Re: Nch Software Keygen Download Mediafire
Brie Hoffler
I think we should not allow them, but I'm biased towards listening to the IT Security aspect of using random links that dont provide details and are from "non official" sources (like stuff on mediafire).
Normally I would kill anything that moves and has random links that have nothing to do about anything the site but from the 2 secs it took to read the file I saw that the user that posted it was simply confused about what was asked and the kind of solution he proposed.
There is almost no reason to use file sharing sites like those to share anything useful in AU, they can be flagged and discussed with a moderator, or if you don't have the patience or time you can simply flag and forget about it. Your flag will return useful (because it is useful in these cases) and a moderator will take care of it.
I think users should just discriminate a little about the anticipated content and how much a given user has done to try and help out before making a determination on what to install/run and what not to install/run.
I think we should allow these links, because I don't think links to file-sharing sites that don't require account creation actually pose a risk greater than other kinds of download links.
There is no reason to think that links to sites that require creating an account (like Dropbox) are safer. There's nothing stopping a bad guy from creating a free account. This applies not just to Dropbox-style sites, but also to SourceForge, GitHub, Launchpad, and the like. Anyone can make a Launchpad account with a fake identity, sign the code of conduct under false pretenses, and roll out a PPA to infect users with malware. The PPA could even be named similarly to an existing PPA, to fool users. (To the best of my knowledge, we haven't seen this yet, but that's only because Ubuntu still occupies a pretty small market share--there probably aren't enough users yet--that is, potential victims--to make it worth the time, effort, and risk.)
Such a miscreant could even create and use a paid account on an online service. Rather than going into deeply instructional detail about different ways to do this, I'll just point out the simplest: A criminal can con someone into trusting them, give this initial victim (real) money, and get the victim to create the account in the victim's name, for the criminal to use.
If practically speaking there are specific websites that are shown to be used on AskUbuntu, other Ubuntu support resources, or other StackExchange sites to fool people into downloading dangerous files, then that would probably warrant an automatic warning message cautioning users, and maybe warrant a policy of forbidding links to those sites. But fundamentally, anonymous file sharing sites are only needed by those of us who aren't criminals taking over people's computers. If you can take over people's computers, you can run your own download servers. You can even register (free or not) DNS for them. And you can always enjoy anonymity online with a fake identity.
With that said, providing any kind of direct download link for software (except apt: links for installing packages from the official repositories) should be strongly discouraged except in the rare cases where it is demonstrably necessary, and in those cases, users should always be cautioned about the risks.
I think we should start continue disclosing the potential risks of PPA's, too (in every post that suggests installing from a PPA, or automatically for posts containing PPA syntax). [EDIT: Jorge Castro has reminded me that we're essentially already supposed to be doing this.] This would not be to keep people from using them. Rather, assuming Ubuntu continues growing in user base, eventually PPA's and other non-official software sources are going to start being exploited to fool users into installing malware. It would be good for Ubuntu users to be prepared for this, before it starts happening.
In conclusion, making a distinction between safe and unsafe downloads is only a good thing if the safe downloads are substantially safer than the unsafe ones. What it means for a site to allow anonymity is that it lets rule-abiding users go without disclosing their identity, because rule-breaking users can and will always be willing to break the rules and create a fake identity that looks real. Singling out and prohibiting linking to download sites allowing anonymity would only give us false comfort, and make us all the less prepared to deal with threats effectively.
I haven't really logged into my MediaFire account in a long while (years). So, I just did, and holy fuck what happened? What is this script heavy, bandwidth heavy, "social media" useless trite garbage-up-the-ass web 3.0 puke? Why can't it be as simple as it used to be?
The interface is cumbersome, unintuitive, and gets in the way so much with its current social media focus. I just want a place to put my files in a manageable place for free. I can still work around its interface, and it does give me quite a bit of room for not charging a dime, but goddamn, this interface is awful. There don't seem to be many decent alternatives for how much space is offered for free. Not exactly a great OP for a thread, I know, but I wanted to vent about this. I literally did not know that it got this bad. I'm completely flabbergasted by it.
Aside from my rant, I intend to start a discussion in this thread on file hosting and social media integration poisoning otherwise decent services. What services did you used to find useful before they were ruined in some way? I'm sure we can all name Wikia as one of them.
Yah, WIkia has been biting the dust for a while. Some of the older wikis, like the Star Wars one, have at least tried to preserve some of the old setups, as they seem to have a handle on the code to ignore a lot of the new wiki features, but a lot of others appeared to have been screwed over by stupid "Social Network" design decisions. Even editing a page on some wikis is hazardous to one's sanity.
What's funny is that on the SW Wikia there's usually someone once a month or so walking into the forums demanding that they won't use the site until features like "Commenting" are added to the site. There's "demands" go over as well as anyone could expect them too. Doom Wiki was more or less right to move to where it is now.
Yeah probably the adblock. I get no problems from Mediafire for the same reason (+noscript). But I stopped using mediafire "openly" a few years ago when on 2 separate occasions, that fake antivirus bullshit was attempted.
It's indeed getting progressively worse with this upload sites. I remember when speedyshare was the next best thing. I have adblock & noscript, so I was completely unaware of how much it changed over time until everybody else complained after falling for that fake download button. Those things plague way too many file sharing sites, getting so many people.
Skype started to go for social-media dogshit and take the non-optional-updates path some time back. Version 4.2.0.187 seems to be the last version that had neither the dogshit nor the enforced updating, so I use that if possible. However, on certain operating systems, that version doesn't seem to work, so before long there will be no choice.
It's especially vexing since this is a service that you pay to use (well, beyond the most basic features), so you'd expect a little more user-control.
I do use AdBlock Plus and NoScript, but I still hate MediaFire's current interface. I forgot that I have a Dropbox account, but have been reminded by its mention. Time to start using it again, I suppose.
Ditto, though I can sympathize with Sodaholic's plight. MediaFire have added a lot of cruft to their user interface.
eBay is headed down the same road. I recently discovered I have an "eBay feed", which seems to be some sort of public page where I can showcase the sort of stuff I like, as well as letting the world know what sellers and item searches I'm "following". Fuck that for a joke, whoever dreamed up that nonsense can stick my feed page up their ass!
I prefer it. I like that I can put my file in the folder, then make quick link to it without visiting their site.
Oh yeah, and Skype mentioned by Grazza. I have no goddamn clue why, or how, but it keeps stealing my bandwidth. I almost first thought I had problems with cables, and when that didn't hold true, thought virus has gotten in my system. It stopped for few days, then in second week after getting it, I had issues again with slow sites and very limited download. Dunno if they were updates, but I don't like when my bandwidth is limited without permission.
Sounds like you're a supernode. I thought MS moved them to central servers when they took over Skype, but maybe it's still used to an extent on a local scale.
I only have Skype running when I'm making calls or expecting them, I've learned to never let it idle for this exact reason. Just because I'm on fibre doesn't mean other people can use it. :P
Dropbox has a clean uncluttered straight forward website, and the
software they optionally provide is also clean and simple.
i could advice this service if you hate the modern web version 'whatever' from now crap.
I wrote off MediaFire as crap after someone recommended I use it, I uploaded something without an account, it successfully uploaded, and then gave me a message along the lines of "Yay! Your file is uploaded, now sign up for an account to get a link to share it."
F. that.
I wrote off MediaFire as crap after someone recommended I use it, I uploaded something without an account, it successfully uploaded, and then gave me a message along the lines of "Yay! Your file is uploaded, now sign up for an account to get a link to share it."
I feel your pain. I had a similar experience with ImageShack -- and I've been using ImageShack since 2004! Social media pay-for-use bullshit ruined it.
Ironically, stuff like this has been reason why I've been investigating actual web hosting, although it is a somewhat expensive alternative and many web hosts have retarded restrictions on what you can upload (ie, no running software, media restrictions, etc.)