Earlier this week the big story was the launch of a new “safe” browser called Browzar, which InfoWorld called “the latest entrant to the crowded Internet browser market”.
Browzar promises to make web surfing more anonymous by disabling cookies, history, auto-complete, etc. The story was widely circulated, including writeups on BBC, CNET, Slashdot and Digg, among others. We even wrote about it on TechCrunch UK.
There were initial doubts raised that this was simply a stripped down version of IE with the offending functionaltiy turned off, and therefore nothing special. But none of the publications above did enough research into the product to realize that not only is Browzar not really an interesting product from a security point of view, but that the “browser” is going to great lengths to force users to click on Overture ads by constantly redirecting them to search ad pages served by Browzar itself.
Today Web3.0log went to that additional effort to actually test the product, and wrote a post called “New Secure Browser Browzar is Fake and Full of Adware” where they proceeded to rip the product apart on a feature by feature basis.
Contrary to earlier coverage, Browzar appears to be nothing but a simple shell to IE which forces Overture ads on its own users. The creators didn’t write a cache or history function, calling this a feature, and users are unable to change the search function or home page to anything other than Browzar ad results. Furthermore, some users are complaining that URL auto-complete is not working properly and also redirects to the Browzar home page, with ads, when it shouldn’t.
Wev2.0log concludes by saying “There was time when badware developers tried to install ad pages as homepage or searchpage in user’s IE by any possible means. Nowadays users install adware voluntarily and write news about it. True web2.0 style!”
Make your own decision on Browzar if you like, just make sure you know what it is you are downloading before you pull the trigger.
In Web 2.0 everyone is using Ads to survive and offering services to users around the world. However, we have to understand that money is not the only goal of Web 2.0. The goals of any innovative technologies should be to offer users tools and means to be more productive. User should have more control over their experience. Without the users Web 2.0 would not exist.
USERS FIRST
MONEY SECOND
USERS, LET YOUR VOICE BE HEAR!
hmm, users first, money second. that seems to be the formula that many of these startups are following, too
money probably shouldn’t be the only goal of any visionary business, but of course, businesses can’t survive without profits.
Funny. I was going to download this just to check it out (mild curiousity).
But then I thought about how much I didn’t like the logo. I guess it wasn’t “Web 2.0″ enough. It looks more retro than anything else.
For once, I was right to judge a book by its cover.
“…we have to understand that money is not the only goal of Web 2.0″
Every startup under the sun is looking to get bought out by a bigger firm after 1-2 years of operation (or less).
What’s that about money?
From the user’s perspective, perhaps not. But from the companies, how else would they survive?
I say money should come 1st. If your users don’t like it, they can go somewhere else. Market forces are at play here. (This, of course, leads most sensible developers to develop websites balanced between the goals of making money and satisfying users)
Very few of us are doing this ‘for free’
Hey, NeoTechie, no offense meant, but I think you mean “USERS, LET YOUR VOICE BE ***HEARD***”
Aside from the Neanderthal-talk, I find this article very interesting.
The instant we let Web2.0 be about the money, we have another bubble coming faster than ever.
It’s amazing how people eat up PR. TechCrunch UK stated:
“I probably will download this on to my dad’s computer, as it’s only 264k in size and tell him to use it instead of IE when checking his online banking details or buying a book from Amazon.”
What if this wasn’t just an adware scam but included a keylogger/trojan horse? Most of the media and bloggers ate this story up without any critical analysis (or even testing) and it highlights just how stupid people are. If the Browzar crew were really devious, they could have used it to steal social security numbers, passwords, credit card numbers, etc. instead of using it to do adware. Here you go. I’ve got a new browser that protects your privacy. Just download and install it and we’ll keep you safe! How touching.
Earth to Chris: Web 2.0 has always been about money. Venture capitalists aren’t investing hundreds of millions of dollars in Web 2.0 startups as a feel good exercise. Media companies aren’t buying out startups because they believe it’s time to transition power to the people. Bubble 1.0 was about money. Bubble 2.0 is about money. And Bubble 3.0 will be about money.
Wikipedia provides the definition of a web browser as a ‘a software application that enables a user to display and interact with text, images, and other information typically located on a web page at a website on the World Wide Web or a local area network. Text and images on a web page can contain hyperlinks to other web pages at the same or different websites. Web browsers allow a user to quickly and easily access information provided on many web pages at many websites by traversing these links.’
While it is definitively apparent that this browser does that – it totally misses the concept of ‘allowing a user to quickly and easily access information’ and I think this is why they are going to run into some real problems. Mozzilla and Flock have been so popular because they are automating things that users want without ads, and with the underlying model of making users lives easier. If you produce something that 100+ Million people want, obviously you’re going to get funding. Producing a web-browser of this poor quality and of terrible user interface – not to mention the underlying forced adware – speaks for itself, in my opinion.
Futhermore, I think that they would be definitely border line on some of Overtunes advertising policies if they are ‘forcing users’ to click on ads. If I was advertising via Overtune, and users were ‘forced’ to go to my page with no intention to even look at what I selling or offering – and I had to pay them for this, I would be ending the contract with them pretty quick smart.
Skeptic,
Bubble 1.0 was about eyeballs. Bubble 2.0 is about AJAX, Tagging and RSS. That’s why its called a bubble. Built on top of unsustainable business models hoping to be the one to be bought (or in the 1.0 case get IPO-ed and hoisted to clueless Nasdaq investors).
Put it another way.. it COULD be about the money… money in the “exit” –not in the sustainable operations of the business.
“…The story was widely circulated, including writeups on BBC, CNET, Slashdot and Digg, among others. We even wrote about in on TechCrunch UK…”
it circulated everywhere
@gazzle
I think you’re missing the forest for the trees to say that Bubble 1.0 was about eyeballs. Bubble 2.0 is about eyeballs too, ultimately, as a revenue model other than ads is pretty rare these days. Also, while AJAX, tagging, and RSS are technologies that have been overhyped, I would say that Web 2.0 is about user-generated content, more than the specific technologies. Myspace isn’t big on those technologies, but it’s still part of web 2.0, imo.
Cheap bloggers – check the info next time before posting that b.s.!
Too much noise, little useful stuff 
What we need is a smart browser, not a stripped down one. We have plenty of ‘dumb’ to go around, I say Flock’s approach is the way to go.
Alex
http://www.adaptiveblue.com
So I see how it works – bad TechCrunch review unless you advertise here. LOL
Isn’t this what Safari has done for some time when you enable Private Browsing mode?
The point is the people who will download it won’t read tech-blogs.
better adware than a truly malacious piece of code (trojan, virus womb, etc)
Go capitalizm!
A browser which claims to be “safe” simply by turning off all the stuff that makes browsing easy??? where do i sign up!!!
“…but of course, businesses can’t survive without profits.”
I take it this was a typo/slip. Businesses probably can’t survive without making money (unless, of course, you’re a major US airline and you have the full backing of the US government by way of the US taxpayer), but they don’t need to make _profits_.
the entire ‘non-profit’ community, non-profit co-ops, etc.
“Down with this *#*&# establishment!” (not work safe)
http://www.nega.../dive/watch.htm
OT: I was trying to upload a video and I was trying to remember the name of ‘that video site’, you know, ‘that one’….the one where you, like upload videos and stuff….couldn’t remember the name of it. I was like, ‘Flickr’? It’s gone from my head completely. All I can think of is Google Video and no upload limits. Goodbye, YouTube.
@Ryan W. I’m not sure if you’re partially agreeing with me or not but yeah I concede, its not all about the technologies… its also about the model. What I’m saying is that there IS a bubble and IMHO “user generated content” is also over-hyped… why do you think every freaking new website has a “tag-cloud”?
Sure MySpace, Flickr and a bunch of these companies have real value and had successful outcomes. So did Amazon.com and eBay and one-feature startups like Hotmail during the Web 1.0 days. That doesn’t mean that there was no dot.com bubble.
Only morons use IE or IE-based browser.
I wonder if it steals personal data on banking websites too. IE isn’t too bad (still, it’s the worst of the three major windows browsing platforms). Adware, faking innovation and mistreating the naive Web 2.0 community – that IS bad.
As insecure as you can get
http://www.dslr...32059~mode=flat
Riding on the waves of security-hype… I’d understand this if the product would provide proper anonymous surfing, but it’s easy enough to erase the cookies, history, cache etc. in Firefox or even IE and so this new product is useless.
Just as terrorism isn’t the greatest threat to mankind, having your search history recorded in a cookie isn’t the greatest threat to online security… contrary to what the fearmongers try to tell us while plugging their un-needed and unwanted products and policies.
Demonstration: Restoration to find out what you visited with Browzar:
Browzar offers a false sense of security to users.
http://wadihaco...vos-traces.html
Browzar was clearly made in Visual Basic, all they did was add a browser control and then just used some ocxs and dlls to improve the interface. Same interface and style, I mean the fact that they haven’t learnt how to change the start page and homepage settings only proves how simple the browser actually is. I mean all they had to do was have Browzar write a config file with the homepage url, and check the config file for the homepage url and navigate to it.
I think I can write a much better program using the web browser control in vb, probably one that is more secure and functional then Browzar. Browzar has nothing to do with ‘web 2.0′, it’s just a very poor excuse of selling some very cheap and poorly coded vb program to inexperienced users. It may be free, but remember the adage – “you get what you pay for”.
Slit: Yes, I’ve made an example in norwegian.. sorry
(EnkelNettleser.exe = SimpleWebbrowser.exe
It’s made in VB.net 2005.. Why didnt I made the browser.. lol
http://home.nit...elNettleser.exe
Thanks. I think I will stick with Firefox.
“I wonder if it steals personal data on banking websites too.”
Here’s what the virus scanners say about Browzar:
File: BrowzarBlackWin.exe
Status: OK (Note: this file has been scanned before. Therefore, this file’s scan results will not be stored in the database)
MD5 2a1dcac131ba27aed43831ac4e112b07
Packers detected:
-
Scanner results
AntiVir Found nothing
ArcaVir Found nothing
Avast Found nothing
AVG Antivirus Found nothing
BitDefender Found nothing
ClamAV Found nothing
Dr.Web Found nothing
F-Prot Antivirus Found nothing
Fortinet Found nothing
Kaspersky Anti-Virus Found nothing
NOD32 Found nothing
Norman Virus Control Found nothing
UNA Found nothing
VirusBuster Found nothing
VBA32 Found nothing
My choice is firefox, one of the safest browser.