that's the point where we do not agree at all :
gen_ wrote:
I did. The fact was that until we found the proof in this program we could not say it was malware. At the current time, by your own definitions it was not malware.
you are talking about the program (the code ...) and for you that is enough to put (or not) the software in the malware category ; but i really do think that definition of malicious behaviour includes both the program itself, but also the whole strategy of the company ...
for example, a program that does collect informations about users in a non-hidden process, and say that informations won't be used by the company for any other reasons than customers-relation is totally NOT defined as malware, and nobody (nobody aka malware specialists) cares about the real way of acting of the company, even if company does NOT respect privacy, and sells hundreds of "non-stolen" emails every month ...
you have here a perfect clean software acting in a malicious startegy !
i DO really think that "bad coding" is not the only possible way for a company for "acting bad", so i think, IMHO, that it is a nonsense if bad code/clean code is the only point to be studied to put (or not) a software in the malware category ...
before Thomas has founded the piece of code pointing to codec malware, and before Genieo was classed as malware by intego (the "current time" of the quotes), Genieo was already involved in a "malicious strategy" with this fake flash update, and IMHO again, i don't really care about if Genieo was really (or not) clean about this strategy : Genieo is taking partners, and delegates part of its strategy ? that's their choice, BUT then, they ARE (imho again lol) totally responsible of the ways of acting of these partners !