Ransom ware of a kind

Vultch

Vultch

Well-known member
So I purchased a piece of security software for my mac, "hands off" by One Periodic, it cost $49 and it monitors the behind the scenes comms of your machine. Every time an app tries to talk to the internet it seeks your permission and you can set up rules. i.e let Photoshop always talk to adobe.

Anyhow I get a pop up message from the software stating an minor update (Retina support etc) is available and i click ok...

Now the software is disabled unless I pay and additional $15. No warning just a demand for more money.

Nice.
 
It's happened before and it will happen again. Software sellers changing the rules after they have your money is a problem in this culture that folks won't acknowledge until it happens to them. I'm sure they (the software seller) have their fan clan that will defend them...always happens. Thanks for the heads up though!
 
Vultch said:
So I purchased a piece of security software for my mac, "hands off" by One Periodic, it cost $49 and it monitors the behind the scenes comms of your machine. Every time an app tries to talk to the internet it seeks your permission and you can set up rules. i.e let Photoshop always talk to adobe.

Anyhow I get a pop up message from the software stating an minor update (Retina support etc) is available and i click ok...

Now the software is disabled unless I pay and additional $15. No warning just a demand for more money.

Nice.
Click to expand...

Wait, so the software you bought to protect you is now demanding more money to continue working, just like that?

What was the exact message?
 
I received an update pop up which I clicked on to update the software.

There are no major functional changes, its a comms monitoring package so retina display compatibility and a new tweaked appearance for the dialoge boxes don't make it a crucial update.

After the update it worked for a trial period now it wants $15. And - yes just like that...I did send off an email to the software house lastweek, a reply has just been received 10 min ago.
 
Erm... where did you purchase that software? While there are pros and cons to buying through Apple's Mac App Store, one feature I find very important is user reviews. Any software that pulled a stunt like that would get piled on by users, and you'd be fairly warned. Now, I understand that a lot of developers are not selling through Apple, and there are totally valid reasons to support such developers, there are also downsides. Anyhow, it can be useful to google the software for user reviews before buying, because sometimes places like Cnet etc. might have reviews that alert you to such pitfalls. Buying software with no track record or reviews anywhere is a dicy proposition these days, unfortunately - you have no idea where and who develops it and their ultimate goals... for all you know, it could be a couple of hackers in, say, Ukraine and their primary aim is extortion. Caveat Emptor. What you can do with this experience is go onto whatever software review boards are out there and try to warn prospective buyers about this. Personally, I would not trust software that demanded a ransom like that, my suspicion would be that the primary - if not only - function of that software was to extort you. I'd chalk up that $49 to a lesson learned and junk the software :(... I'm sorry you've had this happen to you. Unfortunately, it's a wild and wooly internet world out there, so vigilance is always indicated. YMMV.
 
FWIW, I've been using Little Snitch for Mac for well over 10 years now, and have been totally satisfied. Here's a review from Macworld. It's about $35 for a single license (you can buy it in a bundle with other software for $38 etc.). I've never had any trouble or seen unethical behavior by the company, and they've been around for a long time now and have an excellent track record. I'm not associated with them in any way, just a satisfied customer.
 
A quick google on Hands Off, got one review that said the following:

http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/35277/hands-off!

"Not a really good software, better choose Little Snitch.
Moreover, One Periodic has a bad update policy : as a HandsOff! 2 license owner, they asked me to pay again for the new version upgrade ($20) to have the Mac OSX El Capitan support.

Buy Little Snitch or get it without pay... But don't get into them licensing gears..."

Of course, that's just one review of many, so YMMV, but I wonder if the update was a major point release, for f.ex. Yosemite and you bought it awhile ago for an earlier OS version. Regardless, it seems an underhanded way of updating, to disable the older version under a lame pretext of a minor update and then demand payment to unlock.

Edit: Oh, I see, that does change things. Good catch by David.
 
Let me clarify, when i say it works for a while I am talking about 30min before it disables itself and you have to reboot the machine. Its back to its 'free demo' mode.
I just fired up my main edit machine to check the dialogue boxes to make sure I get this right.

Anyhow I was working away on something on my laptop when an innocent looking pop up box appears, its states " A new version of hands off is available" so I click OK and a large dialogue box appears at the bottom of this dialogue box there is a big button "INSTALL UPDATE"

Inside the dialogue box, you can scroll through a lot of text - text that tells you whats new about this version....and at the bottom of this text its states this is a paid update. So yes I did not scroll through the entire box to read the fine print.

I feel conned, if there was a major change in functionality yes I will pay depending on price, but it minor tweaks adding retina support and some cosmetic appearance changes, no functionality changes.

The company did reply to my email yesterday (google alerts maybe) and apologised, they offered me a link that will reinstall my previous version.
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
A quick google on Hands Off, got one review that said the following:

Edit: Oh, I see, that does change things. Good catch by David.
Click to expand...

When I say trial period I meant it has reverted to its free/demo mode. As I refused to pay its back to its free demo mode, thats 30 minutes of operation and then it quits.
 
Last edited:
Vultch said:
The company did reply to my email yesterday (google alerts maybe) and apologised, they offered me a link that will reinstall my previous version.
Click to expand...

So it sounds like they did right by you. You got back what you paid for. Granted, it was a bit of a hassle, which is unfortunate.

Not reading the agreement before accepting it is a mistake. A common one, but always a risk. Your experience should be an example to us all.

At least it sounds like you got your functionality back, so that's a good thing.
 
Yes they did resolve the issue, but I, like many on here have many pieces of software and plugin-in's that sometimes receive updates. When presented with a large dialogue box that requires you to scroll through a lot of text to find one line at the bottom. How many of us take the time to read through this?

Most software, if there is a major functional improvement or new functionality yes they ask for more money and that's fair enough. For for an innocent looking small 'pop up' window.

As I have said before the software is quite good, I like it, hopefully One Periodic will reconsider over coffee their marketing and billing.
 
David W. Richardson said:
So it sounds like they did right by you. You got back what you paid for. Granted, it was a bit of a hassle, which is unfortunate.

Not reading the agreement before accepting it is a mistake. A common one, but always a risk. Your experience should be an example to us all.

At least it sounds like you got your functionality back, so that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

they may have "done right by op", but he had to fight for it. Im sure the folks that just paid to keep the ransom like tactic from working get screwed. Not reading the agreement is no protection either. There are software companies that abrogate their own EULA terms. This laissez faire attitude ie: what ever the vender can get away with goes should raise some flags, lest it becomes SOP.
 
Al MacLeod said:
they may have "done right by op", but he had to fight for it. Im sure the folks that just paid to keep the ransom like tactic from working get screwed. Not reading the agreement is no protection either. There are software companies that abrogate their own EULA terms. This laissez faire attitude ie: what ever the vender can get away with goes should raise some flags, lest it becomes SOP.
Click to expand...

First off, it may be that the company wasn't aware that the upgrade couldn't be backed out of. Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt here. When they were notified of a problem by him, they fixed it in a reasonable fashion -- so it doesn't seem to me he had to 'fight' for anything.

The people who paid what you're calling a 'ransom' got what they paid for. This is not a hijacking, it's a sale.

What other software companies do with their EULA isn't relevant to this case. In this case, if he had read the agreement, he would have known what he was getting into. So in this case, reading it certainly would have provided protection.

I'm not saying it doesn't sound sketchy. I believe the vendor should make every effort to be clear about things up front. However, the agreement did specify how things would happen, and the company did make it right with the customer, at absolutely no cost to him and very little effort. This is a FAR CRY from 'ransomware'.
 
Vultch said:
Yes they did resolve the issue, but I, like many on here have many pieces of software and plugin-in's that sometimes receive updates. When presented with a large dialogue box that requires you to scroll through a lot of text to find one line at the bottom. How many of us take the time to read through this?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, although I've never seen an update require approving a whole new EULA. That would have been my first red flag. Even so, I agree with you -- the company should have made it more clear.
 
David W. Richardson said:
First off, it may be that the company wasn't aware that the upgrade couldn't be backed out of. Giving everyone the benefit of the doubt here. When they were notified of a problem by him, they fixed it in a reasonable fashion -- so it doesn't seem to me he had to 'fight' for anything.

The people who paid what you're calling a 'ransom' got what they paid for. This is not a hijacking, it's a sale.

What other software companies do with their EULA isn't relevant to this case. In this case, if he had read the agreement, he would have known what he was getting into. So in this case, reading it certainly would have provided protection.

I'm not saying it doesn't sound sketchy. I believe the vendor should make every effort to be clear about things up front. However, the agreement did specify how things would happen, and the company did make it right with the customer, at absolutely no cost to him and very little effort. This is a FAR CRY from 'ransomware'.
Click to expand...

Company unaware upgrade couldn't be backed out of? That's pretty generous of you! They fixed it for the op...what about everybody else? Not ransomware? Again, this term has several meanings at this point, so to be clear I refer to a ploy where bait is offered and when taken, backing out is not an option. A trap by definition. The op purchased the original software. The upgrade was offered (apparently) in the classic shareware format-try and buy...or not. The dialog button displayed in software he had purchased and owned outright. To remove the ability to resurrect the original package is where the "ransom" concept enters the conversation. You say the agreement specified how things would happen. I dont know, have not seen it. I bet the pay or your original purchase is toast aspect was not the first thing listed! Very little effort was required? hmmm...Why was any effort at all required?
 
Al MacLeod said:
Company unaware upgrade couldn't be backed out of? That's pretty generous of you! They fixed it for the op...what about everybody else? Not ransomware? Again, this term has several meanings at this point, so to be clear I refer to a ploy where bait is offered and when taken, backing out is not an option. A trap by definition. The op purchased the original software. The upgrade was offered (apparently) in the classic shareware format-try and buy...or not. The dialog button displayed in software he had purchased and owned outright. To remove the ability to resurrect the original package is where the "ransom" concept enters the conversation. You say the agreement specified how things would happen. I dont know, have not seen it. I bet the pay or your original purchase is toast aspect was not the first thing listed! Very little effort was required? hmmm...Why was any effort at all required?
Click to expand...

Okay, every piece of software I've purchased online, I have downloaded the install file to my hard drive and run it from there. I suspect that if the OP had simply uninstalled/reinstalled from the downloaded install file, or through whatever process he did the original install, then that probably would have resolved the problem -- since he says the problem was fixed by reinstalling from a link provided by the company. When some application of mine stops working for whatever reason, that's my first course of action -- reinstall the application.

I haven't seen the agreement either, but the OP said "Inside the dialogue box, you can scroll through a lot of text - text that tells you whats new about this version....and at the bottom of this text its states this is a paid update."

I have no doubt that anyone who contacted the company with the same problem and complained got the same link the OP did, and got use of their software back without charge.

As I said, I'm giving the company the benefit of the doubt. Could it be that they're just evil incarnate and hoping to rip people off? Sure it could. It could also be just a poorly-designed rollout of a new version of the program -- which, by the way, is exactly what the OP told us the message said -- "A new version of hands off is available". Not an update, a NEW VERSION.

At any rate, since it was relatively easy for the OP to get his original version of Hands Off working again without cost, it's hard for me to see this as holding anything for 'ransom'. But that's just me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top