Comments on: Adobe and Omniture: Further details

By: me

me — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:39:31 +0000

“as soon as we can”

One would have thought ‘never’ and ‘soon’ would be mutually exclusive

Where can I download the adobe-dictionary?

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:26:32 +0000

Bravo! Two years later (2010) Adobe CS4 applications still try connecting to 192.168.112.2O7.net.
So much for the last answer in this post:
“Absolutely. We are working with Omniture on this right now, and will make this change as soon as we can. ”
Shame on Adobe. :(

By: Stefan

Stefan — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:23:33 +0000

@ Billy: You are right thus. Adobe would exactly have to know what does it there. I already know why I the welcome screen never use.

By: Francisco Berridi

Francisco Berridi — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:08:13 +0000

Guys, the 92.168.112.2o7.net is not an “Adobe spy” domain, that all, is just a Sub-dmomain of the 2o7.net domain, and is used by Omniture for tracking, in a 3rd party cookies mode, Omniture has a solution to this “problem” wich requires some DNS configurations, so this way Adobe will be able to use something like metrics.adobe.com instead 92.168.112.2o7.net, im sure they are working on it.

By: Agent

Agent — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:18:00 +0000

I’m going to start a class action suit. Watch the news…

By: WRW

WRW — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:50:14 +0000

I kind of wonder what else they are doing, since while using MY PURCHASED copy of Illustrator CS2, I get popups telling me about CS3. I am definitely getting rid of this spyware! [First I've heard of it. Where in CS2 are you seeing such popups? --J.]

By: know the truth

know the truth — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:09:18 +0000

First off, I think this is all a bunch of baloney. The lame explanation simply proves you can’t trust Adobe.
I think Adobe knew exactly what it was doing, and consciously decided to abuse users trust with ready made trouble management set in place complete with lame answers.
Users should be weary and acquire good software firewalls.

By: Three Cents

Three Cents — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:45:17 +0000

here are two solutions while we wait for adobe to discover why the code they themselves wrote contains what it does http://dev.netcetera.org/blog/2007/12/30/opting-out-of-omnitures-1921681122o7net-the-geeky-way/ http://himself.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/opting-out-of-omniture%E2%80%99s-1921681122o7net-the-lazy-way/

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:23:33 +0000

I am not sure if this has been addressed yet, but I will venture a guess as to why the name 192.168.112.2o7.net was used.
192.168.X.X are numbers used on internal networks, and are not routed on the Web. Note that when you boot up the new router on your home network, 192.168.1.X series of addresses are used by default. You can learn more about network address translation (NAT) here http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/nat.html
If someone quickly looks at the address 192.168.112.2o7.net it appears to be a device on the network and won’t be investigated as much as say ServerThatCollectsYourData.com. If this is correct, this seems to be a little on the sneaky side to me.
My 2 cents.
John – I do appreciate that you took the time to investigate this matter and were willing to say I don’t know.

By: john doe

john doe — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:17:27 +0000

Phoning home in any manner without PRIOR permission is unacceptable in any and all cases.
If this is truly a “feature” that users want, then an opt-IN setting that could be enabled when the app is first booted would work without any backlash or invasiveness and still give everyone what they want.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:02:25 +0000

Sigh, I guess some people’s reading comprehension isn’t as good as others. Mark Twain must have had you in mind when he wrote:
“A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.”

By: Kay A.

Kay A. — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:24:54 +0000

The world would be a better place if Flash did not exist.

By: SBG

SBG — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:44:13 +0000

The one inconsistency here that has been brought up, but skipped over in your replies is the question about how it can be improving the software if it’s not really sending any important data.
Can you detail exactly how this process works?
1.What is the information that is collected.
2. How is it used to improve the app?

By: gd

gd — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:39:09 +0000

I’m happy to see that, through your efforts John, Adobe finally took serious notice of a decidedly suspicious domain name, and decided to change that name. Unfortunately, before your involvement, Adobe apparently didn’t take users’ concerns about this name seriously, as the issue was first raised and brought to Adobe’s attention many months ago. Sadly, it seems that a couple of “sky-is-falling” blogs were required to get the name changed.
I would add that, as a user, I welcome and appreciate informative opt-in (or opt-out) questions regarding application behaviour (and particularly non-obvious behaviour). Other than for apps whose primary purpose is to connect to the net, I consider an application’s attempt to connect to an internet server to be ‘non-obvious’ behaviour.

By: effgee

effgee — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:36:19 +0000

“… The key thing is that they be given the choice, and that they be made aware of what’s going on. …”
Actually, no it isn’t. The key is that users be given said choice before the software initiates any kind of network connection, anything else is plain and simply unacceptable.