It was the old NV Ultimate Poker that admitted to using it, not WSOP as mistakenly mentioned in posts #2 and #3 above.

NV Ultimate Poker were using it at launch IIRC (along with one of Ultimate Bet's old domain names!)

in the article it says in some cases just visiting the website infects the PC without an install

The install appeared to be a chrome extension. The host file hack should prevent it from ever working. It redirects all its traffic to local host, which is a dead end.

Is it confirmed anywhere which books have this software, and is there a comprehensive list?

I'm verypleased that the ICO are acting on this. I can confirm that they and the UKGC knew all about it, includig the UB link, more than a year ago. Slow but thankfully the UKGC are getting more proactive with other regulators like the CMA and ICO.

Justice for Punters have done a great job on this, including working with You and Yours on BBC Radio 4.

I will though say that Justice are a bit too anti bookie for my taste. They don't get that in the era of exchanges, what's app or even texting bookies are vulnerable to "betting coups" otherwise known as cheating - vulnerable because many "small" bets placed in a coordinated way can beat their systems. The bookies IT is pretty ****e, old, not linked. The professinal punters have for years made money off them via thebookies ignorance of the role of exchanges and the importance of bets with them providing liquidity to their exchange rivals.

The wholly wrong spying on ordinary punters is the stupid bookies overreacting to the pros Justic represent. Justice seem to think multiple accounts and identity fraud are fine...to stop bookies restricting themselves, the trouble is that the pros (including arbers and cheats not just canny punters) they represent are in large part the reason for iesnare and stupid restrictions on genuine punters.

Anyway **** iesnare.

Ok, but in what sense are arbers not genuine punters?

well they are acting as bookies, not paying the levy on horseracing, not paying the 15% of gross revenues that real bookies pay but competing with bookies with those ax costs and other regulatory burdens.

Of course bookies hate them. The only surprise was that for years they did not get that the arbers were buying liquidity and so also building the foundations of their competitor exchanges. It took them years to notice (and I stayed sthumm as frankly who cares if bookies get taken. They gave the arbers VIP bonuses (often they were high volume and lost to the bookies) but were too stupid to see they were funding TWO competing bookies, both with a better tax regime (including no tax).

Hey if you want to be a bookie, get a licence, pay your dues...ahh but then you get people moaning if you cherry pick your offer and you lose your whole "edge".

Meanwhile for the average mu punter, the offers are better, FFS best odds guarantteed, bets days before refunded if non runner, each way paid out to silly loss leading levels to all punters. It is a competitive market NOW so they clamp down on those they see as parasites.

Sadly that means iesnare, cash for UB scum & illegal invasion of privacy for genuine punters.

nonsense.

A bookmaking business is defined as a licensed entity that takes bets from the public.

Also tremendously ironically, licensed bookmakers in Gibraltar (some of the main iesnare offenders) don't pay the racing levy (some of them voluntarily contribute).

As far as the 15% is concerned, any winning sports better causes a fall in gross profits - whether arbing or not. The above iesnare Gib bookies have gone to court twice to try and avoid paying their share of tax.

Being Anti-FOBT is not Anti-bookmaker (unlike what you think). If UK bookies actually layed a bet no one would be interested in FOBT's, but until there gone bookmakers won't change there way attitude to laying bets in store. They claim that limiting FOBT players is dangerous but don't care when they do it to sports bettors.

You still need to recognise why minstream retail bookies are forced to restrict ordinary punters especially on racing which has low margins. They are less fussy on higher margin football and golf. The restrictions have nothing to do with FOBTs it has to do with trying to protect the slim margins on racing and not being taken for a ride (as they were for many years, helping to build their rival exchanges too.

It's fine to criticise bookies but these guys seem to think that they have a right to take em to the cleaners, lie about who they are, conspire to place multiple bets as a consortium, to have horses deliberately lose for race after race to set up coups against the bookies....something that hurts the average punter not in the know that their bets on the earlier races were bound to lose.

Bookies are no angels, this software is awful and the UB implemented firm scum but the reason for restrictions is the game played between professional punters and the firms. Casual punters the victims of BOTH.

Probably not the place really but if you want to back the casino lobby campaign to reduce FOBT stakes watch out for the consequences for poker. What is your defence when they say no to online tournament entries of more than £50 or stop player buying in for cash games with more than £50?

All the same logic used vs the FOBTs for stake reduction would apply to poker.

The better option is to defend punter choice/freedom and deal with helping the vulnerable with help not restrictions or bans on all.

Ok guys, so what effect would it have on my online poker (I don't sportsbet or play casino games)?
Would the company be using that information for anything poker-related as opposed to other forms of betting/gambling?

(As you can probably tell, I am clueless about such things - but pissed off that they are automatically installing such things)

For your poker betting likely nothing but the way it works is that they gather huge amounts of data about you and the UB scammers keep it. They can sell it to anyone. The limits of the software can be just about worked out (today, until they add more) but they use that and add it to other data too. This includes where you have been online to just read (or view!).

Assuming you want any privacy, say from your bank or employer, about your gambling then these UB cheats can break it. The sports bookies are just one customer for their centralised database (which means the bookies don't hold the data and so are not under the ICO or data protection rules.

At best it is advertising targetted at you, at worst...well given the morality of the UB cheats your guess is as good as mine.

TY for link.
I saw the dates that folders were created, but there were 0 files. I wonder if a CCleaner, AdAware, or SpyBot wiped the them.

Wow all this information seems also really invaluable for a hacker with superuser aspirations...
Maybe they stepped up their game

In the link I posted earlier in the thread there's instructions for how to trick the software into thinking IESnare is hosted on your local server or something so it can't send data back, so even if your computer gets reinfected with it it can't do anything

Seems like something worth doing for anyone who plays poker or sports bets even for people who don't yet have iesnare on their device

edit: https://www.geegeez.co.uk/iesnare-ho...-own-computer/

Wow, it just never ends with these guys.

So I am working a payment processing conference and look who is here.

Disgusting.

lol