Spread the Word | Create Account | My Account  
digsby
Location: Forum Home » Technical Support » Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
 

Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions

#1 2008-11-19 20:29:46
Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
joshsimmons
New member
Offline

 

Hello,

I finally installed a legitimate firewall on my computer and am wondering about a connection that's being attempted by Java. Java is attempting to connect to a website that's run by Plura Processing. I looked up the company and it seems like an innocuous way to monetize Java applications, and I'm willing to let it pass ... if I know exactly what application is using it.

So, my question is this: is it Digsby that uses Plura Processing?

Thank you for an amazing product and a superb community! I'm a permanent convert from Trillian, DeadAIM, Meebo, and Pidgin - I'm incredibly particular about the software I use!

- Josh



#2 2008-11-19 20:36:48
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
steve
Digsby Developer
Offline

 

We are testing a feature that conducts research similar to Folding@Home or SETI while your computer is idle.  Some of it may be pro-bono projects like prime number research and some of it may be paid projects like Plura, which will help us keep Digsby completely free.  It is optional so if you go to "Help > Support Digsby"  you can disable the option to help us conduct research.



#3 2008-11-20 03:05:15
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
joshsimmons
New member
Offline

 

Fantastic! Thank you for your prompt and concise reply. There's nothing more validating to an end user than a developer response like that!



#4 2008-11-23 13:33:39
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
karinagw
New member
Offline

 

steve wrote:

We are testing a feature that conducts research similar to Folding@Home or SETI while your computer is idle.  Some of it may be pro-bono projects like prime number research and some of it may be paid projects like Plura, which will help us keep Digsby completely free.  It is optional so if you go to "Help > Support Digsby"  you can disable the option to help us conduct research.

However, I voluntarily signed up to allow SETI to use my computer.  It kind of appalls me that this was done without our knowledge.



#5 2008-11-24 10:14:53
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
Pikarya
Power User
Offline

 

No offense to the Digsby team, I'm all for your product. But this kinda thing SHOULD of been mentioned before much thorough and publicly somewhere.



#6 2008-11-24 10:24:00
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
steve
Digsby Developer
Offline

 

@Pikarya: Agreed. We are testing this right now and if we keep it, info will definitely be added to the TOS or FAQ.



#7 2008-11-24 13:04:50
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
artfuldodga
Super Power User
Offline

 

lots of privacy advocates using digsby =] good to see...



#8 2008-11-25 15:06:37
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
tnerb123
Member
Offline

 

What information does this send across?  Recently a couple of my accounts that are used in Digsby where compromised.  The only tool I have used is Digsby as well as the web interface for those products.  I am trying to not think Digsby is the cause, but its the only thing that could have done it.



#9 2008-11-25 15:18:51
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
mike
Digsby Developer
Offline

 

it has no access to any information related to digsby.



#10 2008-11-25 15:19:33
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
Pikarya
Power User
Offline

 

tnerb123 wrote:

What information does this send across?  Recently a couple of my accounts that are used in Digsby where compromised.  The only tool I have used is Digsby as well as the web interface for those products.  I am trying to not think Digsby is the cause, but its the only thing that could have done it.

Read what steve wrote.



#11 2008-11-26 17:16:14
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
carmadamus
New member
Offline

 

Sorry but WTF!!! I was searching my system 2 hours long for a virus. Every time I left my system idle my fan was running like crazy and I never knew what kind of process would do that.

I am really disappointed about the secretive manner this was introduced. Sure Digsby is a great tool and you have to make money in some way but this is the wrong way.


Last edited by carmadamus (2008-11-26 17:16:44)


#12 2008-12-01 11:17:53
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
ssechaud
New member
Offline

 

@Steve: It's bad practice to test features on end clients systems. You should be testing on your own systems as this is more reliable. Any professional developer should know rolling out untested features onto live systems is just asking for trouble.

As far as I can see none of the developers are appreciating how serious a breach of trust this is. Can we have a proper response as to why the developers feel they can take such liberties with its users and they're machines.

How long do we have to wait before you remove this from the digsby client? The instruction given on how to disable this feature are incorrect too!



#13 2008-12-01 11:36:24
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
IcePotato
New member
Offline

 

Well I don't know about a "serious breach of trust" but this is something that should have been opt-in at the very least. The fact that it was done with no notification was strange.

Adding something to the ToS or FAQ, which I'm pretty sure only the minority of users read, isn't very helpful. I understand you guys are trying to turn a profit here, but it's hard to recommend a product that does stuff like this without any user knowledge.

Please don't do stuff like this again. Thanks! smile


Last edited by IcePotato (2008-12-01 11:38:22)


#14 2008-12-02 01:32:08
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
chris
Digsby Developer
Offline

 

ssechaud wrote:

@Steve: It's bad practice to test features on end clients systems. You should be testing on your own systems as this is more reliable. Any professional developer should know rolling out untested features onto live systems is just asking for trouble.

•  Reliably impossible to simulate every possible configuration, and of course we tested internally first.
•  This is a beta product.
•  This went through the alpha phase for over a week, during which we caught several bugs.
•  Neither our machines or the alpha phase caught a critical bug which was fixed this morning.
•  This fix hasn't been pushed yet.  Why not?  Because it hasn't been tested enough yet.
•  The test isn't just for us, it's for the plura processing servers as well.

ssechaud wrote:

As far as I can see none of the developers are appreciating how serious a breach of trust this is. Can we have a proper response as to why the developers feel they can take such liberties with its users and they're machines.

How long do we have to wait before you remove this from the digsby client? The instruction given on how to disable this feature are incorrect too!

I liked mike's response.

Disable does work (read the post).


We can't do this for free and keep up anything near the development pace we have.  If you can't see the changes that happen, maybe they're in a feature you don't use, but many other people do.  Or maybe they're in a feature you do use, but the update is so seamless there's nothing to see.  Data synchronization had a bunch of changes over the past year, and if I've done my job right, you haven't noticed.  Currently, we're working on a new sequence which should make login faster and more secure than it ever has been.  What will people notice?  Probably nothing.  Why is it better?  It'll scale better and increase the odds of people being able to connect easily.  What's the point to things no one can see?  It makes everything else easier to maintain and more stable.

The above feels like a personal attack. Screw ups happen.  Usually that means the code gets reworked via feedback until it's at least good.  There never does seem to be enough time to make everything we'd like to, and there are always more bugs.  If you think we don't care about the users, well, that's not helpful.

-----------------------------
Edited for public consumption


Last edited by steve (2008-12-12 14:10:47)



closed topic w/ link == punBB doesn't have merge.
#15 2008-12-02 06:52:14
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
Boofo
Power User
Offline

 

I can't wait for the unedited version. I'll grab the popcorn! wink




chmod a+x /bin/laden -- Allows anyone the permission to execute /bin/laden
#16 2008-12-02 09:24:42
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
steve
Digsby Developer
Offline

 

I don't think adding a new feature is a serious breach of trust but I do agree that more should be done from a PR standpoint to explain it so users know what they are getting, can discuss it, and know how to opt out.  The reason this hasn't been done is because we are alpha testing the functionality and didn't want to start a massive discussion over something that we weren't sure would remain a permanent part of Digsby.

Consider this.  Imagine if we made an announcement that we were placing banner ads all over Digsby and then pushed the functionality to 2% of users to test it, didn't like the result, and removed it. The test would have affected 2% of users but the discussion that would have resulted through a major announcement on the blog would have involved everyone (needlessly) over functionality that didn't end up in the final product.

However, pushing it to the 2% of users without announcing it at all would have caught them off guard and that portion of people would have been on this forum crying foul like you are doing.

So, I think that the answer is a middle ground.  When we introduce test functionality that is significant we should announce it on the forum, which is read by a small portion of users but is read by the most vocal of users.  This allows us to get it out into the open and start a discussion without blowing it out of proportion by posting it on our blog, which is read by tens of thousands of people. I think this was a lesson learned - we are still a young company and have many others ahead of us.

Lastly, please try to keep things civil. We are all here to discuss Digsby on this forum so we can create a great product and a sustainable company.  Personal attacks at the developers by the users and similar responses by the developers at the users don't help that cause.



#17 2008-12-02 09:28:53
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
selwonk
Member
Offline

 

When is the next update coming?



#18 2008-12-02 09:43:42
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
mike
Digsby Developer
Offline

 

selwonk wrote:

When is the next update coming?

Ah, the eternal question.

and of course, the answer:

Valve wrote:

Blizzard wrote:

3DRealms wrote:

When it's done

luckily our project is not on the scale of duke nukem forever.



#19 2008-12-02 11:11:43
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
Aaron
Digsby Developer
Offline

 

Correction:

id Software wrote:

Valve wrote:

Blizzard wrote:

...

Edit: hmmm, it appears our quote system doesn't support 4 nested quotes...


Last edited by Aaron (2008-12-02 11:14:07)



I'm the one that draws pretty pictures on the screen! (AKA a GUI Dev)
Digsbies.org is currently semi-functional, hopefully it will rise again! Stay tuned!
Talk to us on IRC: #digsby on irc.freenode.org
I has a twitter: @Brok3n_Halo
#20 2008-12-02 11:15:48
Re: Plura Processing? Verifying for firewall exceptions
mike
Digsby Developer
Offline

 

i know, i had four or five in there before i tried to submit it and found that out.



Pages: 1 2 

Board footer


Copyright © 2007-2009 dotSyntax, LLC.   All Rights Reserved