Is Opera spyware ?
JM Bourdereau
http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/fr/frknownlistfrm.html
Is it spyware for regd users also ?
Brett Tabke
>Look at "opera freeware" in :
>http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/fr/frknownlistfrm.html
Well, that's nice. Another clueless website. It should call into
question the remainder of their listings. When you consider their
own banner ad company has a history of selling user data, talk about
the pot calling the kettle black.
fyi: I have run a packet sniffer on opera (SnifferPro by Network
Associates) for days on end on the other box with only Opera
running with 12 pages on autoreload. Nothing outside of those 12
pages was ever registered. That included switching the system clock
at times to see if anything was there. Nothing.
I have symbolically disassembled Opera down to ml and back up to
runable code. Although certainly not a line-by-line analysis, I
could find no direct or indirect references to the banner serving
related routines that lead me to believe there was any thing there
to be investigated. A simple code brk at the start of all the
banner serving routines has never been executed.
Additionally, I run a local server all the time. I put in all known
opera site ip's (i went for the c block) and domain names mapped to
local domains. It has never been hit except by me checking to see
if it worked.
I am convinced it works exactly as Opera has described it does.
There is nothing more sinister than a banner cookie in Opera - no
worse than any other banner ad on the net.
If there was anything whatsoever wrong with Opera's free version
banner ad serving system, we would have heard about it here long
ago. Aside from the fact Opera's core user base is the more
technically savvy Windows users, do you really think the Linux folks
would let it go? Not a chance. If there was ANYTHING there to be
found, it would have been done so long ago.
The only ones I can tell that think Opera has something more
sinister in it are those it's self serving competitors, and those
who pirate it that are scared Opera is going to come for them.
Opera's documentation:
http://www.opera.com/privacy/
http://www.opera.com/privacy/adinfo.html
http://www.opera.com/opera5/ads.html
Opera Ad Connection Protocol Detail:
http://www.opera.com/opera5/acp.html
Nicholas Bodley
Opera worked very hard a while ago to explain that it *does not* spy on
its users. I don't know much about that site, but I truly believe you
can use the freeware version of Opera without being spied upon.
Responding to the ad(s) in Opera does help Opera, but the information
sent back to the advertiser (or the advertiser's rep.) is not what you
would call spying.
For registered users, there is just no way it will spy on you; any ads
you see are from the Web site you connect to. They are never created
without conecting to the Web (unless you render them from cache).
Don't worry.
Nicholas Bodley
wrote a remarkable message...
Good gosh, if that isn't a superb defense of Opera, I don't know what
is!!
Best regards,
NB
Phil Burns
That site is a total waste of space, the webmaster doesn't even
understand what the term spyware means. I had an exchange with him a
while ago (Phiznlil) as did Opera themselves as can be seen here...
http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000005.html
If you want to know about spyware it is better to stick to sites like
grc.com, the only bad thing about that is that Steve Gibson recomends
and has a link to this site :(
--
Phil
Brett Tabke
>In article <QkB/6gDYuD...@webmasterworld.com>, says...
>> JM Bourdereau <F5...@thisproviderwanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> >Look at "opera freeware" in :
>> >http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/fr/frknownlistfrm.html
>> Well, that's nice. Another clueless website. It should call into
>> question the remainder of their listings. When you consider their
>> own banner ad company has a history of selling user data, talk about
>> the pot calling the kettle black.
>Brett, I took the liberty of emailing a copy of what you wrote to this
>site and asking them to remove opera, but I see from reading Phil's post
>afterwards that this was probably a pointless effort!
Yep...I also joined Phil in a reply there - fruitless, but atleast
it adds some balance.
Richard Grevers
says...
> JM Bourdereau <F5...@thisproviderwanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >Look at "opera freeware" in :
> >http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/fr/frknownlistfrm.html
>
> Well, that's nice. Another clueless website. It should call into
> question the remainder of their listings. When you consider their
> own banner ad company has a history of selling user data, talk about
> the pot calling the kettle black.
>
Paul McGarry
<dev...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Yep...I also joined Phil in a reply there - fruitless, but atleast it
> adds some balance.
FWIW I weighed in on their Feedback forum:
http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000009.html
Paul
JM Bourdereau
You never know if paranoia is too much or not enough, but I'll keep all that in mind.
As a registered user, I think that there is lesser risk.
Haavard K. Moen
wrote:
> That site is a total waste of space, the webmaster doesn't even
> understand what the term spyware means. I had an exchange with him a
> while ago (Phiznlil) as did Opera themselves as can be seen here...
> http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000005.html
>
> If you want to know about spyware it is better to stick to sites like
> grc.com, the only bad thing about that is that Steve Gibson recomends
> and has a link to this site :(
Has anyone talked to mr. Gibson about his opinion on the matter?
--
Best regards,
Håvard K. Moen
Technical Service Consultant
Opera Software <www.opera.com>
Phil Burns
<hkm...@opera.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 18:25:39 GMT, Phil Burns
<phil...@operamail.com>
> wrote:
> > If you want to know about spyware it is better to stick to sites
like
> > grc.com, the only bad thing about that is that Steve Gibson
recomends
> > and has a link to this site :(
>
> Has anyone talked to mr. Gibson about his opinion on the matter?
You just got yourself a job Håvard ;)
The link is on this page http://grc.com/oo/news.htm
--
Phil
Haavard K. Moen
wrote:
> > Has anyone talked to mr. Gibson about his opinion on the matter?
>
> You just got yourself a job Håvard ;)
Gee, thanks... :P
I did send him a mail just after posting my previous message to this
thread, and I am wondering what might come from this.
> The link is on this page http://grc.com/oo/news.htm
Opera is also listed on this page (linked to from grc.com):
Interestingly enough, they link to whatis.com for an "official
definition of spyware":
"In general, spyware is any technology that aids in gathering
information about a person or organization without their knowledge. On
the Internet, spyware is programming that is put in someone's computer
to secretly gather information about the user and relay it to
advertisers or other interested parties."
This certainly does not apply to Opera.
I have yet to see a clear answer from anyone I have been in contact
with as to why Opera should be called "spyware". Opera doesn't even
remotely match the definition of "spyware".
Phil Burns
<hkm...@opera.invalid> wrote:
> Opera is also listed on this page (linked to from grc.com):
>
> http://www.spychecker.com/
Yes but spychecker.com does say about Opera 'adware - please read
statement!' and have a link to http://www.opera.no/privacy/adinfo.html
> Opera doesn't even
> remotely match the definition of "spyware".
Agreed.
--
Phil
Richard Grevers
hkm...@opera.invalid says...
by trying to extend the definition of "spyware".
If a user clicks on an ad, Opera must send some information by way of the
ad link to say that Opera was the source of the click so that Opera
Software can get paid for the click. (I'm assuming a "per click" basis
rather than a "per exposure" basis here. I'm sure that our packet-
sniffing experts will be able to tell us whether the url-encoded
information sent as the result of the click contains just a generic
reference to Opera or any identifier which is specific to the particular
installation.
Anyway, this is no more information than can be gathered about you than
via any ad embedded in any webpage in any browser.
Spyware by definition ought to be limited to software which transmits
tracking information somewhere unbeknownst to the user and without any
user interaction. It should be a given that actually clicking on an ad in
any situation does transmit some basic user information, because it
doesn't take much thought to realise that htis is how internet
advertising works.
By these site's looser definition, the only communications software I
have which isn't "spyware" are my FTP and telnet clients, because
everything else exposes me to advertising which emits trackable
information IF I CLICK IT.
Richard
Haavard K. Moen
<newsfe...@dramatic.co.nz.invalid> wrote:
> I think that the authors of these sites are picking a semantics argument
> by trying to extend the definition of "spyware".
> If a user clicks on an ad, Opera must send some information by way of the
> ad link to say that Opera was the source of the click so that Opera
> Software can get paid for the click. (I'm assuming a "per click" basis
> rather than a "per exposure" basis here. I'm sure that our packet-
> sniffing experts will be able to tell us whether the url-encoded
> information sent as the result of the click contains just a generic
> reference to Opera or any identifier which is specific to the particular
> installation.
> Anyway, this is no more information than can be gathered about you than
> via any ad embedded in any webpage in any browser.
Or indeed via any web page you visit. One thing is what Opera's ad
module *could* have gathered and sent. Another thing is what info it
actually does.
> Spyware by definition ought to be limited to software which transmits
> tracking information somewhere unbeknownst to the user and without any
> user interaction. It should be a given that actually clicking on an ad in
> any situation does transmit some basic user information, because it
> doesn't take much thought to realise that htis is how internet
> advertising works.
> By these site's looser definition, the only communications software I
> have which isn't "spyware" are my FTP and telnet clients, because
> everything else exposes me to advertising which emits trackable
> information IF I CLICK IT.
The simple fact is that everything you do online leaves traces. If you
establish a telnet connection to another computer, this is/can be
logged too.
Spyware is software which gathers information about the user and
his/her system and sends it off to someone without the user's
knowledge. Opera does fetch ads automatically, but it sends no
information about the user to the ad server(s). It will also keep
track of the ads you already have (so you won't have to see the same
ones over and over), but this information cannot be traced back to the
user.
Haavard K. Moen
wrote:
> > Opera is also listed on this page (linked to from grc.com):
> >
> > http://www.spychecker.com/
>
> Yes but spychecker.com does say about Opera 'adware - please read
> statement!' and have a link to http://www.opera.no/privacy/adinfo.html
I could be wrong, but I don't think that note was there the last time
I saw the page...
Still, I think the purpose of such pages should be to inform people.
Leading people to believe that "adware" == "spyware" is
disinformation, if anything.
Bernt Follestad
> Richard Grevers <newsfe...@dramatic.co.nz.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <QkB/6gDYuD...@webmasterworld.com>, says...
> >> JM Bourdereau <F5...@thisproviderwanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >> >Look at "opera freeware" in :
> >> >http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/fr/frknownlistfrm.html
>
> >> Well, that's nice. Another clueless website. It should call into
> >> question the remainder of their listings. When you consider their
> >> own banner ad company has a history of selling user data, talk about
> >> the pot calling the kettle black.
Even if the page title says it's about spyware, it says Opera is using
Cydoor. They should considering changing their topic.
Cydoor FAQ: "What type of creative material can I use? A: You can provide
any type of creative material, animated GIF, JPEG, and our rich media banners
(audio, video, flash and shockwave).
Audio!! I hope not...
[Opera Ad spec is : "Format: gif, jpeg or png" :) ]
( http://www.cydoor.com/Cydoor/AdvertiserOpera.htm )
hehe "Contuct Us" ;)
deg...@softhome.net
> > statement!' and have a link to http://www.opera.no/privacy/adinfo.html
>
Seem a little blind not have this linked somewhere prominent like in ad
prefs.
Also, "personal info" need a rename to "auto form fill: info". Personal info
seems at first glance to most, including me, "spam info to better spam you".
-----
geeze replying is so much harder in Operamail client. No hightlight to
quote just hightlighted text, no placement at bottoms for immediate typing.
Still think it repull header between sessions......Fix these I might quit
xnews.
Paul McGarry
<mcg...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>> Yep...I also joined Phil in a reply there - fruitless, but atleast it
>> adds some balance.
> FWIW I weighed in on their Feedback forum:
> http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000009.html
FWIW I finally got a response (and gave one back).
It seems clear that the guy is on some kind of
crusade against ad supported software even
if he hides behind terms such as "spyware"
and "infested" for emotive effect.
Paul
Phil Burns
wrote:
> In article <9di3ul$klt$1...@mail.opera.no>, "Paul McGarry"
> <mcg...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> Yep...I also joined Phil in a reply there - fruitless, but atleast
it
> >> adds some balance.
> > FWIW I weighed in on their Feedback forum:
> > http://www.infoforce.qc.ca/spyware/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000009.html
>
> FWIW I finally got a response (and gave one back).
And got another one I see ;-)
> It seems clear that the guy is on some kind of
> crusade against ad supported software even
> if he hides behind terms such as "spyware"
> and "infested" for emotive effect.
It seems that he is the God who decides what is and isn't spyware and
nothing will change his opinion.
He obviously has not and never will run any tests to discover anything
about any of the software he condemns, nor will he read Opera's extensive
privacy policy and explanation of how the advertising is implemented for
what it is, nor will he listen to, or believe anything anybody tells him.
I think there is very little we can do except to make sure that others
know that his little egotistic website is of far less use than the roll
of paper that hangs beside my toilet.
--
Phil
Some people call me... Tim
wrote:
>He obviously has not and never will run any tests to discover anything
>about any of the software he condemns, nor will he read Opera's extensive
>privacy policy and explanation of how the advertising is implemented for
>what it is, nor will he listen to, or believe anything anybody tells him.
In a way, I think your missing his point. He's not saying that
Opera itself is spyware, but that Cydoor is going to use the Opera
system to track users. I'm not sure how this would differ from any
banner ad on a web site, other than Opera *may* provide a unique
identifier that can be tracked. If Opera does provide a unique
identifier, I see his point and I think his reasoning is valid.
However, his page is still misleading, since it implies that Opera
installs Cydoor software, whereas it doesn't do this. I'd love
clarification on this from Opera.
PS: I posted as Junyor in that same thread.
--
Tim
roy...@myrealSP-AMbox.com
No SP-AM is good spam.
Phil Burns
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
> His page is still misleading, since it implies that Opera
> installs Cydoor software, whereas it doesn't do this. I'd love
> clarification on this from Opera.
From:
http://www.opera.com/privacy/adinfo.html
"All of the code in the Opera browser was written by the developers of
Opera Software A/S. This includes the code that was written to implement
the specific banner-serving functionality of Opera 5."
Seems pretty clear to me.
> PS: I posted as Junyor in that same thread.
Ahh, I was wondering who Junior was ;-)
--
Phil
Some people call me... Tim
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 17:27:17 -0400, Some people call me... Tim
><add...@in.sig> wrote:
>
>> His page is still misleading, since it implies that Opera
>> installs Cydoor software, whereas it doesn't do this. I'd love
>> clarification on this from Opera.
>
>From:
>http://www.opera.com/privacy/adinfo.html
>"All of the code in the Opera browser was written by the developers of
>Opera Software A/S. This includes the code that was written to implement
>the specific banner-serving functionality of Opera 5."
Erm, that's not what I meant. Sorry, I should have been more
clear. I want clarification on whether Cydoor *could* identify an
individual Opera adware user based on past clicks. That, I believe,
is MotherDawg's line of argumentation.
Additionally, I'd like Opera to go after him regarding his web
site. In another thread on Opera, he posted an email in which an
Opera representative implied that he'd be sued for libel. He seemed
quite pleased that he received no reply when he challenged them to do
just that. Opera shouldn't give up so easily.
Phil Burns
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
> I want clarification on whether Cydoor *could* identify an
> individual Opera adware user based on past clicks. That, I believe,
> is MotherDawg's line of argumentation.
Ahh, I see what you mean. From reading these three most relevant
paragraphs I think that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible
to identify individual users (Plus doing so would put Opera in the ****
big time!).
"What Opera returns to the servers is the demographic information, the
info about the banners that were served to your browser, and whether or
not the banners were clicked upon. See ads.html for more details."
"The only information that is shared between Opera and the ad-related
service is the information about the ad banners that have been served to
you and the information that you have optionally specified in the ad
preferences in the browser."
"Cydoor Technologies is responsible for the gathering and handling of the
information transmitted by the Opera browser regarding advertising
activity. This information is transmitted to their internet servers.
Cydoor will use the information to fetch the relevant ads and will
provide the aggregated data to Opera Software. The aggregate data is the
property of Opera Software. As stated previously, this information is not
personally-identifying. Opera Software may do aggregate statistical
modelling of it's user base, and attempt to attract new advertisers.
Cydoor may use the aggregate statistical information in order to attract
new advertisers."
The only thing I could see that they could possibly do with that
information is to serve me more relevant ads.
> Additionally, I'd like Opera to go after him regarding his web
> site. In another thread on Opera, he posted an email in which an
> Opera representative implied that he'd be sued for libel. He seemed
> quite pleased that he received no reply when he challenged them to do
> just that. Opera shouldn't give up so easily.
Maybe it is a bit of a waste of energy. How many users are lost because
of him?
BTW After Paul's last post he has changed the status to suspected.
--
Phil
Jud
[snip re arguing with the owner of a site obstinately accusing Opera of
being
spyware, despite all invitations to view the evidence to the contrary]
>Maybe it is a bit of a waste of energy. How many users are lost because
>of him?
>BTW After Paul's last post he has changed the status to suspected.
>
>--
>Phil
I've noticed 2 things:
(1) Something close to a majority of the posts on the site are Opera users
saying it can be shown Opera's not spyware, followed by the site owner's
repetitive replies that you can't prove to him that Opera isn't spyware, and
no, he can't be bothered with your offers of the proof he claims he wants.
(2) His site carries a banner ad for software that claims to be a spyware
remover.
I'd therefore conclude 2 more things:
(1) He enjoys the increased publicity/site traffic.
(2) The best thing to do under the circumstances, it seems to me, comes from
a
line in the Who's rock opera "Tommy." After discussing several possible
nasty
things they might do to Tommy, a mob of boys finally concludes:
"Let's forget you, better still."
Jud