PrivDog Released

PrivDog is now released.

For existing users your browsers will automatically update on the browsers internal update schedule. You can manually update in both FF and Chrome if you choose from the browser’s ad on/settings panels.

The new setup program will be available at The setup is currently propagating to Cnet and may take up to 72 hours to appear. This setup contains fixes for all plugins and improves threat coverage.

New Increased threat coverage.

Fixed defect where: Plugin uses the wrong url at local storage Chrome/Firefox
Fixed defect where: Plugin does not count 3rd Party Widgets Firefox

thanks :-TU

thank you
1 no expectation for correction of incompatibility between PrivDog and add-ons such as NoScript, Ghostery and donottrackme;
2. PrivDog ignores track, cookies, and ad widgets on sites with connection secure (HTTPS)

Thanks for the quick update. :-TU

thanks dev’s :slight_smile: privdog rules :slight_smile:

Thank you!! ;D

No it is not. still redirects the user to download it from CNET

And the reason you originally changed that is because users were experiencing the Browser warning the user that the download from was being identified as potentially malware …

Well that is also the case at CNET - See screenshot

[attachment deleted by admin]

PrivDog is free from any viruses or Malware.

Google often incorrectly reports young websites with young software as potentially malicious with some automated decision.

I’ve read a lot forums with developers complaining about this same issue with their young software. If the file was malicious it would be reported as malicious by Google on CNET too which it isn’t.

We’re going to leave the file on CNET for now as it allows user reviews.


plus PrivDog blocks the ads…
Google makes money from ads…

My bold, could you have a look at my screenshot again ( at the bottom ) in my last post.

I understand its a false positive, as it was on the Privdog site aswell as CNET now, but with CNET download now being identitifed as potentially malicious, and previous reports of CNET making piggyback installers without the uploaders knowledge … Its not currently inspiring confidence.

And even though I understand this, to be honest it has put me off redownloading the dedicated installer just in case.

Have you reported this to Google so that they can fix this false positive? I believe there is a form which developers can submit.