Talk:Orbit Downloader

Advertisement ?

How could one describe a piece of software, if one can not even mention the features of it? I had a similat PROBLEM on the German side. They NULLIFIED my efforts, by deleting the whole article telling me it was "FAN TALK". I wonder why programs that cannot even show up a quarter of the features deserve to stay even though they do not even have 5 interwiki entries, as Orbit Downloader had at that stage.
Kind regards XTerminator2000 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Made in China

I like the software but it's made in China and I have the weird feeling it has some kinda root kit on it for some reason. This article used to cite the IP address this thing used to beacon out on. I would suggest someone run wireshark while this thing is running to see the true network packets —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.226.227.100 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worried because when I use Orbit I always wear my tin foil hat! 24.144.37.182 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Someone should check the "controversy" section, what is claimed there goes in direct contradition to what is in the sources, and the second part is unsourced and simply not true. 85.240.107.228 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, they say they don't collect any private information, and from reading their privacy section it is clear that the info they collect is non-private information, aimed at improving the program, I will remove it right away, if proper sources are found, then we can add that section again Jerebin (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote was verbatim from their website. They collect aggregate data. Maybe you guys need to read what that is. It also has a citation so stop vandalizing.--Ron John (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I have proof that it does not stop even if you exit the program. I'm just to lazy to provide screen shots.--Ron John (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The "controversy" section is no longer included, however the concerns are still valid. Please revisit this section for inclusion again.

According to the 'Orbit Download' page privacy page they collect;

"Information may be provided by you or may be generated by your mere use of Orbit Downloader."

"Information may include install/uninstall and update Orbit Downloader, the use of a particular feature, the version and vendor or Orbit Downloader, the file size that was downloaded or the source server from which files were downloaded"

The "the file size that was downloaded or the source server" part is very disturbing. The total information collected is, at least, When, Where to/from, and Size. Collecting this much and type contradicts the companies claims of "We do NOT track your online activities or browsing habits." and "We do NOT collect Personally Identifiable Information about your personal downloads." as stated on their web site.

http://www.orbitdownloader.com/privacy.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.36.172 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why So Late?

Funny, but not in a ha-ha way. Back in 2013, I reported to Bleeping Computer, and I noted on the Wikipedia download mgr list, that Orbit Downloader is malicious, but nothing was done until 2016? That's pretty sad. In fact, I reported something that isn't mentioned in this article - that it not only changes the homepage, it also uses its software updater to provide false links to program updates. Between my report and the above reports, it shouldn't even be on the list, but it still is. WTF? ReveurGAM (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to add this information in case there are users who will look at the talk page. This is what I reported in early 2013 about Orbit on Wikipedia's list of download managers. I don't know if Orbit is still malware, but I'm not willing to try again in order to find out.

• "This program seems to have gone from merely a mild browser hijack to something worse, but it would be best if others can verify what I experienced as I've got some system issues.
• The software updater feature provides links to outdated and fictitious updates to programs, and is thus very unreliable.
• In addition, the software updater stopped being disable-able last year. When I unchecked it, I continued to get notifications of updates. I commented on this problem with Elise (head of the anti-malware training program at BleepingComputer.com), who also seemed to have experienced that, as well as other issues, and has discontinued usage.
• After uninstalling, downloads continued to be directed to Orbit even though it was no longer on my computer. I eventually managed to get that removed."

I encourage any users considering downloading Orbit to proceed with extreme caution. I see it is now listed on CNet, Tucows, Tom's Hardware and other sites. ReveurGAM (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't Delete

Given the fact that this program, which contains malware, is still listed on several sites, either as a download or mentioned in a review - some of which, at least, do NOT mention it's mal-icious nature, I think it is important to have an article that reveals this to the public. Removing the article is not advisable. Orbit changes the homepage, provides a software updater that links to false websites for downloading the updates, can perform DDOS, and other malicious activities. I tested this product several years ago and reported this to the malware fighters there when I was in the training program.

Please don't delete this article. Instead, build it up and make it a worthy resource to warn users.ReveurGAM (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@ReveurGAM: Wikipedia is not a malware database, especially since it's not a place to "right great wrongs". Also we have to pay attention to WP:ROUTINE, and I think most articles about malware are run-of-the-mill coverage (and don't really deserve its own article). Also, I don't think people go to Wikipedia before downloading a program. wumbolo ^^^ 20:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a definitive article that prevents such articles about malware? A lot of people THINK (foolishly enough) that Wikipedia is a highly reliable resource. Why not work to create that? What's run of the mill about making readers aware of the danger of a program that is listed in the download manager list? I found Orbit through the list, and I've used other lists here to find other software, and I hardly think I'm the only person to use lists that way, which blows a hole in your supposition. Where one speaks, many are silent, right?ReveurGAM (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)