Users who download software from download.com now download an installer first that comes bundled with a toolbar. This web installer then offers to download and install the installer of the program the user wanted to download initially. Users basically download an installer that downloads an installer to install the software they wanted to download.

I have spoken to some software developers who made the decision to pull their software from Download.com, or at least contacted Cnet to remove their application from the software repository.
now on. I’d like to introduce a few options for those users to remove download.com results from the Google search engine.

Google Account

Google users who are logged in when they use the search engine can block up to 500 different domains in their account options. All they need to do is to open the following link to add or remove domains from their blocklist.

Blocked domains are displayed on the very same page. A search on Google removes all domain references. Google still displays ten results, which basically means that results from the second or third page are moved to the first page to fill up the slots.

Not all users want to be logged in to their Google account though when they search on the site.

Third Party Tools

Third party tools have the advantage that you do not need to be logged into your Google account to block domains in the search results. Their disadvantage is that the blocked domains are removed but not replaced with other results. This could in worst case mean that not a single result is displayed on a search results page.

Here are a few extensions and tools to block domains in the Google search engine:

• Personal Blocklist (by Google) – The Google Chrome extension adds a Block domain option next to each search result.
• Google Hit Hider by Domain (Search Filter / Block Sites) – A userscript for the Firefox web browser to block unwanted domain in the Google search results.
• Search Noise Reduction for Opera – A userscript for the Opera web browser. Works not only in Google but also Bing and Yandex.

You may have heard of other tools or extensions to block domains from the search results in Google. Please let me know about them in the comments.

I also try to use download portals if the developer site does not offer direct downloads, for instance by forcing users to register or fill out a web form before downloads become available.

Today I wanted to download Dr.Web CureIt and the first site that came up in Google Search was Cnet’s Download.com.

I never had problems with downloads on Cnet before, but this one got me puzzled at first. Instead of allowing me to download the setup file directly, a 400 Kilobyte web installer was downloaded.

I first thought that the developers of CureIt had provided the installer, turned out I was wrong. Cnet, at least for this download and probably for all downloads on the site, is not offering direct links to those setup files anymore. Instead, a web downloader, called CNET Download.com installer, is provided.

This in itself is problematic as it means that users need to run the download.com installer first to download the setup file of the software that they initially wanted to download. That’s additional work for the user.

The real problem here however is that the web installer is pushing the Babylon toolbar. Users who do not pay attention to the download process will install the Babylon Toolbar, make Babylon their default search engine and homepage of their browsers.

Cnet is without doubt generating lots of revenue from the web installer, considering that the toolbar installation options are enabled by default, and that most users click Next Next Next when it comes to installation processes.

The CNET Download.com Installer is clearly adware. It might make sense to use a different download portal in the future, especially if you do not want to download the 400 Kilobyte web installer every time you download a file from the download site. Good alternatives are Softpedia and Major Geeks.

Have you encountered the CNET Download.com Installer? What’s your opinion?

First problem, the report is not online yet. Cnet linked to an old report that contained limited information on the subject, as it was published in August 2009. Only an abstract of the new report is available on the USENIX website.

We study the security and privacy of private browsing modes recently added to all major browsers. We first propose a clean definition of the goals of private browsing and survey its implementation in different browsers. We conduct a measurement study to determine how often it is used and on what categories of sites. Our results suggest that private browsing is used differently from how it is marketed. We then describe an automated technique for testing the security of private browsing modes and report on a few weaknesses found in the Firefox browser. Finally, we show that many popular browser extensions and plugins undermine the security of private browsing. We propose and experiment with a workable policy that lets users safely run extensions in private browsing mode.

So, what are the findings of the report according to Seth? The private browsing modes of Firefox, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer and Safari are not necessarily as private as the developer’s claim.

Why is that? Because add-ons may undermine the mode. While the browsers do not store data in private browsing mode, add-ons or extensions may very well do so. There are simply no control mechanisms yet to prevent them from doing so.

But that’s something that the Mozilla Firefox developers have already recognized in February, 2010.

But even if add-ons record activity it may not mean that the privacy is compromised. That largely depends on the data that is stored and how it is stored and made accessible in the browser. Another consideration is that Google Chrome for instance, disables all extensions by default, but gives the user the controls to enable them in private browsing mode.

Lastly, the study did not include the Opera web browser which it should have. What does this all mean for users who use the private browsing mode? That depends. First on the add-ons that they use, and if some store records of private browsing sessions, and second on the dedication and technical knowledge of users who want to spy on someone else’s web browsing sessions.

Browser developers like Mozilla should consider adding a no-extensions policy to the private browsing mode of Firefox, to prevent data leaks in the mode. A more sophisticated solution, like only enabling extensions that are known not to record data in private browsing mode, should be the ultimate goal though.

Outdated software programs will automatically be listed at the top of the list followed by all other programs that are currently up to date. Each entry in the table will list the version on the local computer system and the latest version of the software program. A download link is provided which will immediately initiate the download from the Cnet servers (in a new tab).

The only other options provided in this table are to configure email alerts which are unfortunately not explained anywhere on that page. It most likely will trigger email messages whenever the software gets updated. At least two false positive were detected by Cnet’s Techtracker. It identified the Firefox version as 3.5.2 where in fact it was already the latest 3.5.3 version of Firefox. A similar detection error was found in the Mozilla Thunderbird entry. It was listed as Thunderbird version 1.9.1.1 where in fact it was the latest Thunderbird 2.0.0.23.

A click on the more info link beneath each software title will display quick information about the software including editor and user ratings with links pointing to those reviews, the file size and download statistics.

Nothing that’s really necessary considering that the software is already installed on the system but still nice to have. It would have been better if the download size of each software was displayed more prominently in the table.

Cnet’s Techtracker is an interesting addition to the list of software updaters. It is backed by one of the largest software portals on the Internet which means that it can offer a good software detection rate. The forced registration and false positives are the two negative aspects of the program. While the developers can surely work on the latter the former will most likely not change in the near future. Users who want to give it a shot can download the software after logging into the website with their Cnet or Facebook account.