Q: Permissions problem with Safari. Problem Recurring.Safari VERY slow or Crashing

Yet again you are inferring something that I did not write.

You need to work on your comprehension skills. I mentioned your product's absence from the App Store as a precaution for you to consider, given that users of this site who ought to know better frequently refer users to untrustworthy sites. A contributor to this very thread did exactly that, causing the OP needless grief.

John Galt wrote:

As far as I know your program is not available in the Mac App Store.

That's true, and in it's current configuration, I don't see how it could ever be, but you may have hit on a great idea. What if their was an AdwareMedic Lite that simply scanned the hard drive for adware, listed it and then gave the user the option of either manually removing it or downloading the current version from the web that allows automatic deletion. Basically that would make it the EtreCheck for adware as well as give it Apple's blessing without our having to try and justify it's safety. It's the same approach that Linc and the Adware Removal Guide recommend for manual removal, except we don't have to work with the user to try and guess what specific adware they have installed to point them at the correct set of removal instructions.

Have you considered the possibility of your program becoming effectively hijacked by a download aggregator site to be bundled with malware, without your consent, in the same manner as MPlayerX?

I can vouch for the fact that it has been considered and it's already been spotted on MacUpdate and Softpedia, neither of which are currently engaged in the bundling game, but both are being watched as well as the two sites that specialize in this sort of thing.

EtreCheck is already hosted on at least one such site.

It is listed on C|Net download[dot]com but I'm aware that EtreSoft contacted them and made certain that it would only link back to his site.

You mentioned MacUpdate as a site that bundles malware.  A few of us have kept a close watch on them and have been assured by personal contacts within that organization that they are not doing this, so if you ever run across such a download, please point it out so that we can nip that in the bud.

so if you ever run across such a download, please point it out so that we can nip that in the bud.

Of course I will, but the likelihood of that occurring is practically nil since I do not obtain software from download aggregator sites. There are plenty of other canaries in that coal mine.

The fact that only certain such sites have been known to bundle adware with other, legitimate products doesn't matter. All those sites – including the two you mentioned – derive at least part of their revenue from advertisements for notorious misery-causing junk that result in problems arising on this site every day. If you want proof I have plenty of it.

None of those sites should be considered trustworthy, and I never refer users to them. Plenty of others do though, and if they're not affiliated with the site it calls their motivation into question. If they are affiliated with the site, they're violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the TOU.

What if their was an AdwareMedic Lite that simply scanned the hard drive for adware, listed it and then gave the user the option of either manually removing it or downloading the current version from the web that allows automatic deletion.

As a business plan it's a bit flawed, if the "current version from the web" remains an alternate option to the App Store, and which may require occasional legal expenses to compel software aggregator sites that hijack it to abide by the owner's copyright. Those expenses have to come from somewhere, whether from "donations", App Store revenue, or some other source. The top few such Mac download sites are a tiny percentage of their total number. New ones can show up at any time, and existing ones can change their policy at will.

Either way I'm all in favor of making money, and what better way to make it than to exploit human ignorance. Ignorance costs money. It's also a perpetually renewable, abundant natural resource. Magical cure-alls, in whatever guise they appear, have always been highly seductive to the gullible, or the ignorant.

That fact won't discourage me from trying to enlighten others free of charge or "donations" of any kind. I want adware to die, preferably through user education leading to its ultimate failure as a marketing tool.

That is my motivation for writing the User Tip – as well as the reason for my reply to Mr. Figgy's question "what do you think of the software "AdwareMedic": I am not in favor of that approach, and it's not necessary to download anything to fix it.

The shrill responses evoked by those simple statements has been very enlightening.

John Galt wrote:

None of those sites should be considered trustworthy, and I never refer users to them. Plenty of others do though, and if they're not affiliated with the site it calls their motivation into question. If they are affiliated with the site, they're violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the TOU.

I completely understand what you are saying and have never recommended MacUpdate except as a last resort.

Also, there are a handful of developers who apparently can't afford a download site of their own and upload their software to MacUpdate for distribution purposes. I still point users to the developer's site and the user see the download link which takes them to MacUser.

The only reason I focused on that site is that I have a colleague with personal friends that work there (he is in no other way associated with them), and in order to keep sending them the message that you yourself keep repeating, I feel the need to keep the pressure on, especially with more and more sites resorting to such intrusive means. I'd be interested in knowing what you think about Thomas' article on the subject of Are ad blockers worthwhile?.

What if their was an AdwareMedic Lite that simply scanned the hard drive for adware, listed it and then gave the user the option of either manually removing it or downloading the current version from the web that allows automatic deletion.

As a business plan it's a bit flawed, if the "current version from the web" remains an alternate option to the App Store, and which may require occasional legal expenses to compel software aggregator sites that hijack it to abide by the owner's copyright. Those expenses have to come from somewhere, whether from "donations", App Store revenue, or some other source. The top few such Mac download sites are a tiny percentage of their total number. New ones can show up at any time, and existing ones can change their policy at will.

I do know a little about Thomas' business model, but it's not for me to say. I'm sure he'll take your thoughts into consideration.

That fact won't discourage me from trying to enlighten others free of charge or "donations" of any kind. I want adware to die, preferably through user education leading to its ultimate failure as a marketing tool.

We certainly share that objective, but I'm afraid I'm more pessimistic than you are about such possibilities. I suspect the only way to put an end to such things is to tear down and rebuild the internet as something other than an everything for free model.

I am not in favor of that approach, and it's not necessary to download anything to fix it.

I don't have much of a problem with that, although I have come across users who can't follow the instructions from Linc or the Adware Removal Guide even though both have gone to great lengths to make it simple for even novice users. Despite red, bolded letters, they still lock themselves out of their accounts by either ignoring instructions or trying to take shortcuts or whatever. The only thing I take issue with is when you have told users that it's "easily fixed."  I don't know whether you are referring to following what "How to install adware" in the future or actually repairing the damage. Yes, the majority of the problems can be overcome by simply uninstalling an extension or two and then resetting homepage and search engine, but a few are more complicated than that, leaving any number of LaunchDaemons/LaunchAgents and running processes. At least two inject code into existing files which usually require the deletion of what may be valid preference files that have been contaminated. And then there is Genieo 1.0 that can force some extraordinary actions to recover from.

I can agree that adware is easy to avoid, but contend that not all adware is easily repaired.

The only thing I take issue with is when you have told users that it's "easily fixed."  I don't know whether you are referring to following what "How to install adware" in the future or actually repairing the damage.

The reason you don't know is that I do not state that the User Tip is intended to be the sole remedy. In fact I expend quite some effort to explicitly state that the solution proposed is for the one example cited, that adware can appear in many forms, and that its appearance and effects will constantly change. Those facts are repeated in several places. I also encourage the reader to search this site for recent eradication instructions that he or she may find applicable, precluding the necessity to add to this site's traffic burden. Failing that I also encourage posting a new question, and include a link to another document with some guidelines for doing that, with instructions for taking and / or editing a screenshot to help identify the particular adware.

The objective is to recognize adware's appearance, so that it can be avoided.

I disagree that adware is not easily removed, since the above suggestions are certain to lead not only to one but several remedial options, the best of which the user is free to decide upon given his or her own level of competence.

I suspect the only way to put an end to such things is to tear down and rebuild the internet as something other than an everything for free model.

That's not going to happen. I suspect the only way to put an end to such things is what I speculate upon in the User Tip, and I don't want that to happen.

John Galt wrote:

I disagree that adware is not easily removed

John, you refer in a very rude and callous fashion to other people's ignorance, and essentially accuse me of exploiting ignorance to make money, but you've got your own issues with lack of knowledge to deal with if you believe that all adware is easily removed. If you want to position yourself as an authority on this topic, as you seem to be doing, I'd suggest that you remedy that problem.

Your user tip shows that you are familiar with one particular piece of adware that is fairly easy removed. That is one out of the 21 different adware families I'm familiar with. Most are removed easily, but not all are. One of these is known to directly modify the Firefox app. Several are known to insert malicious JavaScript code into Firefox preferences and other profile files. One is known to install components so deeply in the system that, if removed improperly, the system will crash and be unable to start back up again. In fact, the instructions in your user tip are flawed, because mixed in with the Downlite removal information, they instruct the user to remove a Conduit-related item that is never found alone... Any system that includes that item will have many other Conduit files installed as well.

You say you want to combat ignorance... then do so, and don't spread it yourself. You seem to believe that the use of a program like AdwareMedic perpetuates ignorance, but many people have told me, following successful removal of adware by AdwareMedic, that they have learned their lesson about downloading from torrents or piracy sites, thanks to the information my app and my site provide to them. You may not believe in my approach, and that's fine, but please stop with the thinly-veiled insults and accusations of exploitation.

Thank you for explaining your motivations and for confirming my suspicions about your product. I'm happy to leave your emotionally charged replies stand, to be judged by Mac users worldwide.

It is my conclusion that you desire to capitalize on people's misfortune, and I sincerely wish you great success in that endeavor. Did I veil that comment thinly enough for you?

John Galt wrote:

 

It is my conclusion that you desire to capitalize on people's misfortune

If I did, I'd require them to pay before AdwareMedic would remove anything, just like the despicable but imminently successful MacKeeper does. Since I'm not doing that, I see absolutely no justification for such an accusation.

But enough. I have no need to explain my motives to you. You clearly have absolutely no comprehension of what those motives are, and you're not even trying to understand, so I won't waste my time further.