Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[OT] Google buys You Tube - one mans thoughts: GTB'
|Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Bob Axtell wrote:
>>I caught my wife's computer trying to phone home yesterday. It turned out
>>to be her GOOGLE TOOLBAR. What does the google toolbar need to be
>>phoning home for?
It's looking for updates.
Also trying to connect to g-mail profile, if you have one, but you can stop it
from trying by going to the configuration menu.
> I don't know why, but I would expect it to do this. It's a marketing tool,
> after all.
6. Google's toolbar is spyware:
hard disk every time you connect to Google (which is many times a day). Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that updates automatically presents a massive security risk.
I used to just block it using zonealarm. With the latest upgrade, I had to
remove it because it caused IE to fail with 'unable to save page', and there
was no rollback provision.
This is a well documented bug with GTB discussed on various user forums.
Thanks, Robert. Presently I have it blocked by her Kerio 4 firewall. She
IE, alas, I can't get her to convert to Mozilla stuff.
Robert Rolf wrote:
> Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd
> like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that
> updates automatically presents a massive security risk.
pretty sure the default on XPSP2 is to update without prompting.
i think this is the default for firefox too.
fact is unless you have personally audited the code there is always a risk
that an application vendor will take over your system, few people would be
prepared to deal with the hassle of a security setup that would prevent this
(running as non-admin protects other users of the box but it doesn't protect
everything that is done/stored in your username)
peter green wrote:
> fact is unless you have personally audited the code there is always a risk
> that an application vendor will take over your system,
Which IMO is one of the strongest arguments in favor of open source code.
> > fact is unless you have personally audited the code there is
> always a risk
> > that an application vendor will take over your system,
> Which IMO is one of the strongest arguments in favor of open source code.
right but the problem is that auditing code properly is very difficult,
changing an == to an = or vice versa can open up serious holes and unless
you have a before and after diff showing that change in isolation (which you
won't have if say a large lump of code has been rewritten since the last
public version) you are very unlikely to spot it.]
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006
, 2007 only
- New search...