Re: evercookies.

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 08:48:58AM -0700, stan wrote: > On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 12:10:26 +0200 > Richard Z wrote: > > > > Firefox is doing this. You have to disable the spyware called "safe > > browsing" to get rid of it. And yes, it has been exploited by > > intelligence

Re: evercookies.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 12:10:26 +0200 Richard Z wrote: > Firefox is doing this. You have to disable the spyware called "safe > browsing" to get rid of it. And yes, it has been exploited by > intelligence agencies around the world and may submit every single > URL you visit to

Re: evercookies.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:03:02AM -0700, stan wrote: > On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:05:31 +0930 > Tim <ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > Allegedly, on or about 22 August 2016, William Mattison sent: > > > "evercookies" > > > >

Re: evercookies.

On 24/08/16 20:51, William Mattison wrote: (I'm replying to the entire discussion as of Wednesday evening US Mountain time.) I'm now wondering if evercookies can really be fully blocked. I do want to block what I reasonably can. But as was pointed out, a lot of wanted web functionality needs

Re: evercookies.

omatically blocks it. I haven't looked at the code, so I don't know how sophisticated the algorithm is - given time and effort, I think it could become *very* sophisticated; intercepting javascript calls to determine who's calling, checking content creation, etc. Evercookies are like a

Evercookies & other malware: A different approach

As I've been contemplating this over the last few days it occurred to me tools to deal with this effectively are readily at our disposal. The bullet-proof way to deal with this is related to what I wrote a few days ago. As I mentioned, I do my web browsing inside virtualbox and virtualbox has

Re: evercookies.

Allegedly, on or about 25 August 2016, William Mattison sent: > I'm now wondering if evercookies can really be fully blocked. I do > want to block what I reasonably can. But as was pointed out, a lot of > wanted web functionality needs cookies. So now I'm mainly focused on >

Re: evercookies.

Tim: >> a. Not that it's the DNS protocol, but a DNS server, that was >> implicated. DNS servers can keep access logs, too. Joe Zeff: > And, to be equally blunt, you were asserting that DNS servers could be > used to set evercookies on your machine and I was refuting t

Re: evercookies.

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Tim wrote: > > You really do have to be one of the tinfoil hat brigade, never logging > in, using things like TOR, stealing other people's WiFi, changing IPs, > etc., all of the time to be able to avoid that kind of big brother >

Re: evercookies.

On 08/24/2016 07:51 PM, William Mattison wrote: * It seems CCleaner is for windows but not Linux. I am indeed looking for windows-7 solutions, but I'm also looking for Fedora solutions. How can I clean out evercookies on my Fedora workstation? Have you checked bleachbit? I don't know

Re: evercookies.

(I'm replying to the entire discussion as of Wednesday evening US Mountain time.) I'm now wondering if evercookies can really be fully blocked. I do want to block what I reasonably can. But as was pointed out, a lot of wanted web functionality needs cookies. So now I'm mainly focused

Re: evercookies.

On 08/24/2016 06:08 PM, Tim wrote: To be blunt, the points you missed, were: a. Not that it's the DNS protocol, but a DNS server, that was implicated. DNS servers can keep access logs, too. And, to be equally blunt, you were asserting that DNS servers could be used to set evercookies

Re: evercookies.

Allegedly, on or about 24 August 2016, Joe Zeff sent: > Except, of course, for the fact that most servers aren't running > browsers, and if they are, that cookie will identify them, not you. > The point I was making, and you didn't address is that there is no way > to use the DNS protocol to set

Re: evercookies.

On 2016-08-24 00:18, Joe Zeff wrote: On 08/23/2016 11:41 PM, Tim wrote: You browse half a dozen addresses, using their DNS server, they can see all the queries coming from your IP. Somewhere amongst them is a server where they can set a cookie in a browser. Except, of course, for the fact

Re: evercookies.

On 08/23/2016 11:41 PM, Tim wrote: You browse half a dozen addresses, using their DNS server, they can see all the queries coming from your IP. Somewhere amongst them is a server where they can set a cookie in a browser. Except, of course, for the fact that most servers aren't running

Re: evercookies.

Allegedly, on or about 23 August 2016, Joe Zeff sent: > Assuming that somebody wanted to use DNS to set a cookie, how would > they go about it? You browse half a dozen addresses, using their DNS server, they can see all the queries coming from your IP. Somewhere amongst them is a server where

Re: evercookies.

Allegedly, on or about 23 August 2016, Drew Samson sent: > I built Evercookie as a proof of concept, wanting to show how web > sites are able to track users even if they delete standard cookies and > LSOs. I get really sick of these sociopaths that build and release some evil thing allegedly to

Re: evercookies.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:54:11 -0600 Drew Samson wrote: > I was admittedly slow to learn this yet once I came to realize the > overwhelming majority of their $ is made by advertisers paying them > to be white-listed it seemed to me as if the fox was guarding the > hen-house. They

Re: evercookies.

I know you said you no longer use AdBlock Plus, but they have categorically stated that they protect against evercookies. "If the last paragraph isn’t explicit enough for you, here you go: Adblock Plus privacy protection (a.k.a. EasyPrivacy filter list) doesn’t care whether it is co

Re: evercookies.

. Yes, I know that you aren't claiming that Google's DNS servers are manipulating evercookies, I'm just using your comment as a hook to describe just how absurd the idea is. It's just as foolish as thinking that you can get a STD by watching a video of unprotected sex. -- users mailing list users

Re: evercookies.

On 08/23/2016 12:26 PM, Mike Wright wrote: On 08/23/2016 09:32 AM, Drew Samson wrote: On 08/23/2016 10:03 AM, stan wrote: So, this brought evercookies to my attention. I noticed that even when Are you using google dns? (8.8.8.8) How would google dns go about setting an evercookie

Re: evercookies.

ut they have categorically stated that they protect against evercookies. "If the last paragraph isn’t explicit enough for you, here you go: Adblock Plus privacy protection (a.k.a. EasyPrivacy filter list) doesn’t care whether it is cookies, canvas fingerprinting or evercookie, you will

Re: evercookies.

On 08/23/2016 09:32 AM, Drew Samson wrote: On 08/23/2016 10:03 AM, stan wrote: So, this brought evercookies to my attention. I noticed that even when Are you using google dns? (8.8.8.8) How would google dns go about setting an evercookie? -- users mailing list users

Re: evercookies.

On 08/23/2016 10:03 AM, stan wrote: So, this brought evercookies to my attention. I noticed that even when offline, there was a google cookie in my cookie directory, even though google is not whitelisted. So, I deleted it. And, lo and behold, it came back. Like that old song, "The

Re: evercookies.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:05:31 +0930 Tim <ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Allegedly, on or about 22 August 2016, William Mattison sent: > > "evercookies" > As users, we get sick of cookies (and related shit), and disable them. > The evil bastards decide t

Re: evercookies.

Allegedly, on or about 22 August 2016, William Mattison sent: > "evercookies" Oh gawd, yet another horrible thing. The creator, allegedly some privacy and security researcher is clearly anything but that, they're an evil bastard. As users, we get sick of cookies (and related shit)

Re: evercookies.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:45:52 - "William Mattison" <mattison.compu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Two questions about "evercookies". I think this could be useful to > others in this forum as well as to me. > > 1. On my home Fedora-23

Re: evercookies.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:45:52 - "William Mattison" <mattison.compu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Two questions about "evercookies". I think this could be useful to > others in this forum as well as to me. > > 1. On my home Fedora-23

evercookies.

Hi all, Two questions about "evercookies". I think this could be useful to others in this forum as well as to me. 1. On my home Fedora-23 (updated weekly) workstation, how do I find and truly, fully, permanently get rid of whatever evercookies might be on my system? If y'all don't