Noticed high CPU Usage after installing Honey (LTT Sponsor)

[Guest]

1 minute ago, PETRGangKing said:

My CPU usage hasnt changed any, cant attest to what happens when you visit the site, I have javescript disabled so It sounds like it would block it.

when you install it my dude

[8uhbbhu8]

Also got this screen: 

 

[Hawx]

I can't reproduce this right now. It's possible that it's already been fixed.

[nicklmg]

Damn....

We had questions about this one to begin with, but after some vetting, including community feedback:

 

everything seemed relatively standard.

 

We're going to be checking into this immediately when everyone returns to the office tomorrow and will hopefully be able to provide an update soon...

[DanielMDA]

16 hours ago, LinusTech said:

Will be looking into this immediately.

Linus could you make simething like Linus Business Tips, you seem to be a conossieur on it, and would love some tips from you! (Also you are smart AF, so yeah)

[Heffe_The_Boss]

16 hours ago, LinusTech said:

Will be looking into this immediately.

I would love to see the follow up emails and calls..... 

 

If it's true I bet LTT could sue for Damaging the LTT brand... it would also send a message to other potential sponsors who think of making some sweet Monero on the backs of LTT fans.  

 

Paging John, is there a case there?

Edited December 11, 2017 by Heffe_The_Boss
HOW DO I ADD IMAGES?

[colonel_mortis]

I had a look into this. The extension source code is obfuscated, which isn't uncommon or suspicious but makes it hard to investigate. However, from what I could see there was nothing that looked particularly like mining code, nor were there any persistent spikes in CPU usage (and to my knowledge extensions don't get access to OpenCL to mine/etc on the GPU, but I don't have the relevant tools to measure GPU usage).

However, I do run Linux, and at least on Firefox there are different extensions packaged for Linux and Windows, which is suspicious. I was running the Windows version with no ill effects.

The thing that Malwarebytes found in the first post is probably unrelated, since it's just complaining about a registry key, which browser extensions can't access.

YouTube having flagged it as malicious is concerning though, and suggests that they know something that I don't.

[gemusan]

George, CEO of Honey here.

 

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  Happy to clarify everything here.

 

The screenshot OP posted shows a registry value in the location "\software\microsoft".  This is not Honey because 1) browser extensions cannot make changes to registry value and 2) we do not support Microsoft software at the moment.  So what OP observed is not at all related to Honey.  

 

Regarding the YouTube flag, it's because the link OP posted is the redirect URL with an expired token.  If you go to the YouTube video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnZM9VY86_w and click on the link in the description, it will not be flagged.

[gemusan]

To add some more context, here's a link with an expired token to another recent LTT sponsor: Squarespace (https://www.squarespace.com/LTT).

 

Clicking on the above link with the expired token will lead to the same exact warning.  But if you go the Original YouTube video and click on the link in the description, it is fine.

[LAwLz]

On 2017-12-11 at 12:56 AM, TDP_Equinox said:

You guys are generally pretty good at making sure your sponsors are reputable

Bahahahaha

You can't be serious.

 

How many times have they pulled sponsors after community outrage? Like 3-4 times?

 

How often do they talk about how great something is without actually having used or even tried it themselves? Quite often.

 

Have they recommended sub-par products and services just because they get paid? Absolutely. Like Synergy which is a free and open source program, yet LTT are "generous" and gives you a discount code for it.

Like TunnelBear which is a pretty bad VPN provider since they, among other things, don't allow any P2P traffic and costs more than competitors such as PIA.

[Sniperfox47]

On 12/12/2017 at 5:52 AM, LAwLz said:

Bahahahaha

You can't be serious.

 

How many times have they pulled sponsors after community outrage? Like 3-4 times?

 

How often do they talk about how great something is without actually having used or even tried it themselves? Quite often.

 

Have they recommended sub-par products and services just because they get paid? Absolutely. Like Synergy which is a free and open source program, yet LTT are "generous" and gives you a discount code for it.

Like TunnelBear which is a pretty bad VPN provider since they, among other things, don't allow any P2P traffic and costs more than competitors such as PIA.

If you compile synergy yourself from source, it's lacking some of the features of the binary version. The whole thing isn't open source, just most of it. This is even more true for Synergy 2 where a lot more of the features have been moved into the proprietary portion. Synergy paid lisences are an easy option for people who want to just install something and have it just work (*ahem* most of the time).

 

 

And likewise what's the issue with tunnelbear? They're designed to be a massively simplified consumer VPN. They do exactly that. Do they even have a SOCKS service? Comparing them against something like PIA is like comparing a MacBook to a professional workstation. You're talking entirely different classes of product.

 

Are these good sponsors to suggest to you or me? Nah, not in the slightest. But you and I are not the average Linus Tech Tips viewer, especially among the YouTube audience.

 

P.S. What products don't they use? Luke uses (or used) synergy on his home PCs, Lynda.com was used by a number of members, Mac Weldon they wear the shirts during the ad spots (what more is there to do with a shirt?), Savage Jerky they also ate live... Not asking to challenge you, I'm genuinely curious since I can't recall any.

 

 

[michaelocarroll007]

On 12/12/2017 at 7:52 AM, LAwLz said:

snip

 

40 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

snip

 

 

 

Most of there sponsor spots are not overly Holy shit this is awesome buy it now i wouldst  even consider Company Xyz's ect. go watch a qvc or turn on the tv for Terrible ad spots. or the many G2A , CSgo pubg Skin Company gambling sites ect. 

 

Tunnel Bear is a decent VPN if your not trying to do illegal Stuff with it. But for many thats the reason they buy a VPN. thats not a huge Negative for a sponsor spot. yeah there a little over priced aswell.

[Sniperfox47]

4 minutes ago, michaelocarroll007 said:

 

 

Most of there sponsor spots are not overly Holy shit this is awesome buy it now i wouldst  even consider Company Xyz's ect. go watch a qvc or turn on the tv for Terrible ad spots. or the many G2A , CSgo pubg Skin Company gambling sites ect. 

 

Tunnel Bear is a decent VPN if your not trying to do illegal Stuff with it. But for many thats the reason they buy a VPN. thats not a huge Negative for a sponsor spot. yeah there a little over priced aswell.

Just to be clear not all p2p is for illegal stuff. In fact most p2p *isn't* for illegal stuff. Distributed networking like zeronet is p2p, a lot of digital games outside steam rely on p2p, hell even Windows updates on Windows 10 are p2p.

 

That being said, it's not commonly stuff that will have an overly negative impact on Joe Average just looking to hop on a VPN while he browses porn.

 

 

[michaelocarroll007]

1 hour ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Just to be clear not all p2p is for illegal stuff. In fact most p2p *isn't* for illegal stuff. Distributed networking like zeronet is p2p, a lot of digital games outside steam rely on p2p, hell even Windows updates on Windows 10 are p2p.

 

That being said, it's not commonly stuff that will have an overly negative impact on Joe Average just looking to hop on a VPN while he browses porn.

 

 

Yes while that is true not all P2P is Illegal stuff, Fact is that Many people who are looking for a VPN that allows fast P2P and doesnt keep logs is probably a large % of people wanting this for illegal use. with the minimal % amounts just wanting absolute privacy in everything they do.

 

I get its a negative to there product but it doesnt make it a Bad VPN that shouldnt be aloud to have a AD spot there not sketchy at all and  truthfully for most this is only a negative due to illegal reasons. 

 

 

[LAwLz]

On 12/13/2017 at 3:21 PM, Sniperfox47 said:

If you compile synergy yourself from source, it's lacking some of the features of the binary version. The whole thing isn't open source, just most of it. This is even more true for Synergy 2 where a lot more of the features have been moved into the proprietary portion. Synergy paid lisences are an easy option for people who want to just install something and have it just work (*ahem* most of the time).

For Synergy 1, it was the full version.

Also, you don't need to compile it from source yourself. You are free to download a pre-compiled version if you want. There is nothing in the license which denies people the right to redistribute it.

 

On 12/13/2017 at 3:21 PM, Sniperfox47 said:

Are these good sponsors to suggest to you or me? Nah, not in the slightest. But you and I are not the average Linus Tech Tips viewer, especially among the YouTube audience.

But why endorse a worse product which also costs more? Why not try and educate your audience instead?

 

On 12/13/2017 at 3:21 PM, Sniperfox47 said:

P.S. What products don't they use? Luke uses (or used) synergy on his home PCs, Lynda.com was used by a number of members, Mac Weldon they wear the shirts during the ad spots (what more is there to do with a shirt?), Savage Jerky they also ate live... Not asking to challenge you, I'm genuinely curious since I can't recall any.

I haven't watched their videos in a while so I can't say for sure, but there have been a lot of sponsors I am 99% sure they don't use themselves.

 

Crunchyroll - Not sure about now, but a few years ago they had sponsor spots for them and nobody in the LTT staff was an anime viewer. Luke watched like, one show a few years ago but that was it from what I know.

Blueapron - Never heard them say they personally use it although that's an assumption on my part.

Ting - Isn't even available where they live.

FreshBooks - Well... They have no need for it so I doubt they use it.

G-FUEL - If they really drink this then I feel sorry for them.

Fiverr - Never seen them use it or heard them talk about using it.

Spektrum Glasses - Never seen them wear them outside on a sponsor spot.

TunnelBear / Hotspot Shield - Again, haven't heard or seen them use it. In fact, with hotspot shield Linus had this anecdote where he needed to order Goggle Glass from the US and used hotspot shield for it. That was his only example he ever used during the entire sponsorship period from what I remember. He used it once to buy one thing.

Sailfish University - Don't think anyone of them went there, and there was a quite big backlash afterwards because Sailfish is a pretty horrible school.

privacy.com - Again, just an assumption but I don't think anyone over there is an anvid privacy.com user.

Razer Comms - Even when they were sponsored by Razer they still used Skype for their call-ins. I know Luke tried to make his friends use it but it failed...

Five Four Club - Sponsor they dropped after viewers started complaining that it was a bad company.

Loot Crate - Yes they open them during the sponsor spot and they pretend to be excited over the junk they get... Do you think anyone of them would willingly subscribe to it? I doubt it.

 

And yes I know there is a lot of assumptions and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but come on... You'd have to be both blind and deaf to not realize that they often endorse mediocre/bad products, or products they themselves don't think are worth the money just because they get a fat load of cash from it.

[michaelocarroll007]

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

For Synergy 1, it was the full version.

Also, you don't need to compile it from source yourself. You are free to download a pre-compiled version if you want. There is nothing in the license which denies people the right to redistribute it.

 

But why endorse a worse product which also costs more? Why not try and educate your audience instead?

 

I haven't watched their videos in a while so I can't say for sure, but there have been a lot of sponsors I am 99% sure they don't use themselves.

 

Crunchyroll - Not sure about now, but a few years ago they had sponsor spots for them and nobody in the LTT staff was an anime viewer. Luke watched like, one show a few years ago but that was it from what I know.

Blueapron - Never heard them say they personally use it although that's an assumption on my part.

Ting - Isn't even available where they live.

FreshBooks - Well... They have no need for it so I doubt they use it.

G-FUEL - If they really drink this then I feel sorry for them.

Fiverr - Never seen them use it or heard them talk about using it.

Spektrum Glasses - Never seen them wear them outside on a sponsor spot.

TunnelBear / Hotspot Shield - Again, haven't heard or seen them use it. In fact, with hotspot shield Linus had this anecdote where he needed to order Goggle Glass from the US and used hotspot shield for it. That was his only example he ever used during the entire sponsorship period from what I remember. He used it once to buy one thing.

Sailfish University - Don't think anyone of them went there, and there was a quite big backlash afterwards because Sailfish is a pretty horrible school.

privacy.com - Again, just an assumption but I don't think anyone over there is an anvid privacy.com user.

Razer Comms - Even when they were sponsored by Razer they still used Skype for their call-ins. I know Luke tried to make his friends use it but it failed...

Five Four Club - Sponsor they dropped after viewers started complaining that it was a bad company.

Loot Crate - Yes they open them during the sponsor spot and they pretend to be excited over the junk they get... Do you think anyone of them would willingly subscribe to it? I doubt it.

 

And yes I know there is a lot of assumptions and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but come on... You'd have to be both blind and deaf to not realize that they often endorse mediocre/bad products, or products they themselves don't think are worth the money just because they get a fat load of cash from it.

but isnt it also Really sketchy to be like yeah i use this its awesome buy it im reccomending it and doing an adspot. 

 

Im More on the okay side if the company isnt sketchy that they dont do per se reviews on them its kinda  a conflict of int rest the few that have been bad companies they typically have dropped quickly and correctly. 

 

[Bouzoo]

16 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But why endorse a worse product which also costs more? Why not try and educate your audience instead?

I'll go on a limb and say that:

 

1) They weren't contacted by a better product owner, or if LMG contacted them, the product wasn't interested (I've no idea who starts the conversation)

2) Sponsors do bring money, and according to their honest answers, they bring 10-15%. Don't want to go into details since I've no idea, but perhaps beggars can't be choosers, even after picking sponsors that do fall under their business terms. 

3) If the sponsored product is not a bad product (if it actually was verified is a different thing), I don't see a reason not to advertise it. From a business standpoint, waiting to advertise the best product every time equals living in a fairy tail.

4) LMG and educating... didn't always end well. And if they made videos about that, let's be honest, who would watch "VPN differences". Not enough peopel to justify it's existence.

 

 

With that said, I don't agree with everything I wrote, but do agree on some parts, like 3rd point, and I don't agree with all of their practices. I don't watch a lot of their videos, but seeing food delivery and protein ads is more than weird. 

[LAwLz]

22 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

1) They weren't contacted by a better product owner, or if LMG contacted them, the product wasn't interested (I've no idea who starts the conversation)

I don't think this is a valid reason for endorsing a product that isn't good.

 

22 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

2) Sponsors do bring money, and according to their honest answers, they bring 10-15%. Don't want to go into details since I've no idea, but perhaps beggars can't be choosers, even after picking sponsors that do fall under their business terms. 

Don't really see how this is relevant. Although I am surprised that it's only 10-15%. Considering how their videos feels like they are 50% ads and 50% actual content, I am surprised it isn't more. In my eyes, they would gain a lot more respect and trustworthiness if they decided to lose 10% of their profits and stopped doing things like endorsing sub-optimal builds/parts just because they got a bit of money from doing so.

 

22 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

3) If the sponsored product is not a bad product (if it actually was verified is a different thing), I don't see a reason not to advertise it. From a business standpoint, waiting to advertise the best product every time equals living in a fairy tail.

Personally I don't recommend or endorse products I don't think are the best. I would honestly feel bad if I knew I was profiting of giving sub-optimal advice to people who trust me (or anyone for that matter).

And yes, the view is very nice up here on my high horse.

 

22 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

4) LMG and educating... didn't always end well. And if they made videos about that, let's be honest, who would watch "VPN differences". Not enough peopel to justify it's existence.

Considering how much crap LTT makes videos about and it seems to get views, I am fairly sure a video about different VPN providers would be watched by quite a few people.

[Bouzoo]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think this is a valid reason for endorsing a product that isn't good.

Not to go into bad products, this was a reasoning for not endorsing a better product. Maybe it's literally not possible.

 

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Don't really see how this is relevant. 

Again, if a product is good and isn't bad per se, I don't see why not to endorse it if may be a significant portion of your income. This ties to the next part.

 

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Personally I don't recommend or endorse products I don't think are the best. I would honestly feel bad if I knew I was profiting of giving sub-optimal advice to people who trust me (or anyone for that matter).

And yes, the view is very nice up here on my high horse.

Here we come to Can't endorse a product you may think is best if the company doesn't want it, but you can endorse let's say 3rd best, so to say, and earn 15% for still a good product. I don't see a problem there.

 

I'm just covering one portion of their sponsorships. 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Bouzoo said:

Not to go into bad products, this was a reasoning for not endorsing a better product. Maybe it's literally not possible.

It's always possible to endorse a better product. It's just that you might not get paid for it.

 

1 hour ago, Bouzoo said:

Here we come to Can't endorse a product you may think is best if the company doesn't want it, but you can endorse let's say 3rd best, so to say, and earn 15% for still a good product. I don't see a problem there.

I do see a problem with that. You are putting money before your fans' trust, respect and well being for personal gains. I don't think that is the right thing to do.

[TDP_Equinox]

On 12/11/2017 at 12:12 PM, gemusan said:

George, CEO of Honey here.

 

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  Happy to clarify everything here.

 

The screenshot OP posted shows a registry value in the location "\software\microsoft".  This is not Honey because 1) browser extensions cannot make changes to registry value and 2) we do not support Microsoft software at the moment.  So what OP observed is not at all related to Honey.  

 

Regarding the YouTube flag, it's because the link OP posted is the redirect URL with an expired token.  If you go to the YouTube video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnZM9VY86_w and click on the link in the description, it will not be flagged.

Revisiting this; I've re installed Honey on 3 machines now.

 

One my main machine; Notices high CPU usage from chrome immediately after installing honey. Removing Honey resolves this. In Chrome task manager, Honey process uses a significant amount of CPU.  (GPU Usage in screenshot not related to Honey - Youtube).  Malwarebytes no longer flags crypto - first flag was actually for my eth miner, but not it's location. 

 

Two, my work machine; Notices high CPU usage from chrome immediately after installing - new chrome profile with different extensions. Removing Honey resolves this. Same usage in chrome task manager. 

 

Three, my server; Notices high CPU usage from chrome immediately after installing - Brand new chrome install, no extensions. Removing Honey resolves this. Same usage in chrome task manager. 

 

All machines notice slowdowns in Youtube playback when above 1X playback speed with Honey installed, but not when it's removed. 

 

Main machine - 4790K

Work machine - 4770K

Server - 3770k. 

16GB + on all. 

 

This no longer seems like a malware issue, and more like a bug; issue still very much present however. 

[Cole5]

Note to self, uninstal as soon as i get home

[ItsBlck]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:22 PM, gemusan said:

To add some more context, here's a link with an expired token to another recent LTT sponsor: Squarespace (https://www.squarespace.com/LTT).

 

Clicking on the above link with the expired token will lead to the same exact warning.  But if you go the Original YouTube video and click on the link in the description, it is fine.

But you still have not answered why the high gpu and cpu utilisation whilst on your website/using your extention. This is most likely linked to monero mining on your website/extention. I will experiment with this later.

[ItsBlck]

Ok, i have concluded my reaserch. It has come to light that the link to Honey's website including the website itself is contaminated with malicous activity such as cryptojacking. LTT should be inclided to take further action as soon as possib-

 

Im just kidding. I have tried many times and the link will not display the same warning screen as before and my cpu utilisation has not spiked at all. There is no malicous activity on the site. The could be two main reasons for this:

 

1) There never was any malicous activity on the site in the first place and all it was some corrupted files or the link (as explained by the C.E.O.) was not functioning properly due to the expired code.

 

2) Honey recognised the danger to their company due to this allegation and removed their cryptojacking malware (i'm not saying this is true but it is a possible explanation).

 

That or Honey just checked their website for any malware, found it and removed the software. Norton and Malwarebytes did not detect any malware whatsoever.

 

Anyways, the website is clean and i hope this doesn't happen again as i just can not be bothered to do this reaserch again. Holy balls this took me forever.

 

 

[TDP_Equinox]

10 hours ago, SimpleTechVids said:

Ok, i have concluded my reaserch. It has come to light that the link to Honey's website including the website itself is contaminated with malicous activity such as cryptojacking. LTT should be inclided to take further action as soon as possib-

 

Im just kidding. I have tried many times and the link will not display the same warning screen as before and my cpu utilisation has not spiked at all. There is no malicous activity on the site. The could be two main reasons for this:

 

1) There never was any malicous activity on the site in the first place and all it was some corrupted files or the link (as explained by the C.E.O.) was not functioning properly due to the expired code.

 

2) Honey recognised the danger to their company due to this allegation and removed their cryptojacking malware (i'm not saying this is true but it is a possible explanation).

 

That or Honey just checked their website for any malware, found it and removed the software. Norton and Malwarebytes did not detect any malware whatsoever.

 

Anyways, the website is clean and i hope this doesn't happen again as i just can not be bothered to do this reaserch again. Holy balls this took me forever.

 

 

The issue is with their extension, not the website. I don't believe it to be malicious. If the intent was to mine crypto off customers machines, there are much easier ways to do it. 

I do, however, think that there may be an error in the extension causing the high system usage.