(Funny m0.net story - my bank ignored me, but my broker amazingly dropped m0.net after I pointed out that all their client communications were being preemptorily-treated as phishing attempts, and that if they didn't start sending client communications from machines under their own domain I'd transfer my own account.
This heuristic has held true ever since mainsleaze spammers started flinging shit at me from "m0.net" back in the 90s. Rules of Malware: Rule 34: The presence of a zero in your domain name is a prima facie indicator of spyware/spamware/shitware/malware sponsored by a "reputable" vendor, aka "mainsleaze". I hereby propose two new rules for malware: It's at least meant to confuse unwary users, and possibly meant to confuse misconfigured firewalls.Īs per "Rules of the Internet: Rule 34: There is Porn of it, no exceptions", and "Rule 35: If there is not porn of it, porn will be made of it". > To clarify the summary, the biggest issue is not the spying on users the biggest issue is the deceptive server name, 192. To me, it is another step in the downfall of Adobe. I can't imagine why adobe would use them at the design level, but overall I agree that it will be of no big deal to users of the product.
OTOH, this product is a web design product, and most web designers get their money from ad revenue, so I would hardly think that the users of the product would have much problem with working with 2o7, kind of a necessary evil sort of thing. So, can we presume that instead of the user friendly Adbobe culture positively affecting the old macromedia products, that the end user hostile macromedia culture is infecting the adobe products. I had hoped that Adobe might soften the rules and ship a flash player that was less user hostile, but no such new player exists. You know, that company that produces complicated resources hogging web content that unlike other resource hogging content cannot be filtered by most web browsers. This then leads to the question of why Adobe is using them for applications, which leads to think what has been aquired in the past year or so. They are legitimate, and companies that work with them are legitimate, but the original sleaze factor is always there, and is obviously going to be transfered to clients. It was one of the first companies to use such social confusion, replacement of the '0' with 'o' so that in the days when one manually entered the domains to block, they would block the wrong domain. This company though liegitimate, does smell of sleaze. Cognizant web users know 2o7.net, or whatever, is the cookie tracking site, and mostly blocks them. It is not a misleading server name, at least not anymore.
0 kommentar(er)
