In this release:

• iStock login fixed again.
• Statistics for 123rf & Fotolia fixed. Note that 123rf stats show up quite slow due to their server speed.
• Fixed: “99% upload – read timeout” error while uploading large files to Panthermedia.
• Removed some internal limitations from the free version.
• Mac: system / hidden folders will not show up in the file tree.
• Mac: some customers reported they could not run PSM 1.7 on their Macs, typically Leopard & Snow Leopard OS. This was caused by improper application packaging for Mac. Get v1.7.1 - it should run OK now.
• Linux releases & Linux support is discontinued from this release on. We prefer to focus on Mac and Win OS only.
• Shutterstock & Dreamstime FTP uploads: large / long batches interrupts fixed

I am happy to announce the release of new PSM v1.7.0!
In this version:

1.New stock agency added! Integrated upload, total stats and per-image statuses, downloads and earnings info for our new stock agency Pixamba. Expand your sales now!

2.iStock login fixed [again] due to further changes on their web.

3.Various EXIF interpretation fixes, ISO speed is now showing correctly in EXIF tab

... and ProStockMaster v1.6.4 follows these changes. This release also fixes Alamy login, and, hopefully, also fixes the upload of multiple files to Alamy in a single batch.

The new version will be released on this weekend. If you see any weird problem after the auto-upgrade - re-install by downloading the full archive from our web.

I guess most of you already saw this message when logged in to iStockphoto:

The iStock forums post by the same author says:

It's an interesting statement, where the first part is correct, while the second part is very confusing. No financial information to breach, oh yeah, really?

Just a week ago Dreamstime complained in this thread that "we had cases when contributors had their accounts accessed, password changed, payment requested". Now the iStockphoto guys are brave enough to say us they have "no financial information to breach"?

We all know that iStock, like any other stock photo agency has on file your PayPal / MoneyBookers accounts. They also collect funds that have to be transferred to contributors monthly. Should not this stuff be considered as a valuable financial information stored by iStock? And if it is not enough, add here you personal profile details like your home address, phones and your picture ID. And even your images portfolio is in danger since it can be first completely downloaded and stolen and then, just for fun, completely removed from the agency by a hacker who looks for an entertainment on the hacked site.

What happened to iStock on March 3 is not funny at all. And it is a much more serious issue than just a few hours of iStock down time, even if iStock prefers to present it this way. The site stores financial information and digital goods that can be stolen, so their "no financial info stored" statement is very far from the reality.

The point is that during the last few months I wrote to iStockphoto multiple emails pointing them on some security vulnerabilities in their system. The iStock answers always were "you don't have to worry, it is fine", whenever there was any answer at all.

The last email, which explains a serious security flaw in one of the iStockphoto technical interfaces was sent to iStock guys on March 2, 2009. Quite ironically, it was just a day before the site was attacked by the phishers. And quite typically, this email is still unanswered.

So I do worry. In my understanding, having security holes 'by design' is a very wrong approach to the software security concept, particularly for an online system where any security flaw can be explored and used by wise hackers. These people intentionally look for any vulnerability and once found, it will be sooner or later used against iStock customers. Perhaps we can not say at the moment how exactly some security flaw will be used to serve the hackers, but when we will know how it was used to compromise iStock security it obviously will be too late. Fixing the security flaws can not eliminate the next phishing attempt, but it definitely reduces the risk of a successful hacking attack.