Search Results

Search found 1884 results on 76 pages for 'privacy protection'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 4/76 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to automatically remove Flash history/privacy trail? Or stop Flash from storing it?

    - by Arjan van Bentem
    Many people have heard about third-party cookies, and some browsers even block those by default. Some people may even be using Private Browsing modes. However, only few seem to realise that Adobe's Flash player also leaves a cross-browser trail on your local hard drive, and allows for sending cookie-like information back to the server, including third-party sites. And because it is a plugin, Flash does not take any of the browser's privacy settings into account. Sorry for the long post, but first some details about why using Flash raises a privacy concern, followed by the results of my tests: The Flash player keeps a cross-browser history of the domain names of the Flash-sites your computer has visited. Unlike your browser's history, this history is not limited to a certain number of days. History is also recorded while using so-called Private Browsing modes. It is stored on your hard drive (though, as described below, without going to Adobe's site you won't know what is stored). I am not sure if any date and time information is kept about each visit, but to see the domain names: right-click on some Flash content, open the settings dialog, and click the Help icon or click the Advanced button within the Privacy tab. This opens a browser to the help pages on Adobe.com, where one can click through to the Website Storage Settings panel. One can clear the existing list, but one cannot stop it from being recorded again. Flash allows for storing data on your local hard drive, using so-called Local Shared Objects (aka "Flash Cookies"). Just like HTTP cookies, this data can be sent back to the server, for tracking purposes. They are cross-browser, have no expiration date, and no user defined maximum lifetime can be set in the Flash preferences either. These not being HTTP cookies, they are (of course) not blocked by a browser's cookies preferences and are not removed when the normal HTTP cookies are deleted. Adobe has announced that version 10.1 will obey Private Browsing in most popular browsers, but unfortunately no word about also removing the data whenever normal cookies are deleted manually. And its implementation might be confusing: [..] if the browser is in normal browsing mode when the Flash Player instance is created, then that particular instance will forever be in normal browsing mode (private browsing is turned off). Accordingly, toggling private browsing on or off without refreshing the page or closing the private browsing window will not impact Flash Player. Local Shared Objects are not limited to the site you visit, and third-party storage is enabled by default. At the Global Storage Settings panel one can deselect the default Allow third-party Flash content to store data on your computer. Because of the cross-browser and expiration-less nature (and the fact that few people know about it), I feel that the cross-browser third-party Flash Cookies are more dangerous for visitor tracking than third-party normal HTTP cookies. They are even used to restore plain HTTP cookies that the user tried to delete: "All advertisers, websites and networks use cookies for targeted advertising, but cookies are under attack. According to current research they are being erased by 40% of users creating serious problems," says Mookie Tenembaum, founder of United Virtualities. "From simple frequency capping to the more sophisticated behavioral targeting, cookies are an essential part of any online ad campaign. PIE ["Persistent Identification Element"] will give publishers and third-party providers a persistent backup to cookies effectively rendering them unassailable", adds Tenembaum. [..] To justify this tracking mechanism, UV's Tenembaum said, "The user is not proficient enough in technology to know if the cookie is good or bad, or how it works." When selecting None (zero KB) for Specify the amount of disk space that website websites that you haven't yet visited can use to store information on your computer, and checking Never ask again then some sites do not work. However, the same site might work when setting it to None but without selecting Never ask again, and then choose Deny whenever prompted. Both options would result in zero KB of data being allowed, but the behaviour differs. The plugin also provides a Flash Player cache for Adobe-signed files. I guess these files are not an issue. So: how to automatically delete that information? On a Mac, one can find a settings.sol file and a folder for each visited Flash-website in: $HOME/Library/Preferences/Macromedia/Flash Player/macromedia.com/support/flashplayer/sys/ Deleting the settings.sol file and all the folders in sys, removes the trail from the settings panels. However, the actual Local Shared Ojects are elsewhere (see Wikipedia for locations on other operating systems), in a randomly named subfolder of: $HOME/Library/Preferences/Macromedia/Flash Player/#SharedObjects But then: how to remove this automatically? Simply removing the folders and the settings.sol file every now and then (like by using launchd or Windows' Task Scheduler) may interfere with active browsers. Or is it safe to assume that, given the cross-browser nature, the plugin would not care if things are removed while it is active? Only clearing during log-off may not work for those who hibernate all the time. Firefox users can install BetterPrivacy or Objection to delete the Local Shared Objects (for all others browsers as well). I don't know if that also deletes the trail of website domain names. Or: how to stop Flash from storing a history trail? Change of plans: I'm currently testing prohibiting Flash to write to its own sys and #SharedObjects folders. So far, Flash has not tried to restore permissions (though, when deleting the folders, Flash will of course recreate them). I've not encountered any problems but this may take some while to validate, using multiple browsers and sites. I've not yet found a log that reports errors. On a Mac: cd "$HOME/Library/Preferences/Macromedia/Flash Player/macromedia.com/support/flashplayer" rm -r sys/* chmod u-w sys cd "$HOME/Library/Preferences/Macromedia/Flash Player" # preserve the randomly named subfolders (only preserving the latest would suffice; see below) rm -r \#SharedObjects/*/* chmod -R u-w \#SharedObjects I guess the above chmods cannot be achieved on an old Windows system (I'm not sure about XP and Vista?). Though maybe on Windows one could replace the folders sys and #SharedObjects with dummy files with the same names? Anyone? Obviously, keeping Flash from storing those Local Shared Objects for all sites may cause problems. Some test results (Flash 10 on Mac OS X): When blocking the sys folder (even when leaving the #SharedObjects folder writable) then YouTube won't remember your volume settings while viewing multiple videos. Temporarily allowing write access to the blocked folders while visiting trusted sites (to only create folders for domains you like, maybe including references in settings.sol) solves that. This way, for YouTube, Flash could be allowed to write to sys/#s.ytimg.com and #SharedObjects/s.ytimg.com, while Flash could not create new folders for other domains. One may also need to make settings.sol read-only afterwards, or delete it again. When blocking both the sys and #SharedObjects folders, YouTube and Vimeo work fine (though they might not remember any settings). However, Bits on the Run refuses to even show the video player. This is solved by temporarily unblocking the #SharedObjects folder, to allow Flash to create a subfolder with some random name. Within this folder, it would create yet another folder for the current Flash website (content.bitsontherun.com). Removing that website-specific folder, and blocking both #SharedObjects and the randomly named subfolder, still seems to allow Bits on the Run to operate, even though it still cannot write anything to disk. So: the existence of the randomly named subfolder (even when write protected) is important for some sites. When I first found the #SharedObjects folder, it held many subfolders with random names, some created on the very same day. I wonder when Flash decides it wants a new folder, and how it determines (and remembers) that random name. For a moment I considered not blocking write access for sys and #SharedObjects, but explicitly creating read-only folders for well-known third-party tracking domains (like based on a list from, for example, AdBlock Plus). That way, any other domain could still create Local Shared Objects. But the list would be long, and the domains from AdBlock Plus are probably all third-party domains anyway, so disabling Allow third-party Flash content to store data on your computer might have the very same result. Any experience anyone? (Final notes: if the above links to the settings panels do not work in the future, then use the URL that is known to Flash player as a starting point: www.adobe.com/go/settingsmanager. See also "You Deleted Your Cookies? Think Again" at Wired.com -- which uses Flash cookies itself as well... For the very suspicious using Time Machine: you may want to exclude both folders, for each user, and remove the trace that is already on your backup.)

    Read the article

  • Database Machine, 11gR2 és a Tivoli Data Protection is együttmuködik

    - by Fekete Zoltán
    Felmerült a kérdés, hogy a Database Machine környezetben végezhetjük-e a mentéseket Tivoli Data Protection for Oracle szoftverrel. A válasz: IGEN. Az IBM Tivoli Data Protection for Oracle V5.5.2 on Linux x86_64 immár bevizsgáltatott az Oracle 11gR2 RAC-cal. Az aktuális support információ itt található: A V5.5.2-re kattintva megtaláljátok a következo adatokat: Oracle Enterprise Linux 5 with any of the following Oracle releases: * 64-bit Oracle Standard or Enterprise Server 10gR2, 11g, or 11gR2 * 64-bit Real Application Clusters (RAC) 10gR2, 11g, or 11gR2 Ez az információ elegendo és remek :), mivel a Database Machine komponensek Oracle Enterprise Linux operációs rendszeren muködnek, 64 bites architektúrában és az Oracle RMAN (Recovery Manager) elemet tudja használni a TDP.

    Read the article

  • Does SNI represent a privacy concern for my website visitors?

    - by pagliuca
    Firstly, I'm sorry for my bad English. I'm still learning it. Here it goes: When I host a single website per IP address, I can use "pure" SSL (without SNI), and the key exchange occurs before the user even tells me the hostname and path that he wants to retrieve. After the key exchange, all data can be securely exchanged. That said, if anybody happens to be sniffing the network, no confidential information is leaked* (see footnote). On the other hand, if I host multiple websites per IP address, I will probably use SNI, and therefore my website visitor needs to tell me the target hostname before I can provide him with the right certificate. In this case, someone sniffing his network can track all the website domains he is accessing. Are there any errors in my assumptions? If not, doesn't this represent a privacy concern, assuming the user is also using encrypted DNS? Footnote: I also realize that a sniffer could do a reverse lookup on the IP address and find out which websites were visited, but the hostname travelling in plaintext through the network cables seems to make keyword based domain blocking easier for censorship authorities.

    Read the article

  • Tracking Protection List in IE9

    - by Emanuele Bartolesi
    To protect the privacy when I surf over the internet, I use AdBlockPlus add-in for Firefox. But when I use Internet Explorer 9, this add-in don’t work. Internet Explorer 9 (and I hope Internet Explorer 10) has built in feature to add a TPL. There is a javascript function to call named msAddTrackingProtectionList. This function has two parameter: the first one is the link of TPL and the second one is the Title of TPL. To do this is very easy. Add this simple javascript function on your website or in a blank html page. <a href="javascript:window.external.msAddTrackingProtectionList('http://easylist-msie.adblockplus.org/easyprivacy.tpl', 'EasyList Privacy')">EasyPrivacy TPL</a> The effect is below: EasyPrivacy TPL After click appears a confirmation prompt. For security reason this javascript function can only be called from a user interaction: buttons, links, forms. For more information about msAddTrackingProtectionList function  go to Msdn Library. For more information about EasyList go to Easy List TPL.

    Read the article

  • Good maintained privacy Add-On/settings set that takes usability into account?

    - by Foo Bar
    For some weeks I've been trying to find a good set of Firefox Addons that give me a good portion of privacy/security without losing to much of usability. But I can't seem to find a nice combination of add-ons/settings that I'm happy with. Here's what I tried, together with the pros and cons that I discovered: HTTPS Everywhere: Has only pro's: just install and be happy (no interaction needed), loads known pages SLL-encrypted, is updated fairly often NoScript - Fine, but needs a lot of fine-tuning, often maintained, mainly blocks all non-HTML/CSS Content, but the author sometimes seems to do "untrustworthy" decission RequestPolicy - seems dead (last activity 6 months ago, has some annoying bugs, official support mail address is dead), but the purpose of this is really great: gives you full control over cross-site requests: blocks by default, let's you add sites to a whitelist, once this is done it works interaction-less in the background AdBlock Edge: blocks specific cross-site requests from a pre-defined whitelist (can never be fully sure, need to trust others) Disconnect: like AdBlock Edge, just looking different, has no interaction possibilities (can never be fully sure, need to trust others, can not interact even if I wanted to) Firefox own Cookie Managment (block by default, whitelist specific sites), after building own whitelist it does it's work in the background and I have full control All These addons together basically block everything unsecure. But there are a lot of redundancies: NoScript has a mixed-content blocker, but FF has it's own for a while now. Also the Cookie blocker from NoScript is reduntant to my FF-Cookie setting. NoScript also has an XSS-blocker, which is redundant to RequestPolicy. Disconnect and AdBlock are extremly redundant, but not fully. And there are some bugs (especially RequestPolicy). And RequestPolicy seems to be dead. All in all, this list is great but has these heavy drawbacks. My favourite set would be "NoScript Light" (only script blocking, without all the additonal redundant-to-other-addons hick-hack it does) + HTTPS Everywhere + RequestPolicy-clone (maintained, less buggy), because RequestPolicy makes all other "site-blockers" obsolete (because it blocks everything by default and let's me create a whitelist). But since RequestPolicy is buggy and seems to be dead I have to fallback to AdBlock Edge and Disconnect, which don't block all and and need more maintaining (whitelist updates, trust-check). Are there addons that fulfill my wishes?

    Read the article

  • How to disable Windows File Protection in Windows XP or 7 from Registry?

    - by SEARAS
    How to disable Windows File Protection in Windows 7 and/or XP from Registry? I want to automatically replace a driver with my created driver. I used PendingFileRenameOperations key in HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager but i've found that it can ONLY be used for simple (not-system) files, because Windows File Protection disables it for system files (see this post). Now I need to temporarily disable WFP (and turn it on after changing driver). You can tell me another way to disable it. It can help me too. Thanks in advance! Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Disable comments / Spam protection

    - by SamIAm
    My client site is built in Silverstripe, there is a news page, and it allows people to leave comments. Unfortunately we've got loads of spam emails. I'm new to this, is there any way we can disable the comment field by default? How do I do it? Alternatively is there easy way for me to install a spam protection? Thanks heaps. Sam Update - Because this is someone else's code, I just realised that they have some sort of spam protection already, so we are trying to disable comments now. I have manage to set no comment as default by changing file BlogEntry.php static $defaults = array( "ProvideComments" => true, 'ShowInMenus' => false ); to static $defaults = array( "ProvideComments" => false, //changed 'ShowInMenus' => false ); Am I on the right track to disable comments by default? Also how can I stop on the news page showing xxx comments link? eg Test Posted by Admin on 21 June 2011 | 3 Comments Tags: P This is a test.... 3 comments | Read the full post Thanks. S:)

    Read the article

  • Disable comments / Spam protection

    - by SamIAm
    My client site is built in Silverstripe, there is a news page, and it allows people to leave comments. Unfortunately we've got loads of spam emails. I'm new to this, is there any way we can disable the comment field by default? How do I do it? Alternatively is there easy way for me to install a spam protection? Thanks heaps. Sam Update - Because this is someone else's code, I just realised that they have some sort of spam protection already, so we are trying to disable comments now. I have manage to set no comment as default by changing file BlogEntry.php static $defaults = array( "ProvideComments" => true, 'ShowInMenus' => false ); to static $defaults = array( "ProvideComments" => false, //changed 'ShowInMenus' => false ); Am I on the right track to disable comments by default? Also how can I stop on the news page showing xxx comments link? eg Test Posted by Admin on 21 June 2011 | 3 Comments Tags: P This is a test.... 3 comments | Read the full post Thanks. S:)

    Read the article

  • Is 'Protection' an acceptable Java class name

    - by jonny
    This comes from a closed thread at stack overflow, where there are already some useful answers, though a commenter suggested I post here. I hope this is ok! I'm trying my best to write good readable, code, but often have doubts in my work! I'm creating some code to check the status of some protected software, and have created a class which has methods to check whether the software in use is licensed (there is a separate Licensing class). I've named the class 'Protection', which is currently accessed, via the creation of an appProtect object. The methods in the class allow to check a number of things about the application, in order to confirm that it is in fact licensed for use. Is 'Protection' an acceptable name for such a class? I read somewhere that if you have to think to long in names of methods, classes, objects etc, then perhaps you may not be coding in an Object Oriented way. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this before making this post, which has lead me to doubt the suitability of the name! In creating (and proof reading) this post, I'm starting to seriously doubt my work so far. I'm also thinking I should probably rename the object to applicationProtection rather than appProtect (though am open to any comments on this too?). I'm posting non the less, in the hope that I'll learn something from others views/opinions, even if they're simply confirming I've "done it wrong"!

    Read the article

  • Easter eggs as IP protection in software

    - by Simon
    I work in embedded software, and for some reason, management wants to hide an Easter egg as means of IP protection. They call it a watermark, and since our software interact with the video preview feed (the image displayed on a screen before you take a photo), they want me to implement a trigger which will react to some unusual video input (a video konami code like dark - bright - dark - bright - whatever). When this trigger fires, something strange happens (which is outside of the normal behavior of the software). The goal is to check whether our software is included in a device. Does it sound like a good idea? I have many argument against this move: What if the konami code is too sensitive and user triggers it? Does this kind of watermark have any legal value? What if this "feature" is discovered by the client? The performance penalty should be very small, since the soft run on small devices. I am the one developping this trigger. If things go wrong, what is my responsibility? What is your opinion about this method? I can't find a link, but I remember seeing an answer on this site suggesting that putting Easter eggs for protection purpose was a good idea. Has anyone tried it with good results?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >