted to my public site), I observed a SAHS installer created in c:Temp (1:44), and I saw SAHS program files in c:Windows at 2:43, in each instance bearing distinctive SAHS icons as well as typical SAHS filenames. So there can be no disputing that 3D installs SAHS.

Nonconsensual installations through security holes: The section above links to a particular single security exploit video, one of literally scores I have on file. My automated network log analysis, file-change, and registry-change analysis confirm that SAHS was installed in the course of that security exploit, and Ad-Aware logs say the same, but the video does not specifically show the installation. That’s not particularly surprising — SAHS installs can be silent, and I wasn’t specifically seeking to document SAHS installs when I made that video. But rather than worry about this single example from so many months back, let me take this opportunity to post a recent example, showing a nonconsensual SAHS installation I happened to receive just last month (August 2005). In this video, I view a page at highconvert.com (video at 0:05), receive a series of security exploits (0:20-0:30), browse my file system and diagnostic tools, and then get a popup indicating that SAHS has been installed (1:57) (screenshot). My packet log and change-logs also confirm the SAHS installation.

So where does this leave my claims of improper SAHS installations? Notwithstanding SAHS’s promises of legitimacy, there can be no doubt of SAHS becoming installed without consent. SAHS may not like to admit it, and SAHS produces intense rhetoric to deny it, but users with SAHS aren’t all “opt-in.” To the contrary, some SAHS users have SAHS just because they’re unlucky enough to get it foisted upon them. And contrary to SAHS’s claim that my findings are “incorrect,” I have ample proof of these nonconsensual SAHS installs.

Wrongful Operation – Forced Clicks

In addition to regulating installation methods, affiliate networks’ rules limit the ways in which affiliates may claim affiliate commissions. Commission Junction’s Publisher Code of Conduct prohibits claiming commissions on “non-end-user initiated events” — invoking affiliate links without an “affirmative end-user action.” LinkShare’s Shopping Technologies Addendum (PDF) lacks a corresponding prohibition of non-end-user initiated events, but LinkShare’s Affiliate Membership Agreement repeatedly calls for affirmative user actions as a necessary condition to earning commission. For example, LinkShare’s provision 1.1 says commissions are payable only for “users who activate the hyperlink” (emphasis added); the “users … activate” wording specifically contemplates a user taking an affirmative action, not merely a software program automatically opening a link. (Since LinkShare’s special Addendum lacks any provision to the contrary, these Agreement terms still apply.)

There are good reasons for these rules: Affiliate merchants often make substantial payments if an affiliate link is activated and a user makes a purchase. (For example, Dell could easily pay $10+ for a single purchase through a single link.) So software programs aren’t allowed to “click” on affiliate links automatically. Instead, users must actually show some interest in the links — protecting merchants from being asked to pay commissions when an affiliate did nothing to earn a fee.

Although applicable network rules require that clicks on affiliate links be affirmative and that such clicks actually be performed by users (not just by software), SAHS software opens affiliate links and claims commissions without users taking any specific action. See e.g. this SAHS-Dell video, showing a user requesting www.dell.com on a computer with SAHS installed. SAHS immediately redirects the user to its affiliate link to Dell (video at 0:06), and LinkShare affiliate cookies are created (0:08), all without a user affirmatively clicking on any SAHS affiliate link. See also a corresponding SAHS video for Buy.com, showing affiliate link being loaded (0:06) and cookies created (0:10), again without any user interaction.

So SAHS’s operation constitutes an apparent violation of applicable network rules — claiming affiliate commission without the required user click on an affiliate ad, seemingly contrary to network rules.

Affiliate Networks’ Motives

I began this piece with the claim that affiliate networks have allowed SAHS to remain in their networks, notwithstanding the violations set out above. Why?

One possibility is that the affiliate networks simply never noticed the violations. But that’s a suggestion I can’t accept. Consider the many articles above, each reporting wrongful installations. Much of this work received extensive media coverage, including discussions on industry sites of record. Furthermore, most of these findings can be verified easily using any ordinary PC. So affiliate networks can’t credibly claim ignorance of what was occurring.

More persuasive, in my view, is the theory that affiliate networks declined to punish SAHS because SAHS’s actions are profitable for affiliate networks. When an affiliate merchant pays a commission to an affiliate, that merchant must also pay a fee to the intermediary affiliate network. Commission Junction’s public pricing list reports that this fee is 30% — so for every $1 of commission paid to SAHS, CJ earns another $0.30. As a result, affiliate networks have clear financial incentives to retain even rogue affiliates. (Indeed, at the same time that adware has exploded to infect tens of millions of PCs, CJ and LinkShare are reporting unusually strong earnings. [1, 2])

I don’t want to overstate my worry of affiliate networks’ profit motivation. In recent months, affiliate networks have repeatedly kicked out long-time rule-breakers, even where the rule-breakers make money for the networks. (See e.g. LinkShare kicking out 180solutions, and CJ kicking out 180solutions, Direct Revenue and eXact Advertising.) But these actions generally only occur after an extended period of user and analyst outcry. (See e.g. my writing last summer about 180solutions’ effects on affiliate systems.) In contrast, to date, little attention has been focused on SAHS.

Update (October 14): Commission Junction has removed SAHS from its network, thereby ending SAHS’s relationships with all CJ merchants. No word on similar actions by LinkShare or Performics.

Merchants and Users as Victims

As shown in the example video linked above, SAHS claims affiliate commissions even when users specifically request merchants’ sites. Dell and Buy.com get no bona fide benefit from paying 1%-2% to SAHS, as shown in the videos above. SAHS might claim that it pays users rebates as a way to encourage their purchases from participating merchants. But when SAHS arrives on users’ PCs unrequested, and even without users’ acknowledgement or acceptance of its arrival, users are unlikely to be motivated to make purchases from SAHS-participating merchants. So it’s unclear what benefit SAHS can offer merchants under these circumstances.

Notwithstanding the problems with SAHS’s business, affiliate networks encourage merchants to make payments to SAHS by listing SAHS as an affiliate in good standing, inviting SAHS staff to conferences, and occasionally even giving awards to SAHS. Whether through these network actions or based on merchants’ own failure to diligently investigate, merchants bear the brunt of SAHS’s bad actions — paying out commissions SAHS has not properly earned under stated affiliate network rules.

Users also suffer from SAHS. As a result of the ill-gotten payments paid to SAHS by merchants, SAHS receives funds with which it can and does purchase additional installations from its software distribution partners (including the nonconsensual and tricky installations shown above). Payments from Dell (and other targeted merchants) ultimately help to fund the infection of more users — slowing down more users’ PCs, making more users’ PCs unreliable, and pouring fuel onto the spyware problem. To the extent that affected users respond by buying new PCs, Dell perhaps benefits indirectly — but I gather Dell does not aspire to fund such infections.

SAHS may claim that users benefit from its presence, even if its initial installation was improper. After all, SAHS claims affiliate commissions based on users’ purchases, and SAHS stands ready to refund a share of these commissions to the responsible users. But from the perspective of users who received SAHS without meaningful disclosures, SAHS’s offer is of dubious value. Where a program arrives unrequested, users’ fears of identity theft or fraud will (rightly!) discourage them from providing the personal information necessary to receive a payment (name, address, etc.). SAHS may be offering users legitimate actual payments — but when SAHS’s installation was nonconsensual in the first place, users have no easy way to distinguish SAHS’s offer from a phishing attempt or other scam. Without payment details, SAHS will simply retain users’ funds — giving users no benefit for the unrequested intrusion on their PCs, but giving SAHS extra profits.

This is an unfortunate situation — but it’s not hopeless. Dell, Buy.com, and other affected merchants need not continue to help fund this mess. LinkShare and Commission Junction need not continue to pass money to SAHS from unwitting merchants, nor need they continue taking 30% cuts for themselves. Stay tuned.

Update (September 13): News coverage discusses the problem of SAHS retaining commissions for users who never requested SAHS and never even registered for rebates. CJ claims that they have not confirmed “SAHS performing redirects on unregistered users,” but admits that this would be a “major violation.” I have provided CJ with screenshot and video proof, showing SAHS doing exactly that.

June 30, 2005December 2, 2023

Microsoft to Buy Claria? updated July 12, 2005

Today’s New York Times reports Microsoft “in talks” to buy Claria. Leading commentators think it’s a bad idea (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). I agree.

I first heard this rumor several weeks back, but I laughed it off as too crazy to be taken seriously. What could Claria offer Microsoft? Most obvious is Claria’s large installed base — reportedly some 40-million PCs. But Claria’s installation practices are troubled — tricking users with ads that look like Windows dialog boxes, on kids sites, touting features Claria knows users don’t need (like clock-synchronizers already built into current versions of Windows). And in Claria’s oft-installed bundle with Kazaa, Claria’s long license lacks section headings, making it exceptionally hard for users to figure out what Claria does or to reasonably assess Claria’s terms. (These problems remain, seven months after I first reported them.) Microsoft wouldn’t want installations obtained through such poor practices.

Claria could also offer Microsoft substantial data about users’ surfing habits. A November 2003 eWeek article reported that Claria’s then-12.1 terabyte database was already the seventh largest in the world — bigger than Federal Express, and rivaling Amazon and Kmart. Claria recently told Release 1.0 its database is now 120 terabytes, the fifth-largest commercial Oracle database in the world. All very interesting, and perhaps troubling to those who worry about illicit use of such detailed data. But why would Microsoft invite this unnecessary privacy firestorm?

Claria could offer Microsoft its experience at advertisement targeting. But Claria’s targeting seems surprisingly simple: If a user goes to one car rental site, show an ad for another, whether in a pop-up, a delayed pop-under, or perhaps some subsequent banner ad placed via Claria’s new BehaviorLink program. Microsoft could design a similar system of its own in a matter of months, for far less than the $500 million it would reportedly cost to buy Claria.

Claria does have some interesting patents, a few making surprisingly broad claims as to software and advertisement delivery. But I’m not sure these patents are actually valid. If Microsoft wanted to implement client-side advertisement targeting, the more natural approach would be a design-around that didn’t infringe Claria’s design. Building it themselves avoids taint from Claria’s bad name, bad history, and bad installation practices.

Microsoft’s role as an operating system vendor and anti-spyware developer raises additional worries in buying Claria. Programs like Claria’s damage the Windows experience — bombarding users with annoying pop-ups, not to mention slowing boot time, adding complexity, and risking extra crashes. If Microsoft buys Claria, it would face practical difficulty in continuing to criticize, detect, and remove similar programs from others.

The Times says Microsoft’s Ballmer wants to be “more aggressive” in pursuing Google. But an aggressive strategy need not ignore business ethics — even if Google’s current distributors and partners are less than praiseworthy (1, 2). So I’m surprised that Ballmer reportedly personally approved negotiations with Claria. That said, others within Microsoft apparently oppose the acquisition, and negotiations are reportedly “on the verge” of breaking off. Cooler heads prevail, or so it seems.

It’s worth noting that no one from Microsoft or Claria has officially confirmed the negotiations. Techdirt and SiliconBeat claim this is all just a rumor. I have somewhat more faith in the Times’ reporting procedures; I’d like to think their editors wouldn’t run the story without confirmation from reasonable sources. Alex Eckelberry of Sunbelt offers what seems to me the most natural explanation: Microsoft leaked this story on purpose, as a “trial balloon” to test public response.

Update (July 1): A Dozleng.com post reports that Microsoft’s AntiSpyware Beta now recommends that users “ignore” Claria. To confirm this result, I downloaded Claria’s DashBar and Precision Time products, then installed MSAS, all on a fresh virtual PC that hadn’t previously run any of these programs. MSAS’s recommendation and default action was “Ignore.” (See screenshot at right.) In contrast, when last I ran MSAS on a PC with Claria software installed, MSAS recommended removing these same programs. This is exactly the kind of conflict of interest I worried about three paragraphs above — but I didn’t anticipate how quickly this problem would come into effect.

Update (July 8): Apparently Microsoft’s “Ignore” recommendation doesn’t reflect special treatment for Claria in anticipation of an acquisition. Instead, Microsoft recommends “Ignore” for a variety of dubious “adware” programs. Sunbelt reports that Microsoft downgraded Claria to “Ignore” on March 31 — far before acquisition talks reportedly began. A comment from Webroot’s Richard Stiennon claims that Microsoft recently recommended ignoring 180solutions, and Sunbelt adds that Microsoft also recommends ignoring WebHancer and Ezula. My subsequent testing indicates that there are plenty of other “Ignore” programs still to be uncovered. (More on this in the future.)

These odd recommendations demonstrate the misguidedness of Microsoft’s “Ignore” classification. I know of no PC technician who advises users to ignore infection with any of these programs, which give users extra ads without anything offering substantial in return. If Bill Gates sought to clean up a friend’s PC, I bet he’d want all these programs gone. Competing anti-spyware programs all recommend removal. Yet somehow Microsoft’s AntiSpyware app sees no problem.

Has Microsoft given in to vendors’ threats? Or forgotten how badly “adware” damages the Windows experience (ultimately encouraging users to switch to other platforms)? I’ve previously been impressed with Microsoft’s AntiSpyware offering; I’ve often used it and often recommended it to others. But screw-ups like this call Microsoft’s judgment into question. During this sensitive period, with Microsoft unwilling to deny the continued Claria acquisition rumors, Microsoft should be especially careful to put users’ interests first. Instead, Microsoft’s recommendations cater to the interests of the advertising industry. I’m not impressed.

Microsoft’s recently-published response to questions about Claria defends Microsoft’s treatment as the result of ordinary application of Microsoft’s usual criteria, without any special exceptiosn. Perhaps. But if this Microsoft’s criteria say to ignore a program known to be installed through fake-user interface ads on kids sites, showing a EULA only after installation, with a broken uninstaller, then Microsoft’s criteria leave a lot to be desired.

Update (July 12): ClickZ reports that Microsoft has ended acquisition talks with Claria.

June 28, 2005December 2, 2023

What Passes for “Consent” at 180solutions

180solutions today announced its plan to show its users “notification” popups describing some of 180’s practices — thereby, in 180’s view, obtaining users’ “informed consent.” In principle, a re-opt-in might let 180 obtain users’ consent even where initial installations had somehow failed to do so. But 180’s notification message is so flawed and so duplicitous that it can’t offer the legitimacy 180 purportedly seeks. For one, 180’s notification screen makes numerous false statements. Also, 180’s notification is presented in a way that fails to obtain any notion of “consent.” Meanwhile, even 180’s new installs don’t obtain meaningful informed consent.

A Close Look at 180’s “Notifications”

180 Notification Screenshot

A reporter yesterday sent me a screenshot of 180’s planned notification. I see at least seven problems with the screen’s text:

1. 180’s notification screen fails to affirmatively state what 180 does — its popups or its privacy effects. 180’s first two sentences disclose that something called “180search Assistant” is installed, and that it will show “ads.” But nowhere does 180 disclose that the ads appear in popups — an advertising format known to be particularly objectionable, and therefore particularly important to bring to users’ attention if users are to offer genuine consent. In addition, nowhere does 180 disclose the important privacy effects of installing 180 software — that 180 will track what web sites users visit, and send much of this information to its servers. The importance of these omissions can’t be overstated: If 180 fails to disclose what users are purportedly accepting, no valid “consent” can result.

2. 180 claims to “giv[e] you free access to search tools, software and entertainment sites.” This claim is false, in that for many users 180 provides no such thing. Consider a user who receives 180 software without notice or consent. 180 might allow access to special entertainment sites that are otherwise unavailable. But this ability is of no benefit if users don’t know they have 180, didn’t ask for 180, aren’t told what special sites they can access, and in any event don’t want to access such sites.

3. 180 claims to show “approximately 2-3 highly targeted ads per day.” This claim is false, in that many users will receive many more ads per day. Perhaps an average user gets only a few ads per day, when averaging includes all the users who don’t use their PCs on many days, or who don’t use their web browsers. But in even limited web browsing, I consistently receive far more than three 180 ads per day.

4. 180 inexplicably claims that “user consent is required before 180search Assistant can be installed.” This claim is absolutely false. 180 is often installed without any consent at all. See videos on my site (1, 2, 3) (dozens more on file). 180’s own staff have repeatedly admitted that nonconsensual installations occur (1, 2, 3, 4). After these many admissions, I don’t understand how 180 can now argue that users have “consent[ed]” to its installation. Indeed, the entire premise of 180’s re-notification program is to make up for prior nonconsensual installations!

5. 180 claims that “all 180search Assistant ads are labeled…” This is false. As 180 staff have previously admitted, advertisements with redirects erase 180’s ad labeling.

6. 180 claims that “the user must be 18 or over to download.” Again, false. In fact, 180 software is widely offered on kids sites, where users are unlikely to be over 18. (Example.) Some 180’s installations mention a requirement of user age, but this provision is typically exceptionally hard to find. For example, in one screensaver I tested today, the user-age provision was on page 18 of 180’s license, in the next-to-last paragraph, captioned “Miscellaneous.” (Screenshot.)

7. 180 concludes by claiming that “You can easily remove the 180search Assistant … using ‘Add or Remove Programs'” False. The removal isn’t “easy,” for at least two reasons.

i. Finding 180 is surprisingly difficult. 180 often places its entry in tricky locations within the alphabetical Add/Remove listing — like under “U” for “Uninstall 180search Assistant,” rather than a more natural “1” for “180search Assistant.” Users cannot reasonably be expected to look under “U” in search of 180’s entry. On a new PC with a short Add/Remove list, users will still typically find 180’s entry. But on a long and crowded Add/Remove list, on a typical heavily-used PC, it’s anything but “easy” to find 180.

ii. 180 discourages removals using various false and misleading statements. See my prior analysis, finding numerous dubious claims in 180’s uninstall procedure, as well as confusing window design that further discourages removal. For example, 180 falsely claims that removing its software “will disable any Zango-based applications” — even when no such applications have been installed.

Combining these factors, 180’s uninstall procedure is not properly characterized as “easy.” 180 does know how to make “easy” procedures: When 180’s software is installed with one click (or even with zero!), the procedure is remarkably simple. But 180 has taken affirmative steps to make removal harder.

Problems with 180’s Notification Procedure: Failing to Request or Obtain Consent

180’s press release claims that its new notification screens will “ensure each user … has provided informed consent.” I disagree. As I look at 180’s notification text, 180’s notification actually won’t obtain any consent at all.

As a threshold matter, 180’s notifications apparently will be shown in ordinary Internet Explorer popup windows. Seeing these popups, typical users will seek to close them as quickly as possible — finding them irrelevant, unwanted, and annoying. The ordinary IE presentation format is not conducive to obtaining consent. It’s certainly not well-equipped to get the “informed consent” 180 purports to seek.

Most seriously, 180’s notification text does not seek or require any manifestation of user agreement or approval. In fact, 180’s screen doesn’t say anything about consent: It doesn’t require users to click a button to indicate acceptance of 180’s terms; it doesn’t require users to click a button to keep 180 software on their PCs. Rather, 180’s software stays installed unless users figure out how to remove it. Failure to remove 180’s software certainly can’t be claimed to constitute “consent” to keep it installed. So where’s the “consent” in 180’s notifications?

If 180 really wants informed consent, it could do a lot better. Rather than write its notification screens in marketing-speak, full of euphemisms and half-truths, 180 could write its notification in the formal and calm language used in disclosures elsewhere. I’ll even give 180 a few free sentences. First, 180 should accurately describe its software:

“Your computer is running 180solutions advertising software. 180 will track what web sites you visit, and 180 will show you pop-up ads accordingly. On average, users receive several ads per day, but you may receive more or fewer, depending on how often you use your web browser and depending on what web sites you visit.”

180 would accompany this text with an image showing a representative pop-up ad.

Next, 180 would proceed to explain how its software got installed, and what users can do to keep it or to remove it:

“180 software may have been installed on your computer with your consent or with consent of another user of your computer. 180 may have become installed without consent. You may elect to keep 180 software on your PC, or you may choose to remove it without penalty.”

Finally, 180 would include a one-click button to uninstall its software immediately, along with another button that indicates users’ consent to keep 180 installed.

If 180 included notice of this form — unbiased truthful sentences, that fairly and frankly disclose 180’s true effects — users might be able to make an informed decision to keep 180’s software. But where 180’s “disclosure” is loaded with euphemisms and falsehoods, offering only a convoluted uninstall procedure, it’s hard to say 180 has obtained “informed consent.”

180’s New Installation Stubs: Half-Truths and Omissions

180’s press release claims that its new “technology enhancements” will make it “harder” for 180 software to be installed “covert[ly].” Perhaps. But what happened to the standard of “informed consent” (so prominent earlier in 180’s press release)? 180’s change in wording — from “informed consent” to avoiding “covert” installations — may be surprisingly important. I agree that 180’s new installation procedure isn’t covert. But neither does it yield informed consent.

180 Stub Installer – Main Screen

Installer Covers & Obscures License Agreement

Secondary Installer Screen – If User Initially Declines

My understanding is that the “enhancement” at issue is a stub installer like that shown at right. 180’s distribution partners currently distribute a full copy of 180 software. But in the future, apparently they’ll only distribute a stub. Currently, 180’s partners are asked to obtain consumer consent for the installation of 180 software; under the new approach, 180 itself will obtain consent. If properly implemented, this approach might prevent many wrongful installations. Unfortunately, I’ve seen little sign that 180 has designed this system in a way that obtains meaningful consent.

Last week I was testing a security hole exploit which installed more than a dozen programs on my test PC without any notice or consent. Among the unrequested screens appearing on my test PC was the image shown at right (top). This first screen apparently seeks my consent to install 180 — but like the 180 notification described in the preceding sections, nowhere does this screen explain 180’s relevant characteristics and effects. The screen mentions “180search Assistant” and “2-3 advertiser referrals” — but nowhere does it mention that 180’s “referrals” are actually pop-up ads. The screen says that referrals will be “based … on … websites you visit,” but it fails to disclose that website visit data will also be sent to 180’s servers. So the screen fails to mention the relevant facts users need to know in order to grant informed consent.

180’s stub installer does mention an external license, available via a blue link from within the stub. I clicked the link and received the image shown in the second screen at right. Notice the web browser showing 180’s license — in a small window, requiring eight screens to view in full. Worse, although I had clicked the “Terms and Conditions” link to request the license, 180’s large stub installer still largely covered the license. It was extraordinarily hard to read the license, even when I maximized the license to fill the rest of the screen, because roughly half of each line of text was covered by the stub window. (Notice that the license window is “active” (blue title bar highlighting) while the stub “Setup” window is “inactive” (grey).) This is not a one-time fluke; to the contrary, the stub consistently remains on top of the license (and all other windows), contrary to Windows standards. Savvy users may realize they can move the stub out of the way by dragging its title bar. But the ordinary windows Minimize button is missing from the stub’s window, eliminating the easiest way to hide that screen.

On one test PC, I pressed “Finish” in the stub, and 180 installed immediately.

On another test PC, I mimicked the choice of a user who didn’t want 180. I pressed “Cancel” in the stub, and I was then shown the third screen at right. This window claims that “without [180], [a user] may lose access to free games, music, toolbars, and other downloads.” This statement may be accurate as to some installations, but in the security exploit I received last week, I had requested no games, music, toolbars, or other download — so there could be no loss of access in the way the dialog box claimed. This statement was therefore false, as applied to me.

Consider a user who presses “Cancel” in the first screen, but then decides to give 180 a second chance on the strength of the second dialog. When the user presses “Resume” in the second box, the user has not yet accepted 180’s license agreement — probably failing to read it initially (since the user decided to press Cancel, not wanting 180) and certainly failing to accept it. Nonetheless, 180 immediately installs, without offering any further opportunity for a user to access the license or to decline installation. So in 180’s view, the “Resume” button in the second box actually means “I accept the license linked from the prior box but not available on this screen.” That’s a tall order — certainly not what the box plainly says, or what typical users will expect to occur if they press Resume.

Here too, 180 could do much better. 180 could provide a clear description of its effects, using ordinary terms (“pop-up ads”) users can readily understand. 180 could present its installation request with appropriate branding — colors, logo, font, and other characteristics that match 180’s other marketing material. 180 could present its license in a way users can readily read. And 180 could refuse to install when user consent is at best ambiguous (“resume”).

180 is promoting this “stub” installation procedure as a solution to nonconsensual installs. If all 180’s distributors switch to this new installation method, perhaps fewer distributors will be able to infect users in complete silence. But the stub’s tricky text and poor disclosures mean users will still receive 180 software without being fairly told what it is and what it will do to their computers. That’s a far cry from the “informed consent” 180’s press release promises.

May 9, 2005December 2, 2023

Telling the Truth about Installation Tactics

Installation practices occupied center stage at last week’s CNET Download.com‘s anti-spyware conference. Many of the companies whose installation practices I’ve criticized attempted to defend those practices or deflect attention from them. But their explanations and excuses don’t stand up to critical examination.

Does Claria Target Kids? Take Two…

At the CNET conference, I showed my slides of Claria’s misleading ads on kids sites. The audience seemed to think the slides are pretty damning: Claria shows an ad that looks like a Windows dialog box, though it’s not; Claria offers a clock-synchronizing program (which Windows XP users don’t need); Claria installs software with just two clicks; and Claria doesn’t show a license until after the user accepts the installation. All this, on sites targeted at kids — sites with privacy policies that say so, in case the cartoon graphics, simple language, and underlying content (often cartoon video games) weren’t clear enough.

Claria’s CEO, Jeff McFadden, responded in part by claiming that the Ezone site (the example I focused on) isn’t really targeted at kids:

“… There’s a second thing that was mentioned, that this is a kids site. I’m not sure what homework was done on this, because there’s an IDC report that says that online gaming sites, the average age of people who visit those sites is 29. I don’t know if anyone has done a demographic study of this particular site. I was shocked to find that even the Neopets web site that my daughters at home use quite frequently has a very large constituency of housewives that use the site. So we do not ‘target’ kids sites. … ”

–conference archive, session 2 recording (MP3), from 1:05:00 to 1:12:38 (excerpt – WindowsMedia), in response to my question at 55:50 to 57:50 (excerpt). See also panelists’ responses at 57:50 to 1:05:00 (excerpt).

IDC may be right that the average age of gaming site visitors is 29. But I doubt demographics are similar at cartoon video game sites like Ezone. With titles like “Beetle Junior” and “Turtle Bay,” it’s hard to think the sites could retain a major adult audience.

What would it take to convince Jeff that the Ezone site really does cater to kids, and that it isn’t an appropriate place to solicit new installations of Claria’s advertising software? Last month I posted several other examples of Claria ads on (what I claim to be) kids sites — not just Ezone, but also a site called Fingertime Games (“lunar mouse house,” “junk food jack” and other games). Today I’m adding one more, which I think is even more clearly targeted at kids. For starters, the site is called Kidzpage — its very name a play on “kids.” Its title bar and “welcome” text both say it’s “for children.” Its advertisement pitch specifically says it’s “for kids and adults … family and students … school-aged children along with the ‘grown-ups’ who supervise them.” It’s linked from Yahooligans (Yahoo for kids). Can anyone seriously dispute that users obtained at such a site will include kids who didn’t know what they were getting, and who couldn’t reasonably consent?

Beyond targeting kids, there’s plenty more wrong with this Claria installation method. See my earlier write-up for discussion of fake-user-interface, unneeded programs, and failure to show a license until after installation occurs. See also Eric Howes‘s Adware Installations of 2005, showing other Claria installations with similar shortcomings.

Ask Jeeves’ Problems: Non-consensual Installations, Semi-consensual Installations

Installation practices seem to be a question that IAC CEO Barry Diller doesn’t fully understand, or at least doesn’t care to talk about. In an earnings call last week, he said AJ “doesn’t have an issue with either spyware or adware.” But more than denying that AJ faces exposure here, Diller didn’t even want to discuss the matter. He continued: “It is an issue, obviously, but it is not our issue. And that’s that. Next question, please?”

Diller is right that the AJ toolbars aren’t either spyware or adware (as I use the terms). After all, the AJ toolbar doesn’t obviously collect much information about what users do (though I don’t fully understand all of AJ’s transmissions). And the AJ toolbar doesn’t show the annoying pop-ups common to most “adware.” (That said, AJ’s toolbar leads users to web pages with lots of PPC ads syndicated from Google. So if some AJ installations are wrongful, remember that Google revenues are ultimately funding AJ’s activities. Google staff tell me they’re “looking into it.”)

But Diller is wrong to so quickly conclude AJ has no problem here, merely because AJ doesn’t make spyware or adware. If AJ software is becoming installed through security holes w/ no notice or consent (it is), and if AJ is offering payments to those who perform these wrongful installations, AJ has a problem no matter how praiseworthy AJ’s software may be. Similarly, if AJ is installing without showing or even referencing a license, while using euphemisms that fail to properly disclose even the most general effects of the programs to be installed (again all true), AJ has a lot to improve. Same if the AJ license agreement is buried at page 48 of a license agreement users aren’t even shown unless they specifically request it (see Kazaa installer).

The basic legal theory — clearly articulated in the NYAG’s complaint against Intermix — is that users ought to control what software runs on their computers. So installations are only proper when they occur with user consent, after clear and straightforward disclosures. Omit the disclosures, or phrase them so euphemistically that users can’t reasonably understand, then the software installation becomes a trespass.

I don’t always agree with Marquette professor Eric Goldman. (In particular, I can’t agree with his calls for narrow liability for actions of distributors and advertisers. This seems like a recipe for unaccountability and for rewarding bad actors. Eric’s approach would encourage “adware” vendors to look the other way when their software is installed wrongfully, and would give a free pass to those who advertise through software installed improperly.) But interestingly Eric and I seem to see AJ the same way — the key question being whether AJ’s installation disclosure and consent is up to par.

180solutions Continues to Become Installed Without Any Consent At All

Representatives from 180solutions made the sensible decision not to claim, within the official CNET conference sessions, that their programs install only with consent. After all, I had screenshots and videos providing the contrary.

But in a video interview made mere minutes before, 180solutions COO Daniel Todd told Dow Jones Marketwatch that “180solutions does not install software on people’s computers without consent.” Only upon further pressing by the interviewer does Todd back-peddle, admitting that some 180 distributors install 180 software with “no consent” or without (what Todd considers) adequate consent.

So Todd admits that some 180 installs are nonconsensual. Yet 180’s web site continues to claim that its software is “permission based” and “only downloaded with user consent.”

Which one is right? My November and March videos show nonconsensual 180 installations in great detail. (I’ll post still more videos in the coming weeks, as to 180 as well as Direct Revenue, eXact Advertising, and many others.) So Todd’s ultimate admission is accurate. Not so for the “only … with … consent” promises on 180’s web site.

Todd later stated that 180 has 7,000 to 10,000 distributors. That’s a huge number — it underscores the practical difficulty of 180 performing meaningful oversight of what its distributors are doing. With so many installation “partners” and so little enforcement or quality control, 180 has created a monster. Who’s going to fix it, and when?

Direct Revenue Commission Skimming

In my final visit to the CNET Q&A microphone, I mentioned Direct Revenue “skimming off the top” — invoking affiliate commission links to claim commissions on purchases users were already making. I previously documented this same behavior by 180solutions — finding it surprisingly widespread, yet reportedly an easy way to make money. (Last year 180 told MSNBC that it made more than $100,000 from Dell in just one month in late 2003.)

Direct Revenue’s commission-skimming was relatively easy to spot — with telltale signs in users’ cookies folders, not to mention noticeable popunders and, as usual, clear records in packet sniffers. So I was pleased to learn that affiliate network Commission Junction has already noticed this scam and, reportedly, taken action. So perhaps there’s less need for me to post the various videos, screenshots, packet logs, and other proof I’ve been accumulating. Instead, I’ll soon be focusing on reporting DR advertisers — some shocking examples, like American Express ads continuing to target kids sites.

May 2, 2005December 2, 2023

Does Jeeves Ask for Permission?

I continue my misleading installation series with a look at installation practices of Ask Jeeves. My new Ask Jeeves Toolbar Installs via Banner Ads at Kids Sites shows a misleading banner ad particularly likely to target kids. When users click on this banner, AJ neither shows nor references any license agreement. And AJ uses euphemisms like “accessible directly from your browser” rather than explicitly admitting that it will install a web browser toolbar.

But that’s not the worst of AJ’s practices. Over the past six months, I’ve captured a series of videos showing Ask Jeeves’ MyWay and MySearch software installed through security holes — without notice, disclosure, or consent. For example, in a video I made on March 12, I received more than a dozen different programs including the Ask Jeeves MySearch toolbar — without me ever requesting anything, and without me ever clicking “Yes” or “Accept” in any dialog box. Watch the video and see for yourself. Warning: The video is 16+ minutes long. Security exploit occurs at 6:00, and Ask Jeeves MySearch software is first seen at 15:50. In this same testing, I also received installation of 180solutions, multiple programs from eXact Advertising, the IBIS WebSearch toolbar, PeopleOnPage, ShopAtHomeSelect, SurfSideKick, WindUpdates, and many more. The underlying network transmissions show that the security exploit at issue was syndicated through the targetnet.com ad network — Mamma Media, publicly-traded on Nasdaq Small Cap.

I have other videos available upon request, including nonconsensual AJ installations dating back to November 2004. See also my November 2004 exploit video.

I’m surprised that Ask Jeeves allows these nonconsensual installations. Ask Jeeves is a publicly-traded company with a 10-digit valuation (slated to be acquired by InterActiveCorp for $1.85 billion). If Ask Jeeves staff made a serious effort to screen and supervise their distribution partners, they could prevent this kind of mess.

The biggest news last week was a lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General’s office against Intermix Media, whose KeenValue, IncrediFind, and other programs show popup ads, add extra browser toolbars, and intercept error messages. These practices are objectionable in and of themselves, but the complaint focuses on the programs’ misleading installations. Sometimes the programs install with no notice at all, the complaint says, and sometimes only with hidden or misleading disclosures users are unlikely to notice or understand.

I have the sense that this suit is the first of many. There are certainly plenty of similar offenders, even big companies with major venture capital funding. I have often written about software from 180solutions, Direct Revenue, and eXact Advertising installing through security holes, practices I’ve continued to observe (including in the video linked above). And Claria’s tricky installations share many of the deceptive characteristics the AG attributes to Intermix, like hiding key terms in “lengthy, legalistic license agreements” and using “vague, incomplete” disclosure text. (See NYAG complaint (PDF), paragraph 9.) So I doubt the NY AG’s office would approve of the Ask Jeeves practices I’m documenting today, nor the other misleading tactics on my spyware installation methods index.

April 25, 2005December 2, 2023

Misleading Installations of the Week: PacerD, and Claria’s Dope Wars

It’s Monday morning, so time for more misleading installations. Just like last week, I couldn’t stop at only a single example; again I’m providing two.

PacerD’s misleading pop-ups ask users to “please click yes” to accept “free browser enhancements.” In fact what PacerD offers is an unusually large bundle of a dozen different programs, only some of them disclosed in fine print in PacerD’s mislabeled (apparent, purported) license agreement, which in turn is only shown at a user’s specific request. But click “Yes” once, and your computer will take a turn for the worse, with no subsequent opportunity to cancel.

The PacerD Installation Bundle

As usual, Claria’s approach is somewhat more subtle. When Claria bundles its advertising software with the “Dope Wars” video game, Claria prominently tells users that it will deliver advertising. But Claria mentions effects on privacy only midway through a 43-page license agreement, that begins with three tedious pages of all-caps text. My sense is that few “Dope Wars” players are likely to wade through this lengthy license. So if Dope Wars users install Claria, they’ll do so without first understanding what Claria will do to their PCs.

Claria’s Misleading Installation Methods – Dope Wars

On some level, these two installations could hardly be more different. PacerD installs a dozen programs from numerous different companies; Claria installs just one. PacerD shows a popup while users are just trying to surf the web; Claria’s interruption comes as users are trying to install software they actually want. But in relevant respects, I think these installations are surprisingly similar. For one, both seek to convert users’ computers into advertising channels — tracking what users do, and showing extra advertising. Also, both installations tell users something about the programs they are asked to accept, and both give savvy users an opportunity to learn more, but in each case the prominent on-screen text omits important facts users need to know in order to make sensible choices.

April 18, 2005December 2, 2023

Misleading Installations of the Week: Claria and 180 at Kids Sites

“Adware” companies say their businesses are predicated on user consent. (Claria: “… consumers who agree … “; 180: “permission-based … opt-in”). Notwithstanding, companies’ claims, there’s no doubt that this kind of advertising software is sometimes installed without consent. See the video I posted last year.

But what about those users who supposedly do consent to receive extra pop-ups? Why did they agree to receive extra advertising that so many other users seem to despise? My sense is that users often don’t understand what they’re getting — due to serious deficiencies in installation disclosures. In two new articles, I examine and analyze the installation procedures of Claria and 180, raising doubts as to whether users reasonably knew what would happen when they “accepted” these programs.

Can we say that a user “consents” to an installation if the installation occurred after a user was presented with a misleading advertisement that looked like a Windows dialog box? If that advertisement was embedded within a site substantially catering to children? If that advertisement offered a feature known to be duplicative with software the user already has? If “authorizing” the installation required only that the user click on an ad, then click “Yes” once? If the program’s license agreement was shown to the user only after the user pressed “Yes”? These are the facts of recent installations of Claria software from ads at games site Ezone.com.

Details: Claria’s Misleading Installation Methods – Ezone.com

Turning to 180: Can we say that a user consents to an installation of advertising-display software where that installation is prominently described as removing advertisements? Where the installation description uses euphemisms like “show … sponsor websites” but never explicitly states that the program will show advertisements or pop-ups? Where the installation procedure never shows or even references a license agreement? And where all this occurs at sites catering to children?

Details: 180solutions’s Misleading Installation Methods – Ezone.com

Lots of companies want to take advantage of users who may be a bit confused, a bit naive, or a bit too quick to click yes. But where users are recruited at sites catering to children, where ads look like Windows messages, or where installation requests resort to misleading euphemisms, I’m not inclined to say that consumers “consent” to the resulting ads and to the resulting transmission of personal information.

April 11, 2005December 2, 2023

New Series on Spyware Installation Methods

So-called “adware” companies say nonconsensual installations of their programs are just an “urban legend.” (See section 7 of 180’s claims in a recent interview.) But when I talk to users whose computers have become infected, I’m consistently told that they don’t know how they got the unwanted programs, and they say they certainly didn’t consent. How can we understand this divergence? How are users PCs receiving this unwanted software?

My new Spyware Installation Methods sets out a taxonomy of the ways unwanted programs sneak onto users’ computers. Some installations rely on tricking users — for example, showing confusing popups, or claiming or suggesting that an installation is required to view a web site. Others install unwanted software in bundles with programs users actually want — sometimes telling users what they’re getting in fine print midway through long licenses, but sometimes not even including these minimal disclosures. Finally, some spyware sneaks in through security hole exploits — without any user consent at all, thanks to defects in users’ web browsers or other software. (See the security hole video and write-up I posted last fall.)

There’s lots to be done in documenting how unwanted software gets onto users’ PCs. My Installation Methods page indexes my work to date, to the extent it’s posted online. But I have much more documentation still to be posted — for example, scores more videos showing security exploits. I’ll be making additions in the coming months, as I find better ways to present this work clearly and efficiently, and as I find clients or other revenue sources to help support this work. (I’m still looking! Send suggestions.)

Diagram of the steps users must follow in order to attempt to learn what software 3D and BlazeFind will install on their PCs.

Today I’m also starting what I intend to be a series of weekly updates to my site — tentatively entitled “misleading installation of the week.” Sometimes I’ll show massive security hole exploits that render users’ computers nearly useless, but sometimes I’ll post more “ordinary” infections that “merely” show extra ads or send users’ browsing habits to a remote server. At every turn I’ll emphasize the trickery common to most installation methods — the ways that substance (e.g. material omissions, euphemisms, confusing circumstances) and style (e.g. on-screen presentation format, window size and shape, link format) cause users to “accept” software that offers them little or no genuine benefit.

I’m starting this series with an analysis of software from 3D Desktop. 3D’s Flying Icons Screensaver bundles BlazeFind, which in turn bundles 180solutions and half a dozen other programs. To learn what’s included, users must puzzle through a dizzying array of licenses — scroll through one license to find a link to another; scroll through that agreement to find the URLs to others; perfectly retype those URLs; then read each of the resulting licenses. But even if users follow this lengthy procedure, 3D and BlazeFind will ultimately install programs beyond the programs the licenses specifically name. So even diligent users have no way to know in advance what 3D will do to their PCs. Plus, BlazeFind is overzealous in its claims of privacy protection: BlazeFind says the programs it installs don’t track users’ behavior, but my hands-on testing proves otherwise. Details:

3D Desktop’s Misleading Installation Methods

Interestingly, BlazeFind’s license mentions that BlazeFind is a product of CDT, a software distribution company recently purchased by 180solutions. 180 says the CDT acquisition is part of its effort to “clean up” its distribution methods. With practices like these, they certainly have plenty of work ahead. See also a recent Spyware Warrior analysis of other 180 claims and practices in need of correction or improvement.