PHWinfo - Afficher un message - Phorm setting its own persistent cookie for most websites...

07/04/2008, 02h28

WiW wrote:
>
> "Jim Moe" <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message
> news:RuWdnYujhelNvmTanZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> On 04/06/08 09:38 am, WiW wrote:
>>> FYI: It appears that Phorm (a targeted advertising system which taps
>>> into
>>> ISP networks) will be setting its own persistent for most every
>>> website the user visits. It appears as though the may be named
>>> "webwise". One technical description of the system and this aspect can
>>> be found via:
>>>
>> Firefox (and Seamonkey) allows you considerable control over how
>> are managed. From accepting none at all, a whitelist or a blacklist of
>> sites, retained for the session or forever. Your choice.
>
> Your comment seems geared towards ing me, as a user, cope with the
> system. While I appreciate that, I posted this here because there is a
> potential issue for those of us who have websites. Namely, that this
> system
> (and potentially others like it) will be setting for our
> domains. Read
> the report: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf for the details.

I'm stunned.

I also wondered whether maybe browsers don't set from responses
with status codes not in the 200 series, but I ran a test and Firefox does.

I just finished e-mailing my congressman and both senators.

07/04/2008, 02h28	#5
Harlan Messinger Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Phorm setting its own persistent for most websites... WiW wrote: > > "Jim Moe" <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote in message > news:RuWdnYujhelNvmTanZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com ... >> On 04/06/08 09:38 am, WiW wrote: >>> FYI: It appears that Phorm (a targeted advertising system which taps >>> into >>> ISP networks) will be setting its own persistent for most every >>> website the user visits. It appears as though the may be named >>> "webwise". One technical description of the system and this aspect can >>> be found via: >>> >> Firefox (and Seamonkey) allows you considerable control over how >> are managed. From accepting none at all, a whitelist or a blacklist of >> sites, retained for the session or forever. Your choice. > > Your comment seems geared towards ing me, as a user, cope with the > system. While I appreciate that, I posted this here because there is a > potential issue for those of us who have websites. Namely, that this > system > (and potentially others like it) will be setting for our > domains. Read > the report: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080404phorm.pdf for the details. I'm stunned. I also wondered whether maybe browsers don't set from responses with status codes not in the 200 series, but I ran a test and Firefox does. I just finished e-mailing my congressman and both senators.