4 ms·

Then according to you if you install a software that is ads supported it's a malware too... You may want to rethink your definition or we'll need to pull out al

by duked 14y ago

Then according to you if you install a software that is ads supported it's a malware too... You may want to rethink your definition or we'll need to pull out all the free section of the android/ios store.

jbigelow76 14y ago
Huh? Your doesn't make any sense. The fact that something is ad supported is not what makes something malware, it's the hijacking of the content provider's revenue stream and replacing it with your own that makes something malware.
- lowboy 14y ago
  That is a poor definition of malware.
  - jbigelow76 14y ago
    Just because something bad doesn't happen to the end user does not make something not malware. Would you say that bot-net software for launching DDOS attacks, installed willingly as part of X music service's software, is not malware? After all the user that installed it willingly is only making a few extra HTTP calls every once in a while, so they aren't suffering any negative affects. The author may have even obfuscated the secondary (primary?) use in some 2000 word term of service document that the user agreed to.
    - lowboy 14y ago
      Let's consider both the DDOS botnet (most would consider "bad") and a program that contributes CPU cycles to Folding@Home (most would consider "good"). If it was buried in the TOU and we don't have a reasonable expectation that the user was aware of it, then it's malware, in both cases, plain and simple. What's absent from this is the intended target because it doesn't matter - a program was duplicitous and installed programs that the user wasn't aware of.
      - jbigelow76 14y ago
        I'm trying to take duplicity out of it. I'm more interested in the "willingly" part, which I probably articulated a little more clearly when I edited my initial response to kevinpet with a similar question. Your example about unwittingly installing Folding@Home is an interesting counter point and figures into where I was going. By willingly I was implying an unscrupulous person installed a program which they knew to be detrimental to a 3rd party in order to utilize some functionality would still be considered "malware"; despite others having the view that if a user, with complete knowledge of all aspects of the software, installs it it cannot be "malware". You state that the intended target doesn't matter, which I disagree with. Which seems to leave us at agreeing to disagree. Everybody has their opinion on advertising and its boundaries (or lack thereof) and value (or lack thereof), like I said in one of my first replies, I've never seen anybody change sides on this ;)
        lowboy 14y ago
        If an unscrupulous person were to install and knowing use a malicious program for personal gain, that might make the program malicious or unethical, but it doesn't make it malware by (what I believe to be) the common definition of malware. Take the example of a script kiddie who wants to hack his neighbour's wifi and downloads a program that does that but also prominently notes that your computer will become part of a spam botnet to support development of the utility. Is it malicious and unethical? You bet. But not everything malicious is malware. I think most people are arguing with you about your terminology. You decry Mega's plan as immoral, and you can say that it uses similar techniques as other malware programs, but that doesn't mean that it is malware. On the deeper ethical issues, we'll leave that at agree to disagree.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      It's only malware if it doesn't tell the user what it's doing. There's no reason for Megabox to do that, so I don't see why would you assume so. Or do you really think these users will care if the ads come from Doubleclick or MegaAds?
      - jbigelow76 14y ago
        "Or do you really think these users will care if the ads come from Doubleclick or MegaAds?" Most won't, which is why my point was never about the end user anyway. I think the website owner whose ads are being replaced should be part of the equation, others don't. It's a matter of ethics, perspective and where they intersect for you.
        icebraining 14y ago
        Ethics are irrelevant as to whether it's malware or not, and I don't see it fitting the widespread definitions of malware.
        jbigelow76 14y ago
        "Ethics are irrelevant as to whether it's malware or not" I don't agree. I could understand how a website operator would consider megabox's software "malicious", and I could understand how a user that sees no value in advertising would not since the net effect is the same in the end.
        icebraining 14y ago
        And Jack Thompson and his supports consider violent video games malicious because they say they are the trigger of school shootings and other killings. Should we start calling GTA "malware"? I'm sorry, but there's more to the definition of malware than "someone considers it malicious".

by duked 14y ago

jbigelow76 14y ago

Huh? Your doesn't make any sense. The fact that something is ad supported is not what makes something malware, it's the hijacking of the content provider's revenue stream and replacing it with your own that makes something malware.

lowboy 14y ago
That is a poor definition of malware.
- jbigelow76 14y ago
  Just because something bad doesn't happen to the end user does not make something not malware. Would you say that bot-net software for launching DDOS attacks, installed willingly as part of X music service's software, is not malware? After all the user that installed it willingly is only making a few extra HTTP calls every once in a while, so they aren't suffering any negative affects. The author may have even obfuscated the secondary (primary?) use in some 2000 word term of service document that the user agreed to.
  - lowboy 14y ago
    Let's consider both the DDOS botnet (most would consider "bad") and a program that contributes CPU cycles to Folding@Home (most would consider "good"). If it was buried in the TOU and we don't have a reasonable expectation that the user was aware of it, then it's malware, in both cases, plain and simple. What's absent from this is the intended target because it doesn't matter - a program was duplicitous and installed programs that the user wasn't aware of.
    - jbigelow76 14y ago
      I'm trying to take duplicity out of it. I'm more interested in the "willingly" part, which I probably articulated a little more clearly when I edited my initial response to kevinpet with a similar question. Your example about unwittingly installing Folding@Home is an interesting counter point and figures into where I was going. By willingly I was implying an unscrupulous person installed a program which they knew to be detrimental to a 3rd party in order to utilize some functionality would still be considered "malware"; despite others having the view that if a user, with complete knowledge of all aspects of the software, installs it it cannot be "malware". You state that the intended target doesn't matter, which I disagree with. Which seems to leave us at agreeing to disagree. Everybody has their opinion on advertising and its boundaries (or lack thereof) and value (or lack thereof), like I said in one of my first replies, I've never seen anybody change sides on this ;)
      - lowboy 14y ago
        If an unscrupulous person were to install and knowing use a malicious program for personal gain, that might make the program malicious or unethical, but it doesn't make it malware by (what I believe to be) the common definition of malware. Take the example of a script kiddie who wants to hack his neighbour's wifi and downloads a program that does that but also prominently notes that your computer will become part of a spam botnet to support development of the utility. Is it malicious and unethical? You bet. But not everything malicious is malware. I think most people are arguing with you about your terminology. You decry Mega's plan as immoral, and you can say that it uses similar techniques as other malware programs, but that doesn't mean that it is malware. On the deeper ethical issues, we'll leave that at agree to disagree.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    It's only malware if it doesn't tell the user what it's doing. There's no reason for Megabox to do that, so I don't see why would you assume so. Or do you really think these users will care if the ads come from Doubleclick or MegaAds?
    - jbigelow76 14y ago
      "Or do you really think these users will care if the ads come from Doubleclick or MegaAds?" Most won't, which is why my point was never about the end user anyway. I think the website owner whose ads are being replaced should be part of the equation, others don't. It's a matter of ethics, perspective and where they intersect for you.
      - icebraining 14y ago
        Ethics are irrelevant as to whether it's malware or not, and I don't see it fitting the widespread definitions of malware.
        jbigelow76 14y ago
        "Ethics are irrelevant as to whether it's malware or not" I don't agree. I could understand how a website operator would consider megabox's software "malicious", and I could understand how a user that sees no value in advertising would not since the net effect is the same in the end.
        icebraining 14y ago
        And Jack Thompson and his supports consider violent video games malicious because they say they are the trigger of school shootings and other killings. Should we start calling GTA "malware"? I'm sorry, but there's more to the definition of malware than "someone considers it malicious".