16 Sep
2004
16 Sep
'04
6:29 p.m.
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:42:52 +0100
From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordon(a)gjcp.net>
Subject: Re: Site Privacy issues
John Lawson wrote:
> I do understand perfectly that your's is an
innocuous, semi-private
site,
> and making the info available to the Legacy
Computing community is
quite
<gordon(a)gjcp.net> replies:
I just can't understand the thinking behind that.
Do you take all the
back-up
batteries out of your PCs, so you can set up the BIOS from scratch every
time?
[snip]
Gordon, either you're very used to reasoning with young teenagers, or
perhaps you are quite young yourself - no matter. There is a term:
reductio ad absurdam, and I shall not dignify your post any further than
to refer you to that term, it's definition, meaning, and how it might
apply to the above..
Cheers
John
16 Sep
16 Sep
10:58 p.m.
John Lawson wrote:
Gordon, either you're very used to reasoning with young teenagers, or
perhaps you are quite young yourself - no matter. There is a term:
reductio ad absurdam, and I shall not dignify your post any further than
to refer you to that term, it's definition, meaning, and how it might
apply to the above..
"absurdum", if my grasp of Latin isn't quite as rusty as I fear it may be.
I don't know, it just seems that it's people who either don't understand
how web browsers and non-static sites work, or relative newbies to the
Internet, seem to shout and rave about cookies "OMG, that site sent me a
*cookie*! I'm being hacked! They're going to steal my credit card
number and my pr0n stash!"
Pretty much any site that does anything "cleverer" than serve up static
pages is going to need some means by which the server can keep state -
HTTP doesn't really have a mechanism for this, since the connection is
closed once the page has been sent. Now, if you want the server to have
some idea of where a given client has come from *within your own site*,
you can either fake it with hidden form fields (not always possible, but
worth a try), a big long identifier in the GET request (ugly, and prone
to error), or use a cookie. It's not a fantastic way of doing it, but
it's the "least worst" in the absence of properly stateful connections.
Of course, if you don't want to use them, that's just fine. You may
well miss out on a few sites, but that's entirely your choice. It would
be a shame if you did so, without really understanding *why* other than
some vague idea that "cookies are bad". You may also wish to try a
browser like Firefox, which lets you allow or deny cookies on a
site-by-site basis. I tend to use it to block cookies from the major
banner-ad providers, except on sites where I really think the adverts
are justified - some content *does* need to be paid for, and if the
sites want to use banner ads and they are not too obnoxious, sometime's
I'll even click on them.
Heigh-ho. I'm sure I won't convince you out of your resolutely
cookie-free mode of thought. At least I haven't descended to mis-spelt
Latin and patronising remarks about teenagers. Just to give you some
frame of reference, I am probably around the young-to-median point of
the age range of this list (actually, what *is* the age range? It would
be interesting to know) - old enough to remember the days before
sub-?100 home computers, and *just* old enough to fondly remember
Honeywell CP-6 at university. Not that I was supposed to be on there
until 3rd year, being an EE student. They only really let the Comp Sci
bods play with it. Just depends which sysadmin you take to the pub...
Gordon.
17 Sep
17 Sep
3:24 a.m.
Gordon...
<<Snipping out a long, yet thoughtful piece on cookies and browsers>>
A good post, only two comments....
>> It's not a fantastic way of doing it, but
>> it's the "least worst" in the absence of properly stateful
>> connections.
I disagree with the use of "properly" in the above. There are many
advantages to a stateless sitution [e.g. scability and state management].
IMHO one of the serious problems out there are sites that impose state when
none is really required.
>> You may also wish to try a browser like
>> Firefox, which lets you allow or deny cookies on a
>> site-by-site basis.
Without getting into the whole "browser discussion", IE 6.0 also allows
cookie selection on a site by site basis. Perchance not as completely as
FireFox (or others) but a vast improvement over previous versions.
David
11:29 a.m.
David V. Corbin wrote:
I disagree with the use of "properly" in the above. There are many
advantages to a stateless sitution [e.g. scability and state management].
IMHO one of the serious problems out there are sites that impose state when
none is really required.
It would be nice if there was a clean way to do it that didn't spook
people the way that cookies seem to. It's funny that out of the many
thousands of RFCs, none of them seem to describe such a thing.
Without getting into the whole "browser discussion", IE 6.0 also allows
cookie selection on a site by site basis. Perchance not as completely as
FireFox (or others) but a vast improvement over previous versions.
Yes, but I'd need to find a copy of Windows, and go through all the
hassle of finding Windows drivers for my hardware, which may or may not
be supported, and then figure out how to use it, and it all turns into
a one massive $bodypart-ache.
Gordon.
20 Sep
20 Sep
3:01 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon JC Pearce" <gordon(a)gjcp.net>
To: <dvcorbin(a)optonline.net>et>; "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic
Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Site Privacy issues
Yes, but I'd need to find a copy of Windows, and
go through all the
hassle of finding Windows drivers for my hardware, which may or may not
be supported, and then figure out how to use it, and it all turns into
a one massive $bodypart-ache.
Opera supports far more platforms - might be worth a look. I stop all popups
, and cookies where necessary. Most of the time it doesn't matter.
Geoff.
Gordon.
17 Sep
17 Sep
4:45 a.m.
At 02:58 AM 9/17/2004, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
Now, if you want the server to have some idea of where
a given client has come from *within your own site*, you can either fake it with hidden
form fields (not always possible, but worth a try), a big long identifier in the GET
request (ugly, and prone to error)
And those big long GET/PUT make it much easier for a sniffer on
your network (or along your path) to see your identifiers. :-)
I was travelling a minor auction site the other day, and noticed
that it was keeping state - including my password, in plaintext -
in its stateful URL.
- John
6:06 a.m.
I don't know, it just seems that it's people
who either don't understand
how web browsers and non-static sites work, or relative newbies to the
Internet, seem to shout and rave about cookies "OMG, that site sent me a
*cookie*! I'm being hacked! They're going to steal my credit card
number and my pr0n stash!"
I'm going to jump in here (hopefully briefly). I am not a fan of cookies,
and run with them turned off by default. I am also a user of cash, for many
of the same reasons.
I'd like to draw an analogy between cookies and meatspace transactions.
When I go into a a store to buy something, I like to whip out my cash, pay
for the item, and be on my way. I am not interested in forming a
"relationship" with the shipkeeper. Likewise, I like my web browsing to be
quick and anonymous, unless there is a good reason for the interaction to be
otherwise.
To me, cookies are the web equivalent to those obnoxious shopper cards that
have been all the rage lately with store owners. Now when I go to buy
coffee at the store, the clerk asks if I have a store card, even though (or
especially because?) I am paying in cash. If I don't have one, (s)he
immediately offers me one.
Why does (s)he do this? Is it because they want to identify repeat
customers, and offer them all kinds of discounts? No. That might be why
customers do it, but it isn't why stores do it. (S)he does this because the
store wants to de-anonymize the transaction. They want to track my buying
habits and offer customized advertising (not to me, to the advertisers!), in
the form of coupons on the back of the sales slip, junk mail, and (in the
case of Safeway and Amazon, at least) later when I browse the web.
This is the real reason many sites want to place a cookie -- they want to
identify me, profile me, and offer me tailor made propoganda for a variety
of causes. This always sounds like a great idea to them. No thanks.
I am also aware that transparent GIF images and other technologies replace
cookies, and are much more difficult to suppress.
Pretty much any site that does anything
"cleverer" than serve up static
pages is going to need some means by which the server can keep state -
HTTP doesn't really have a mechanism for this, since the connection is
closed once the page has been sent. Now, if you want the server to have
some idea of where a given client has come from *within your own site*,
you can either fake it with hidden form fields (not always possible, but
worth a try), a big long identifier in the GET request (ugly, and prone
to error), or use a cookie. It's not a fantastic way of doing it, but
it's the "least worst" in the absence of properly stateful connections.
The number of sites that need to do anything "cleverer" than serve static
pages is quite small. If I am actually going to do business with a web site
(and I do, with a few), then I will turn on cookies, etc.
My especial peeve is with the sites that really are only serving static
pages, but want to place a cookie anyway. There is no good reason why I
should want them to do this.
One of the assumptions that lurks behind this mindset is that, although our
needs converge on a particular interaction, it is important to remember that
others have their own interests at heart, not mine (rightly so), and that
their interests and mine will frequently be in conflict.
To summarize, I think of cookies like those store cards, and refuse them for
a lot of the same reasons.
Just to give you some
frame of reference, I am probably around the young-to-median point of
the age range of this list (actually, what *is* the age range? It would
be interesting to know) - old enough to remember the days before
sub-?100 home computers, and *just* old enough to fondly remember
Honeywell CP-6 at university.
Late 40s, myself. Don't know, but from the small sample I have, that puts
me within a few years of a lot of others.
Vince
6:30 a.m.
Vince,
Your analogy is quite good. I should have turned off my "who are you" and
cookie when I decided to post the URL here on this list. Originally it was
not
intended to be a publicized site since it had some personal content on it.
I
just did the cookie thing as a convenience for my friends so they wouldn't
have
to log in and remember a password. The personal diary / recollection
section
is no longer a visible link on the site, so I don't really have the need to
know
who's visiting. Originally, if unknown persons were visiting the site, I
was going
to add a login / password, but that need never really occurred because the
only
unknown thing that ever visited my site was the web crawlers, and they
couldn't
crawl past the "who are you" page, so the site content was never indexed in
the
search engines beyond the "who are you" page.
I'm a late 40s guy too. To be more precise, I'm 46, about halfway to 47.
Ashley
----- Original Message -----
From: "vrs" <vrs(a)msn.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Site Privacy issues
many
I don't
know, it just seems that it's people who either don't understand
how web browsers and non-static sites work, or relative newbies to the
Internet, seem to shout and rave about cookies "OMG, that site sent me a
*cookie*! I'm being hacked! They're going to steal my credit card
number and my pr0n stash!"
I'm going to jump in here (hopefully briefly). I am not a fan of cookies,
and run with them turned off by default. I am also a user of cash, for of the same reasons.
I'd like to draw an analogy between cookies and meatspace transactions.
When I go into a a store to buy something, I like to whip out my cash, pay
for the item, and be on my way. I am not interested in forming a
"relationship" with the shipkeeper. Likewise, I like my web browsing to
be
quick and anonymous, unless there is a good reason for
the interaction to
be
otherwise.
To me, cookies are the web equivalent to those obnoxious shopper cards
that
have been all the rage lately with store owners. Now
when I go to buy
coffee at the store, the clerk asks if I have a store card, even though
(or
especially because?) I am paying in cash. If I
don't have one, (s)he
immediately offers me one.
Why does (s)he do this? Is it because they want to identify repeat
customers, and offer them all kinds of discounts? No. That might be why
customers do it, but it isn't why stores do it. (S)he does this because
the
store wants to de-anonymize the transaction. They
want to track my buying
habits and offer customized advertising (not to me, to the advertisers!),
in
the form of coupons on the back of the sales slip,
junk mail, and (in the
case of Safeway and Amazon, at least) later when I browse the web.
This is the real reason many sites want to place a cookie -- they want to
identify me, profile me, and offer me tailor made propoganda for a variety
of causes. This always sounds like a great idea to them. No thanks.
I am also aware that transparent GIF images and other technologies replace
cookies, and are much more difficult to suppress.
site
Pretty much any site that does anything
"cleverer" than serve up static
pages is going to need some means by which the server can keep state -
HTTP doesn't really have a mechanism for this, since the connection is
closed once the page has been sent. Now, if you want the server to have
some idea of where a given client has come from *within your own site*,
you can either fake it with hidden form fields (not always possible, but
worth a try), a big long identifier in the GET request (ugly, and prone
to error), or use a cookie. It's not a fantastic way of doing it, but
it's the "least worst" in the absence of properly stateful connections.
The number of sites that need to do anything "cleverer" than serve static
pages is quite small. If I am actually going to do business with a web (and I do, with a few), then I will turn on cookies,
etc.
My especial peeve is with the sites that really are only serving static
pages, but want to place a cookie anyway. There is no good reason why I
should want them to do this.
One of the assumptions that lurks behind this mindset is that, although
our
needs converge on a particular interaction, it is
important to remember
that
others have their own interests at heart, not mine
(rightly so), and that
their interests and mine will frequently be in conflict.
To summarize, I think of cookies like those store cards, and refuse them
for
a lot of the same reasons.
Just to give you some
frame of reference, I am probably around the young-to-median point of
the age range of this list (actually, what *is* the age range? It would
be interesting to know) - old enough to remember the days before
sub-?100 home computers, and *just* old enough to fondly remember
Honeywell CP-6 at university.
Late 40s, myself. Don't know, but from the small sample I have, that puts
me within a few years of a lot of others.
Vince
4:57 p.m.
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
"absurdum", if my grasp of Latin isn't quite as rusty as I fear it may be.
Just read the def.
I don't know, it just seems that it's people
who either don't understand how
web browsers and non-static sites work, or relative newbies to the Internet,
seem to shout and rave about cookies "OMG, that site sent me a *cookie*! I'm
being hacked! They're going to steal my credit card number and my pr0n
stash!"
What irked me (and still irks me) about your post, was *not* your
feelings towards my admittedly paranoid view anent intrusions on my
personal computers - no, what pissed me off was that I was ready to learn
from you and honor your knowledge - I was thinking that
rather than engage
in jejune absurdities, you'd have taken the time and space
to help me out
a bit - show me that perhaps I'm over-reacting - tell me why I oughta let
the little cookies live on my machines.
Instead, you very heavily patronized *myself* with your adolescent
screed of more-and-more ridiculous questions... "do I remove the battery
at night and re-set the BIOS every morning" indeed!
So if you're going to join this list and then demean folks you've not met
or seem to know little about - I would think that occasionaly you're going
to get called out over it.
I have had this IBM Thinkpad for about five years now, and got it while
I still lived and working in Southern India. I have a firewall, a
virus-checker, a spyware checker, and I disallow active-X, Java, Flash,
Coookies (unless I can't get business done w/out them)etc. To date I have
had one 'infection'; the Welchia Worm. And I got that during a network
setup sesson at my employer's - I had to shutdown my firewall to
synchronize permissions and set up various clients, someone else on the
network was infected and I got it. Noticing that my port was communicating
at nearly it's capacity and my computer was getting slow, I scnned it
and killed the bug. And that has been the only problem I've had to deal
with in five years.
Thus am I being: Paranoid? Careful? Absurd? You tell me, Gordon. Just
keep the sarcasm and grandiose flights of superiority to yourself, please.
Cheers
John
19 Sep
19 Sep
10:29 a.m.
John Lawson wrote:
What irked me (and still irks me) about your post,
was *not* your
feelings towards my admittedly paranoid view anent intrusions on my
personal computers - no, what pissed me off was that I was ready to
learn from you and honor your knowledge - I was thinking that rather
than engage in jejune absurdities, you'd have taken the time and space
to help me out a bit - show me that perhaps I'm over-reacting - tell me
why I oughta let the little cookies live on my machines.
Ok, ok... In my own defence might I just say that I have spent roughly
a third of my 2-and-a-half weeks holiday clearing up the devastation
that only unpatched Windows 2000 machines can bring, and was feeling a
little sore when I posted.
Instead, you very heavily patronized *myself* with
your adolescent
screed of more-and-more ridiculous questions... "do I remove the battery
at night and re-set the BIOS every morning" indeed!
Don't laugh. I knew someone who did this. Really. They had read in
$pseudotechy_periodical that viruses could live in the NVRAM in your PCs
clock chip. I kid you not.
I have had this IBM Thinkpad for about five years
now, and got it
while I still lived and working in Southern India. I have a firewall, a
virus-checker, a spyware checker, and I disallow active-X, Java, Flash,
Coookies (unless I can't get business done w/out them)etc. To date I
have had one 'infection'; the Welchia Worm. And I got that during a
network setup sesson at my employer's - I had to shutdown my firewall to
synchronize permissions and set up various clients, someone else on the
network was infected and I got it. Noticing that my port was
communicating at nearly it's capacity and my computer was getting slow,
I scnned it and killed the bug. And that has been the only problem I've
had to deal with in five years.
I had a clever-clogs in the office of an Internet service provider I
used to work for disconnect his PC from the LAN and hook up a modem so
he could "send mailshots properly" - he'd taken it upon himself to do a
spot of "advertising" for our company. He was dialled up for around 25
minutes, and his machine was infected with Blaster. This is despite
keeping it up-to-date (there wasn't a patch at this point), although
there was no firewall software on the machine. Not a lot of point, when
you're supposed to be behind a proper firewall, is there?
Thus am I being: Paranoid? Careful? Absurd? You tell
me, Gordon. Just
keep the sarcasm and grandiose flights of superiority to yourself, please.
Eeeh, ok. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinions. Certainly
people can and do use cookies for identifying repeat visits, for
advertising and the like. You can block these with any Mozilla-based
browser, and someone said (possibly on this list) that IE6 can do it now
too. Since I don't run Windows (never have done, don't intend to) I
can't verify this. Leaving cookies off and only turning them on for
sites that need them seems a bit pointless and inconvenient, but if it
makes you happier then go right ahead.
I have to say, I am somewhat surprised at the number of people who do
use Windows on this list. I would have thought that the various
open-source Unix-alikes would have appealled more. Just don't let the
l337 skript kiddies get any ideas, in case they come up with some 0-day
'sploit for TSS-8!
Gordon.
10:38 a.m.
If cookies are a worry, do as I do. I run a program called SpyHunter
that runs on boot up every time. It then offers to scan my compiuter
for Spy Ware. Since that takes some time I usualy opt only for a scan
of my cookies. This takes about 2 seconds, no more, and I have a full
report on the cookies. Since I have 17 cookies that are legitimate I
usualy just look at the count. If it hasnt increased I go on. BUT
there is also displayed a list of any dangerous cookies, their
properties and who owns them. If the list is blank then all is well.
If not I stop and delete the offending cookies. The software is FREE.
Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
John Lawson wrote:
What irked me (and still irks me) about your
post, was *not* your
feelings towards my admittedly paranoid view anent intrusions on my
personal computers - no, what pissed me off was that I was ready to
learn from you and honor your knowledge - I was thinking that rather
than engage in jejune absurdities, you'd have taken the time and
space to help me out a bit - show me that perhaps I'm over-reacting -
tell me why I oughta let the little cookies live on my machines.
Ok, ok... In my own defence might I just say that I have spent
roughly a third of my 2-and-a-half weeks holiday clearing up the
devastation that only unpatched Windows 2000 machines can bring, and
was feeling a little sore when I posted.
Instead, you very heavily patronized *myself*
with your adolescent
screed of more-and-more ridiculous questions... "do I remove the
battery at night and re-set the BIOS every morning" indeed!
Don't laugh. I knew someone who did this. Really. They had read in
$pseudotechy_periodical that viruses could live in the NVRAM in your
PCs clock chip. I kid you not.
I have had this IBM Thinkpad for about five
years now, and got it
while I still lived and working in Southern India. I have a firewall,
a virus-checker, a spyware checker, and I disallow active-X, Java,
Flash, Coookies (unless I can't get business done w/out them)etc. To
date I have had one 'infection'; the Welchia Worm. And I got that
during a network setup sesson at my employer's - I had to shutdown my
firewall to synchronize permissions and set up various clients,
someone else on the network was infected and I got it. Noticing that
my port was communicating at nearly it's capacity and my computer was
getting slow, I scnned it and killed the bug. And that has been the
only problem I've had to deal with in five years.
I had a clever-clogs in the office of an Internet service provider I
used to work for disconnect his PC from the LAN and hook up a modem so
he could "send mailshots properly" - he'd taken it upon himself to do
a spot of "advertising" for our company. He was dialled up for around
25 minutes, and his machine was infected with Blaster. This is
despite keeping it up-to-date (there wasn't a patch at this point),
although there was no firewall software on the machine. Not a lot of
point, when you're supposed to be behind a proper firewall, is there?
Thus am I being: Paranoid? Careful? Absurd? You
tell me, Gordon.
Just keep the sarcasm and grandiose flights of superiority to
yourself, please.
Eeeh, ok. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinions. Certainly
people can and do use cookies for identifying repeat visits, for
advertising and the like. You can block these with any Mozilla-based
browser, and someone said (possibly on this list) that IE6 can do it
now too. Since I don't run Windows (never have done, don't intend to)
I can't verify this. Leaving cookies off and only turning them on for
sites that need them seems a bit pointless and inconvenient, but if it
makes you happier then go right ahead.
I have to say, I am somewhat surprised at the number of people who do
use Windows on this list. I would have thought that the various
open-source Unix-alikes would have appealled more. Just don't let the
l337 skript kiddies get any ideas, in case they come up with some
0-day 'sploit for TSS-8!
Gordon.
10:57 a.m.
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jim Isbell wrote:
If cookies are a worry, do as I do. I run a program
called SpyHunter that
runs on boot up every time. It then offers to scan my compiuter for Spy
Ware. Since that takes some time I usualy opt only for a scan of my cookies.
This takes about 2 seconds, no more, and I have a full report on the cookies.
Since I have 17 cookies that are legitimate I usualy just look at the count.
If it hasnt increased I go on. BUT there is also displayed a list of any
dangerous cookies, their properties and who owns them. If the list is blank
then all is well. If not I stop and delete the offending cookies. The
software is FREE.
This is a fabulous referral; thank you! I'll check it out as soon as I
get a moment - much appreciated!
I do run WindowWasher, but it runs on shut-down, and sometimes my
machine is on for a day at a time - quite long hours for a laptop that I
use at the office and at home, too.
Cheers
John
2:39 p.m.
John Lawson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep
2004, Jim Isbell wrote:
If cookies are a worry, do as I do. I run a program called SpyHunter that
runs on boot up every time. It then offers to scan my compiuter for Spy
Ware. Since that takes some time I usualy opt only for a scan of my cookies.
This takes about 2 seconds, no more, and I have a full report on the cookies.
Since I have 17 cookies that are legitimate I usualy just look at the count.
If it hasnt increased I go on. BUT there is also displayed a list of any
dangerous cookies, their properties and who owns them. If the list is blank
then all is well. If not I stop and delete the offending cookies. The
software is FREE.
This is a fabulous referral; thank you! I'll check it
out as soon as I
get a moment - much appreciated!
I do run WindowWasher, but it runs on shut-down, and sometimes my
machine is on for a day at a time - quite long hours for a laptop that I
use at the office and at home, too. 
4:20 p.m.
Rumor has it that Jerome H. Fine may have mentioned these words:
I am VERY interested. But I run Windows 98 SE in
order
to run the E11 PDP-11 emulator. Will SpyHunter and/or
WindowWasher run under Windows 98 SE? If so, is
there a site that I can use to download these 2 programs
and the documentation needed to understand how to use them?
We've had good luck with Spybot Search and Destroy:
http://security.kolla.de/
and the new version of ad-aware (SE 1.04) is excellent:
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/
If by chance I should try to bring this ontopic, the second link (LavaSoft)
made games for the Commodore 64. If you look around their website, you'll
find that they released all of their C64 software to freeware.
HTH,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | JC: "Like those people in
Celeronville!"
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | Me: "Don't you mean Silicon Valley???"
zmerch(a)30below.com | JC: "Yea, that's the place!"
| JC == Jeremy Christian
4:52 p.m.
If by chance I should try to bring this ontopic, the
second link (LavaSoft)
made games for the Commodore 64. If you look around their website, you'll
find that they released all of their C64 software to freeware.
I can't find that ... got a direct URL?
--
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com
-- FORTUNE: You can overcome any obstacle. Try a steeplechase. ----------------
20 Sep
20 Sep
11:04 a.m.
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Roger Merchberger wrote:
Rumor has it that Jerome H. Fine may have mentioned
these words:
You can't rely just on those two tools. To properly clean a system, I
start with AdAware, then run Spybot S&D, then run CWShredder, then run
HijackThis! to do any final clean-up (HijackThis! is a manual process and
you must know what you're doing). The first three programs only get
most/some of the problems but not all, so it's important to run all of
them, IMO.
Given that there are now programs purporting to be Spyware scrubbers but
that are actually spyware infectors(!) I would only trust the
above-mentioned programs.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
I am VERY interested. But I run Windows 98 SE in
order
to run the E11 PDP-11 emulator. Will SpyHunter and/or
WindowWasher run under Windows 98 SE? If so, is
there a site that I can use to download these 2 programs
and the documentation needed to understand how to use them?
We've had good luck with Spybot Search and Destroy:
http://security.kolla.de/
and the new version of ad-aware (SE 1.04) is excellent:
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/ 
1:02 p.m.
On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 13:04, Vintage Computer Festival wrote:
You can't rely just on those two tools. To
properly clean a system, I
start with AdAware, then run Spybot S&D, then run CWShredder, then run
HijackThis! to do any final clean-up (HijackThis! is a manual process and
you must know what you're doing). The first three programs only get
most/some of the problems but not all, so it's important to run all of
them, IMO.
?! (asks rhetorically I guess) it's really necessary to do all this crap
and rigamarole (never mind the recently documented high crash/reboot
rate) just to operate a machine to read your email and store data!?
I assume this is Windows, when people dont' mention the OS it usually
means that...
I try to be OS agnostic (though I run open-source OS's whenever I can)
but sheesh, you have to stop and ask yourself, is the above really worth
it?
(The only program I cannot find a .*n[i,u]x replacement for is Adobe
Illustrator. Even Quicken has it's gnucash counterpart... .*n[i,u]x is
hardly trouble-free, but 90% of the time, the work I put in to maintain
it goes towards something I want to do, not pushing rope.)
Sorry, OT, I'll post on this no more.
2:21 p.m.
(The only program I cannot find a .*n[i,u]x
replacement for is Adobe
Illustrator. Even Quicken has it's gnucash counterpart... .*n[i,u]x is
hardly trouble-free, but 90% of the time, the work I put in to maintain
it goes towards something I want to do, not pushing rope.)
What about Illustrator for OS X?
--
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com
-- "I think you underestimate the sneakiness." --------------------------------
4:19 p.m.
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Tom Jennings wrote:
Um, yeah. It sucks. But only if you are lame and click on every shiny
banner ad that promises to fulfill your every whim and desire and you
always click "Yes" when some random plug-in wants to be installed.
You can't
rely just on those two tools. To properly clean a system, I
start with AdAware, then run Spybot S&D, then run CWShredder, then run
HijackThis! to do any final clean-up (HijackThis! is a manual process and
you must know what you're doing). The first three programs only get
most/some of the problems but not all, so it's important to run all of
them, IMO.
?! (asks rhetorically I guess) it's really necessary to do all this crap
and rigamarole (never mind the recently documented high crash/reboot
rate) just to operate a machine to read your email and store data!? I assume this is Windows, when people dont'
mention the OS it usually
means that...
Yes, as far as I know there are no equivalents of this nonsense in Linux
and MacOS.
I try to be OS agnostic (though I run open-source
OS's whenever I can)
but sheesh, you have to stop and ask yourself, is the above really worth
it?
Again, only if you're lame. If you are disciplined then you should never
really have to go through the process. I've fixed a few computers so far
for people and one major part of the fix is to educate the owners about
navigating the Internet in a safe and sane manner.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
11:35 p.m.
At 03:04 PM 9/20/2004, Vintage Sellam Festival wrote:
You can't rely just on those two tools. To
properly clean a system, I
start with AdAware, then run Spybot S&D, then run CWShredder, then run
HijackThis! to do any final clean-up (HijackThis! is a manual process and
you must know what you're doing). The first three programs only get
most/some of the problems but not all, so it's important to run all of
them, IMO.
I'll second that, but I'll add "And rinse, lather, repeat."
Ideally, disconnect the computer in question from the net,
have a CD with these programs plus their latest-greatest
fingerprint databases, install and clean and clean and clean
and open the browser and surf and clean until everything
comes up zero.
But spyware tools are nowhere where they need to be. I'd love to
have a boot CD that would let me scan and clean without needing to
actually install and clean on the infected system, as well as tools
that could operate on a non-active non-booted hard disk in the system.
All of today's tools are focused on running live in the infected
system in order to scan the registry, BHOs, and processes
running in the system.
- John
21 Sep
21 Sep
6:09 a.m.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, John Foust wrote:
But spyware tools are nowhere where they need to be.
I'd love to
have a boot CD that would let me scan and clean without needing to
actually install and clean on the infected system, as well as tools
that could operate on a non-active non-booted hard disk in the system.
All of today's tools are focused on running live in the infected
system in order to scan the registry, BHOs, and processes
running in the system.
It helps to boot into Safe Mode (with networking enabled). I fought one
particular bit of spyware that would regenerate itself 10 seconds after
you deleted it's files. I searched and searched and searched and found
nothing about it on the web, and so assumed it was some newfangled alien
technology from the future.
I finally had to boot into Safe Mode and manual crawl through the registry
deleting every last bit of evidence of its existence. What a pain in the
ass that was. HijackThis! would have been helpful if I'd known about it
then.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
19 Sep
19 Sep
4:54 p.m.
http://www.enigmasoftwaregroup.com/ is the URL for SpyHunter. There is
a free version that makes you do all the footwork for deleting, but it
does find them for you and if you are adept at DOS or Windows Explorer
you can do the removal yourself. If you have $29.99 to burn the full
version will do the removal as well.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download4241.html is a URL where you can get
a free download of Spyware Doctor. As above the full version has to be
paid for.
I have four different ones that I use to scan because it seems NONE of
them gets everything. Then I use DOS to purge the rascals when found.
Jerome H. Fine wrote:
Jerome Fine replies:
I am VERY interested. But I run Windows 98 SE in order
to run the E11 PDP-11 emulator. Will SpyHunter and/or
WindowWasher run under Windows 98 SE? If so, is
there a site that I can use to download these 2 programs
and the documentation needed to understand how to use them?
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine
--
If you attempted to send a reply and the original e-mail
address has been discontinued due a high volume of junk
e-mail, then the semi-permanent e-mail address can be
obtained by replacing the four characters preceding the
'at' with the four digits of the current year.
John Lawson
wrote:
On Sun, 19
Sep 2004, Jim Isbell wrote:
If cookies are a worry, do as I do. I run a program called SpyHunter that
runs on boot up every time. It then offers to scan my compiuter for Spy
Ware. Since that takes some time I usualy opt only for a scan of my cookies.
This takes about 2 seconds, no more, and I have a full report on the cookies.
Since I have 17 cookies that are legitimate I usualy just look at the count.
If it hasnt increased I go on. BUT there is also displayed a list of any
dangerous cookies, their properties and who owns them. If the list is blank
then all is well. If not I stop and delete the offending cookies. The
software is FREE.
This is a fabulous referral; thank you! I'll check it out as soon as I
get a moment - much appreciated!
I do run WindowWasher, but it runs on shut-down, and sometimes my
machine is on for a day at a time - quite long hours for a laptop that I
use at the office and at home, too.
8:01 p.m.
Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I am VERY interested. But I run Windows 98 SE in
order
to run the E11 PDP-11 emulator. Will SpyHunter and/or
WindowWasher run under Windows 98 SE? If so, is
there a site that I can use to download these 2 programs
and the documentation needed to understand how to use them?
As has been said before, take a good look at Mozilla Firefox. It's
largely immune to all the scumware that attacks IE (dodgy ActiveX
controls, start page hijacking, blocks popups). Everyone I've
recommended it to has given up on IE except for sites that *must* use IE
- hopefully before long the worse offenders (are you listening,
Halifax/Bank of Scotland and Scottish Power?) get a small amount of clue
and fix their websites.
Might be worth replacing Outlook Express with Mozilla Thunderbird too,
if you use it. Its builtin spam filtering has made my girlfriend's
parents email usable again. Well worth the time to download.
Gordon.
22 Sep
22 Sep
5:25 a.m.
Use mailwasher to bounce all the spam and it soon reduces to a useable
level - makes them think your email address is redundant.
Geoff.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon JC Pearce" <gordon(a)gjcp.net>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: Site Privacy issues
Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I am VERY interested. But I run Windows 98 SE in
order
to run the E11 PDP-11 emulator. Will SpyHunter and/or
WindowWasher run under Windows 98 SE? If so, is
there a site that I can use to download these 2 programs
and the documentation needed to understand how to use them?
As has been said before, take a good look at Mozilla Firefox. It's
largely immune to all the scumware that attacks IE (dodgy ActiveX
controls, start page hijacking, blocks popups). Everyone I've
recommended it to has given up on IE except for sites that *must* use IE
- hopefully before long the worse offenders (are you listening,
Halifax/Bank of Scotland and Scottish Power?) get a small amount of clue
and fix their websites.
Might be worth replacing Outlook Express with Mozilla Thunderbird too,
if you use it. Its builtin spam filtering has made my girlfriend's
parents email usable again. Well worth the time to download.
Gordon. 
18 Sep
18 Sep
11:58 a.m.
Latin and patronising remarks about teenagers. Just
to give you some
frame of reference, I am probably around the young-to-median point of
the age range of this list (actually, what *is* the age
range? It would be interesting to know)
I would have thought it would be essential to know
that information in order to decide whether you are
in the the young-to-median part of the curve :-)
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini(a)iee.org
7239
days inactive
7245
days old
24 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
a.carlini＠ntlworld.com -
dvcorbin＠optonline.net -
geoffreythomas＠onetel.com -
gordon＠gjcp.net -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
jhfinexgs2＠compsys.to -
jpl15＠panix.com -
millenniumfalcon＠cableone.net -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
tomj＠wps.com -
vcf＠siconic.com -
vrs＠msn.com -
wacarder＠usit.net -
zmerch＠30below.com