alexa toolbar

General Topics
1

Hi,

I wanted to install alexa toolbar but when I try to download it from the internet avast show a window saying that is malware and the options that I have is always exclude, etc. I would like to know how can I set the avast to let me accept this type of software in order to install it on my pc.
It might very simple t solve but I just don’t see it!
Thanks

2

:slight_smile: Hi :

  Many security programs consider Alexa, especially its "Toolbar", to be
  malware ; why would you want to install "this", especially when there are
  safer alternatives ?
3

Welcome to the forum.
Spiritsongs is completely correct. Just do a simple Google search and you’ll see all
the negative entries.

4

Hi pexmex,

Spiritsongs and bob3160 are right. I also consider Alexa toolbar to be spyware. Why we three do not want this inside our browsers, you can read here: http://www.spywareguide.com/product_show.php?id=418

polonus

5

A safer alternative would be Google’s toolbar.

6

Well I think you have had enough advice but no one has said how to achieve what you want should you choose to accept any risk and ignore the advice.

  1. you would need to pause or terminate the web shield provider so it can be downloaded.
  2. the standard shield may then pipe up with the same warning, ensure you are not connected to the internet and select No Action (but make note of any file name and location of the alert/s).
  3. now when you try to run the installation the standard shield will alert and effectively block it, you need to pause standard shield, you should be able to install it.
  4. now you will need to exclude all those files avast alerted on, add them to the exclusions lists:
    Standard Shield, Customize, Advanced, Add and
    Program Settings, Exclusions

Now your done, an awful lot of trouble to go to for a suspect program, oops there I go giving more advice.

7

Sorry to bring this topic back up, but I was having the same ‘issues’ and wondered why Alexa’s toolbar was being blocked. I can’t see why the toolbar is a problem in the slightest. Okay, so it ‘anonymously aggregates surfing information’ - but then this comprises of the url of each non-secure site visited being sent to the Alexa server. The user also has to install the toolbar manually, accepting the terms and conditions along the way.

I’ve quoted marc57’s comment above, because (please correct me if I’m wrong) the Google Toolbar sends the same information to Google in order to determine and display the PageRank of the site you’re on - does this mean the Google Toolbar should also be considered malware / adware?

Furthermore, Alexa hasn’t transmitted any information linking to a user for some time. It used to send a UID for each person, but now sends data anonymously. This sets Alexa behind the Google Toolbar as being a case for concern, since with the Google Toolbar you’re logged into your Google Account; there’s the potential of linking your visited URLs with your account (though I don’t know if this is done for sure).

My point is not to have a go at Google, but rather ask why the Alexa Toolbar is still considered to be malware / adware? Alexa is not a bad company, and I don’t see the toolbar doing anything that other popular toolbars don’t do.

8

Hi coxy,

No problems with alexa “an sich”, I think they have a rather clean slate now-a-days, and that has been quite different in the past. If you accept that you are fed tracking cookies and your search profile is being sold, OK. Between alexa results and alexa installed is a big grey area. But it is your computer, it is your click stream, and what we talk about here is not malware but adware. If you like adware, you will like alexa’s because that is what it is.

polonus

9

Well, if this is the case, why is the toolbar still considered Adware? I don’t get the same warnings when I have the Google Toolbar installed; so I just took at look at Google’s Privacy Policy to see what data is attained, and how it is used.

If you use advanced features or you explicitly request more information about a page (for example, by using the "Backward Links" or "Similar Pages" features), then Toolbar will send the log information and additional information, such as the URLs you visit or the text on the page.

If you have Google Toolbar Version 4.0 or above, your copy of Google Toolbar includes a unique application number. When you install Google Toolbar, this number and a message indicating whether the installation succeeded are sent back to Google. Also, when Google Toolbar automatically checks to see if a new version is available, the current version number and the unique application number are sent to Google. The unique application number is required for Google Toolbar to work and cannot be disabled.

Except for information sent through Toolbar for use with a separate Account-based service such as Gmail, we do not associate any of the information that Toolbar sends with other personal information about you. However, it is possible that a URL or other page information sent to Google may itself contain personal information.

Okay, so PageRank is on as default - and that’s classed as an ‘Advanced Feature’. Transmission of URL data is sent back to Google and as the last paragraph states, data transmitted ‘may itself contain personal information’. But that’s okay; it’s not going outside of Google, right?

We may use personal information to provide the services you've requested, including services that display customized content and advertising. We may share [url=http://www.google.com/privacy_faq.html#aggregatedinfo]aggregated non-personal information[/url] with third parties outside of Google.

For those that don’t want to click the link above, ‘aggregated non-personal information’ is information that is recorded about users and collected into groups so that it no longer reflects or references an individually identifiable user. Surely this is no better or worse than how Alexa used to operate; selling data to other companies - or ‘sharing’ for the exchange of cash.

I know this post is directed towards the Google Toolbar, and I’m not having a go at anyone in particular - I’m just using it to illustrate that what the Alexa toolbar is doing (which seems to have a really bad reputation) is no worse than what the Google Toolbar is doing - yet one is acceptable, where the other isn’t.

10

This is a user’s choice issue.
I for one use Google and Although alexa may have cleaned up their act,
they still have to earn my trust.
Trust takes a long time to build and can be lost in an instant.
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/I_Have_Learned.html

11

I would not use neither one of those toolbars as, IMHO, you are just asking for trouble. Sooner or later, your computer will get something through those toolbars that you will later wish it did not get.

Just my 2-cents worth. :wink:

12

Hi CharleyO,

And then you also know why an extension like TrackMeNot for FF or Flock was developed. Now-a-days a thousand Big and Minor Big Brothers (corporational, governmental or semi-governmental) are looking over your shoulder to see what you are doing on-line, and you are without any knowledge as what they do with the information or data they sit on. In the old days they still pretended their was some forms of user-protection, and where has that gone now? The user has to come up for him- or herself, has to grow up, and is not ‘pampered’ anymore like here in North-Western Europe still some ten years ago, but thrown to the wolves, so do not install all these easy profiling tools where you help the profilers and schemers against you. Don’t trust them out there in these days of decadence!!!

polonus

13

Exactly!

14

Sorry Polonus, bad press of TrackMeNot…

TrackMeNot This is another of those extensions for the overly paranoid. The developers apparently became concerned with search engine profiling -- the process in which search engines track your queries and build a demographic profile of you based on those queries -- after a list of three months' worth of search queries from 657,000 AOL members was released on the Web. We don't mean to downplay privacy concerns, but the technique used in TrackMeNot is questionable. The extension runs in the background while you surf, and sends random search queries to AOL, Yahoo, Google and MSN search engines. What a waste of system resources for both you and the search engines you rely on!
[url=http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9015599&pageNumber=3]Top 10 Firefox extensions to avoid. Just because an extension is popular doesn't mean it belongs in your Web browser.[/url]
15
Adblock and Adblock Plus Obviously, we have some bias when it comes to ad-blocking extensions, as Computerworld is an ad-supported site. We also understand that these are very popular extensions. But if everyone blocked ads, how would sites such as ours continue to offer content free of charge? We'll be the first to admit that there are some horribly annoying ads out there. (Buzzing bee, anyone?) But we prefer using Nuke Anything Enhanced to zap the annoying ads while continuing to support the sites we love by allowing most ads to appear
tech or polonus...i guess everyone here has adblock plus on their firefox or seamonkey or etc...why is it on the extensions to not use ::) ??? have used it since almost day1 and this is the first i've heard of it being BAD??? what's next-finjan or siteadvisor ??? ::) ;) where's my Iphone ;D http://i18.tinypic.com/54jakgi.jpg
16

I did not say that I agree with all that guys have written. I use (and like) some of the ‘bad’ extensions they’ve listed there. But, of course, it’s an opinion. I just want to help Polonus to do not get paranoid ;D

17

Hi Tech,

I fully agree with you that it is up to the user what he/she allows into his/her browser.
These are extensions that have to do with privacy.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4533
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/590
There are some that do not like their surfing habits to be profiled, and like stealth browsing. But there are other parties that do not mind, and even people that oppose to these sort of extensions, because they profit from the generated ads and crap. Security wise TMN is not bad, but if I was a big web developer or had stock in google-syndication or google-analytics, I also wished TMN was not developed, while now you also can Clean Search Cookies in TMN. Web2.0 crap launchers also dislike NoScript, but I like to clear the crap from my browser.

polonus

18
I just want to help Polonus to do not get paranoid
he already is tech :) http://i11.tinypic.com/62sf7lj.gif damian what have you been feeding that cat ;D
I use (and like) some of the 'bad' extensions they've listed there
me too ::)
19

Thanks. Seems very good. I’ve used the 10mail service to get them (http://10minutemail.com/10MinuteMail/email.html).

Paranoid… I won’t check these IP each page I open 8)

20

I can’t understand why NoScript is on his list as virtually everything he said about it is ‘positive’ really.

This extension is hugely popular and works as advertised, giving you control over which JavaScript, Java and other executable content on a page can run, depending on that content's source domain. You whitelist the sites you consider safe and blacklist the sites you don't. 
NoScript pop-up menu

NoScript has you allow or forbid executable content by originating domain; a single Web page can include such content from multiple domains.

If you really have a need for this kind of control, then you’re already using the extension and will continue to do so. But for the average Web surfer, constantly having to whitelist sites so that scripts can execute in order to give you a fully formed Web experience gets tedious very quickly.

Does NoScript make Firefox safer? Sure. Is it worth the hassle? No. For some reason, paranoia seems to be cool among Web geeks, but for the most part, it is totally unwarranted unless you’re sending and receiving sensitive data. Most typical Web surfers who install this extension remove it after the novelty wears off.

As for AdBlock and AdBlockPlus, the reviewer/author works for one of the purveyors of adverts, so they are hardly going to support something that blocks ads.

Adblock and Adblock Plus

Obviously, we have some bias when it comes to ad-blocking extensions, as Computerworld is an ad-supported site. We also understand that these are very popular extensions. But if everyone blocked ads, how would sites such as ours continue to offer content free of charge?

We’ll be the first to admit that there are some horribly annoying ads out there. (Buzzing bee, anyone?) But we prefer using Nuke Anything Enhanced to zap the annoying ads while continuing to support the sites we love by allowing most ads to appear.

The comments on the page all detract from his opinion of NoScript and AdBlock Plus and so do I. Out of his Top 10 Firefox extensions to avoid, I have 3 installed NoScript, AdBlock Plus and FasterFox, my dial-up connection needs all the help it can get, I don’t however use pre-fetch (which he doesn’t like) because it actually slows my browsing as the background loads use bandwidth.