Leenia -

There are bunches of BHOs (Browser Helper Objects) that you probably need, and that are helpful. You probably have several in each of your browsers. In IE, they're the stuff in the "Manage Add-Ons" menu. If you have the Google, or Bing, toolbar it's an Add On (BHO). Flash requires a BHO, so if you watch videos or read the news you've probably got it. Some versions of Adobe Reader include a BHO to aid in viewing PDF files directly in your browser, without opening a separate "reader."

It's only the ones that contain the TODO marker in unfinished code that cause a problem. Most of the queries found by searching for information are from people who assume that "TODO" is the name of something, and want to know "how to make it work" or "is it malware." Amazingly, many of the "expert advisors" assume it's a real program and give extensive advice on "how to fix it," when it's really just a mistake that needs to be deleted. That advice is invariably followed by "that didn't work, what else have you got?."

While the malware people have picked up on using the name for real infections, in the legitimate world it's just an accidental result of "sloppy site design." It's really annoying (IMO) to be unable to look at a US Supreme Court Decision just because it's a PDF and someone mucked up the download page out of careless stupidity, and until you know, at least vaguely, what caused the problem it might compel you to suspect malware and do all the searches and tests to make sure you didn't pick something up.

A mistake of this kind is an open invitation for malware distributors, because most people won't know what the intended real BHO was supposed to do and they're generally willing to "give permission" if a site says they need it. Without understanding what you're supposed to get it's much harder to recognize that you got malware instead.

You should try to limit the BHOs you install, and know why each is in your browsers, but BHOs are not all bad. Anything with a "TODO" name is crap - or malware.

(Incidentally, Chevrolet has corrected their page and the spec I tried to get is now available. Unfortunately the information they promised was in their PDF wasn't, and what was there was all useless garbage, so it wasn't really worth looking at. That happens a lot when people try to get a little too fancy with their web designs. MSNBC appears to have patched a couple of pages I complained about. Most other pages that are prone to this error don't provide a clear way to contact the webmeister, so you can't even curse them effectively.)

John