Is MySpace's Parent Company Still Serving Up Adware?

from the well,-look-at-that dept

Wed, Nov 8th 2006 12:18am — Mike Masnick

While some security companies are warning people about supposed videos on MySpace that actually trigger adware/spyware downloads (something that's been discussed for many months), adware/spyware researcher Ben Edelman has turned up what's potentially an even bigger issue: Intermix may still be serving up adware itself. If you don't recall, Intermix was the original parent company of MySpace, but before they started MySpace, they were one of the bigger adware/spyware companies out there -- even paying a huge fine and promising to get out of the business just as News Corp bought the company (obviously to focus on the social networking side and not the adware). Everybody pretty much assumed that after the purchase there was obviously no reason for Intermix to keep focusing on adware, since MySpace was growing like crazy. Edelman notes that the company agreed to another fine covering people in California impacted by the company's adware, but was surprised to find that some sites are still distributing Intermix's adware including finding some of the files directly on Intermix's (read: News Corps') servers with absolutely no disclosure. In other words, it appears the company didn't completely abandon the adware business after all. Update: Ben updates us to clarify. The full installations (with no disclosure) come from other third party sites. Intermix is still hosting some files, but not doing current installs.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

disgracerpg, 8 Nov 2006 @ 4:35am

Whats the point?
What is the point of saying you'll stop the adware crap if your aren't. Such a well known site is of course going to be under close watch if anything goes wrong so for Intermix to put adware on it is anything but intelligent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rstr5105, 8 Nov 2006 @ 5:15am

stupid question....
But, shouldn't the fine the company has to pay for adware go to those that are affected by the adware? I mean, logically thinking, don't we deserve to be re-imbursed for the actions of these idiots that cause are computers to run like a freakin stick in the mud?

I'm not out for a quick buck, it just seems to me that this is something that should be necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2006 @ 5:44am
  
  Re: stupid question....
  I dunno, I think that YOU should have to pay ME a fine for being one "of these idiots" that actually allows their machine to get infected.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rstr5105, 8 Nov 2006 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re: stupid question....
    Excuse me?
    
    #1 My computer does get infected occaisonally. However I have the knowledge and resources to remove said infections.
    
    #2 If you are "USER" enough to let your machine get infected and stay that way, us "Super-users" shouldn't pay you squat. You however should be removed from the internet community until the point at which you are capable of handling your infections.
    
    Thank you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 8 Nov 2006 @ 5:44am

I agree with #2 post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KrAzYkArL, 8 Nov 2006 @ 6:43am

I knew it!
When MySpace first came out my wife got a account after a few weeks her computer seemed to bog down more and more. I assumed it was MySpace since that was something new shes been visiting online. Know who should really get hit? AOL installed Aim once ans there is so much bundled software that you cant un-install its lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anlge, 16 Nov 2006 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: I knew it!
  first of all myspace is not for all u adults!!!!yall are to old to be haveing one...so get off of it and quit trying to be a kid again.......
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anlge, 16 Nov 2006 @ 11:38am
  
  stupid people..
  first of all myspace is not for all u adults!!!!yall are to old to be haveing one...so get off of it and quit trying to be a kid again.......
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
August West, 8 Nov 2006 @ 8:32am

Odds are that one day, I will actually meet, face to face, someone that writes adware and hijackers. Or someone that works for a list of companies that I have that have cost our clients lost productivity. I'm looking forward to that day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben Edelman, 8 Nov 2006 @ 8:52am

clarification on what I found
Just to clarify the original post a little bit --

1) I did find web sites that are still distributing Intermix's adware with no disclosure whatsoever.

2) I did find installation files still present on Intermix's own web servers.

That said, the #2 installation files (on Intermix's own web servers) were ActiveX installers, hence carrying ActiveX notice/disclosure. And the #1 installations were on third party servers. I did not find evidence of any installations or installation files that are 1) ongoing/current, 2) on Intermix's own web servers, and 3) occurring without any disclosure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]