Internet history

[TheModernAge]

Im just wondering if there is anyway to completely delete all internet history and traces of internet history from your computer. The main problem here is that there is an admin account (which i cannot access) that keeps an internet log that cannot be altered (or at least i do not know how).

Is there anyway to keep the sites visited on a seperate user off of the admins computer log either manually or with a free program.

Thanks in advance for any response

[Pedro]

CCleaner or some alternative;
another approach is SandboXIE, run your browser with it, and when you close it, delete the sandbox, which means everything is as you didn't use it. No new bookmarks, history, nothing, unless you choose to keep something.

There are tons of possibilities, others will coment too, but these are the ones i use.

[acr1965]

Are you able to download some new history cleaner if you do not have access to the admin account?

[Pedro]

Good question, and seems i didn't read the post really good...:thumbd:
Sorry, CCleaner deletes the history, but i don't know about limited user account. I don't know what kind of logs are kept by admin. Have to read about this.

If you can install CCleaner, good, but probably SandboxIE is a no go if you can't access Admin account. It really needs priviledges to install.

Sorry, hope Ice_Czar can answer, or another expert on this.

[Pedro]

Of course, if you can boot from a Live CD, nothing is kept:)

[dallen]

What if you used a thumbdrive and installed Portable Apps Firefox from here:
http://portableapps.com/

Depending on what steps the administrator has taken, you should be able to run Firefox from the USB thumbdrive, unless the administrator has taken steps to prevent this. I think that this would prevent the administrator from seeing your internet histroy since you are not using the browser associated with the log; howver, I am not completely sure if this method would totally preclude the administrator from snooping into your web surfing history.

Hopefully someone with specific knowledge on my proposed method will comment further on this, but from my understanding this is a viable option.

[Rmus]

I think that Dallen's is a workable solution, if external USB is permitted.

Many years ago I purchased two copies of Opera and carried one on a small USB drive to the University - not for privacy reasons, but because I preferred Opera: I could load 18-20 web pages before class started, and easily navigate just using the keyboard with custom shortcut keys, assigned by modifying the keyboard.ini file.

Opera doesn't write to the Registry, and the cache and global history write to the assigned folders respectively, which would be on the USB drive, so nothing was written to disk on the computer hard drive.

EDIT: I just received an email from a friend who reminded me that if the OP's workstation is on a network, the Internet Log may be tallied at the server, meaning that all URLS will be logged and retrievable, even if you keep your history/cache on your own drive.

-rich

[spy1]

If it's not your computer - and especially if it's a computer at your job - you haven't any right to bypass the owner's security measures. Pete

[TheModernAge]

How would you go about booting from a live CD?


BTW thanks for all the posts.

[Pedro]

One question: spy1's comment is pertinent. What computer are you using?

[dallen]

-{ Quote: "If it's not your computer - and especially if it's a computer at your job - you haven't any right to bypass the owner's security measures. Pete" }-
The question has nothing to do with rights. Additionally, I feel that it is inappropriate to inject superfluous assumptions into the thread starter's question and pass judgement based on those assumptions.

[spy1]

On the contrary - if the computer in question does not belong to the OP, then suggesting ways to circumvent either parental controls (in the case of a minor using the parents' computer, or even a computer provided to the minor by the parents) or ways to bypass workplace monitoring of workstations or laptops - then it's totally in-appropriate to "assist" the OP in doing so.

If it's not your computer, then you use it only under the conditions or restrictions of the one who provide both the computer and the connection.

It's called "Responsibility 101" - not "let's help this little kid bypass his parents' controls so he/she can fileshare/view porn" or "let's help this poor guy/gal at work bypass scrutiny of their employer so that they can chat, view/porn or d/l songs and funny videoclips all day long instead of working."

Let's face it - if you were either the parent or the employer, you wouldn't appreciate other people "helping" this individual, either.

You're either part of a computer "Security" forum - or you're more interested in helping unknown individuals bypass the actual owners' security.

Which is it? Pete

[Genady Prishnikov]

-{ Quote: "On the contrary - if the computer in question does not belong to the OP, then suggesting ways to circumvent either parental controls (in the case of a minor using the parents' computer, or even a computer provided to the minor by the parents) or ways to bypass workplace monitoring of workstations or laptops - then it's totally in-appropriate to "assist" the OP in doing so.

If it's not your computer, then you use it only under the conditions or restrictions of the one who provide both the computer and the connection.

It's called "Responsibility 101" - not "let's help this little kid bypass his parents' controls so he/she can fileshare/view porn" or "let's help this poor guy/gal at work bypass scrutiny of their employer so that they can chat, view/porn or d/l songs and funny videoclips all day long instead of working."

Let's face it - if you were either the parent or the employer, you wouldn't appreciate other people "helping" this individual, either.

You're either part of a computer "Security" forum - or you're more interested in helping unknown individuals bypass the actual owners' security.

Which is it? Pete" }-

That's about the sum of it. Well said, Pete.

[dallen]

I don’t think it is our place to begin to read into questions what we assume to be the situation of the poster. If we begin to do that, then we find ourselves on a rather slippery slope. Who are we to scrutinize the situation, especially when our scrutiny is based on facts that we injected to satisfy our own preconceived notions.

Pete, am I justified in assuming that you are likely some governmental official desiring to undermine privacy advocates’ efforts to maintain citizens’ rights to privacy simply because the position you take on the issue is consistent with the position said official would take? Most definitely not. Why not? Because the position you’ve taken on the issue could also be consistent with a smart, non-governmental individual who just happens to respect the rights of a computer owner to have their computers used only in a manner in which they approve.

My assuming that you are a governmental official is no more justified than your assuming that the forum member is either a child trying to circumvent their parents or an employee trying to circumvent their employer. I agree that this individual likely falls into one of the two assumptions that you have posited, but it is also possible that what we are dealing with here is a wife that is being imprisoned by an overprotective and abusive husband that simply wants to research ways of coping with her situation or finding out if there are ways of getting help without letting her husband know what she's up to.

Sure my hypothetical seems unlikely, but I am sure that you understand that there are many more likely possibilities that could explain such a question without falling into one of the categories that you’ve put forth as either unethical or unjustified.

My point is that it is not our place to judge the person, especially when there are potentially legitimate reasons for wanting an answer to the question asked. We most certainly don't want to begin to scrutinize every forum member's questions for potentially unethical motives. Shouldn't we assume good intentions on the part of our members rather than presume our member to be guilty of wrongdoing.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "I don’t think it is our place to begin to read into questions what we assume to be the situation of the poster. If we begin to do that, then we find ourselves on a rather slippery slope. Who are we to scrutinize the situation, especially when our scrutiny is based on facts that we injected to satisfy our own preconceived notions." }-I tend to agree here.

There are plenty of reasons one may wish to have some control of the content of the Internet history. Example: you're traveling on company business and use your laptop for performing personal business/etc. off hours in a hotel room. I do this and it is within my employer's terms of usage.

Could there be valid reasons to suppress usage details? Sure - perhaps I have a medical condition that I'm examining, perhaps some personal issues I'm dealing with, there could be many valid reasons one would wish to minimize potential exposure of that information in the workplace. It's called privacy folks, and in many cases it is either well within terms of usage guidelines, in some instances this type of activity is not only within usage guidelines, it is explicitly allowed.

I can also weave a scenario in which it constitutes workplace abuse of computer usage. I can do this for almost every question posed on this site. Consider someone looking for high risk security coverage. Perhaps they're frequenting crack sites, and I really don't want to support that. That question about rootkits? Perhaps they're really asking about defeating parental controls. The latest file shredder? Naturally, this could be related to the elimination of forensic evidence pertinent to a police investigation. The slope is indeed slippery if one wishes to extrapolate beyond the information that we objectively know.

As for dealing with the question at hand, I would recommend booting off-policy and performing a straight file deletion using a Bart PE Windows boot CD or a Linux Live CD. I happen to always carry both of these tools while traveling, and I have had to use them to deal with system corruption while on the road and away from IT support. Am I treading in a gray area here? Sure, but it's a lot easier viewing it that way when I'm not in a hotel room in a foreign country, can't successfully boot natively, with an extremely inconvenient local time relative to my home base thousands of miles away, don't speak the local language, and I have to pull that customer presentation off that hard drive somehow and forward it to a colleague by email using my personal webmail account in the next couple of hours so that the customer visit we're all on doesn't go down the tubes. Or one could suggest that this is just some elaborate ruse to circumvent my employers IT policies (PS - it wasn't).

Blue

[spy1]

-{ Quote: "Im just wondering if there is anyway to completely delete all internet history and traces of internet history from your computer. The main problem here is that there is an admin account (which i cannot access) that keeps an internet log that cannot be altered (or at least i do not know how).

Is there anyway to keep the sites visited on a seperate user off of the admins computer log either manually or with a free program.

Thanks in advance for any response" }-

Blue and D - Sorry, I can't "presume good intention" on this one - the bolded and underlined words on the quote above explain why.

(1) Lack of correct spelling, punctuation and capitalization suggest a "younger" user.

(2) The area of concern indicated by the post is only the ability to hide websites visited - why?

In all probability, in the case of a minor they're either pornsites or "weird" sites (read: cult-ish or self-destructive, even, as in the "suicide-type sites) ; if it's someone at their job, using a work computer, shopping sites, job-hunting sites, "entertainment" sites (humorous, sports-related or gambling-related) - especially given the fact that it's important for the OP to keep them from the site of the Admin.

(3) The OP doesn't have an Admin account on the computer-in-question. Why is that? IAP, because it's not their computer.

(4) The OP hasn't come back with an answer as to whose computer it is, what kinds of site visits they're trying to hide, or why (that would be known as a "deafening silence" ).

So in my mind, at least, there's exactly zero-probability that this is a "legit" request for "help" (at least not help in the form that I'm used to giving).

But enough - you guys do what you want. Pete

[Pedro]

Those were my concerns, specially "(which i cannot access)".

But reading Dallen's and BlueZannetti's replies, they are right. How many times have i asked something that could be interpreted the wrong way? Or how many times have i replied to others without considering this?
This is a very good point.

I cannot patronize TheModernAge. Period. I don't know him, and this is an open forum. If he arrived here, then he doesn't look like restricted, so this is a strict privacy problem.

He could also be 16, using dad's computer, and i can relate to that. Even if i'm not 16 anymore, which is sad sometimes...

TheModernAge: A live CD is a CD you can use to boot from. Either the BIOS (loads before Windows) recognizes the CD and you can boot from it, or you must select in the BIOS to detect the CD and boot from it.
You place the CD in the CD-ROM and turn on the computer, or reboot.

The are plenty of so called "Linux" Live CD's around. Most major distributions have one. There's also, as noted by BlueZannetti the BartPE builder, UBCD4WIN (based on Bart PE), and even the Anonym.OS, which makes the conection private too.

Maybe he's a terrorist, but HOW CAN I KNOW is the biggie, and me asking for what computer is it is just testing if he really wants privacy... if you understand.

He can also find this on his own, but not before downloading a trojan or two for going to the wrong places. This is not a dilema if i point in the right direction.

[pugmug]

Let's see.Person with 2 post at this time and with no admin.account.It does not take rocket science.

[Pedro]

Got me there pugmug...

[pugmug]

Lol,was not out to get anyone, Someone.Just using logic,call me Spock.Lol.

[dallen]

pugmug,
The inference you've drawn is likely consistent with reality. However, we all had a mere two posts at one time. I hardly think it is fair to have different standards based upon an arbitrary number, especially one which is so easily manipulated. After all, look at me I've made over 750 posts and said nothing.

[pugmug]

Dallen,has the person posted back at this time?I could care less what that person's reasons for 1,2 or a 100 post are.I can give correct answers to questions but choose not to depending on what they post and how I preceive said post.Is that a fair statement?

[dallen]

You are absolutely correct, in my opinion. It seems that you are looking at it from a different perspective. Basically, it seems that you are more concerned about whether this person is even going to come back to read the answer (please correct me if I'm wrong). From that point of view, I agree with discriminating on the basis of number of posts.

[BlueZannetti]

Just a personal opinion here, but I think you folks are overanalyzing the situation. As someone once remarked, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1074641)

Blue

[zcv]

Hi Blue and dallen,

Understand your reasoning. But, we all make judgements based on context, and in this particular case, have to agree with Spy1.

I'm not going to re hash the arguments, but the bottom line is judgement, and you've made yours with the rationale you have presented.

[Carver]

-{ Quote: " But, we all make judgements based on context." }-
Simple don't Post if you think he is trying to do somethig unethical or underhanded or doing something he is not supposed to be doing.

-{ Quote: "and in this particular case,have to agree with Spy1." }-
I wouldn't.

Everybody should be treated fairly in a non-judgemental manor. If we don't we create a board for the elite who never go into any gray areas..who all ways do what the management says, even if it means hurting a coworker or a friend. Who are we to judge peoples motives for doing things, they are the final judge. If they are doing something they are not supposed to do and they get caught, then they deserve everything they get. Bet who are we to withhold help just because we don't know the whole story, really its not are business. It's their business, if they screw-up.....they pay the price...not us. We are here to help everyone who asks for help if we can.

[zcv]

Hello Carver,
-{ Quote: "Everybody should be treated fairly in a non-judgemental manor. If we don't we create a board for the elite who never go into any gray areas..who all ways do what the management says, even if it means hurting a coworker or a friend." }-
Fair to whom? How about the person that owns the Computer?
-{ Quote: "Who are we to judge peoples motives for doing things, they are the final judge. If they are doing something they are not supposed to do and they get caught, then they deserve everything they get. Bet who are we to withhold help just because we don't know the whole story, really its not are business. It's their business, if they screw-up.....they pay the price...not us. We are here to help everyone who asks for help if we can." }-
Its you that's judging motivation, not me.

On the facts, not on your suppostions, someone wants to delete history off a computer that they don't own and wants to hide that action. Its you that's (emotionally at that) reading all sorts of things into this.

[Carver]

-{ Quote: "Hello Carver,

Fair to whom? How about the person that owns the Computer?" }-
The person who posts.

-{ Quote: "Its you that's judging motivation, not me." }-
I see.

Has TheModernAge made a third post, or did we scare him off.

[zcv]

-{ Quote: "or did we scare him off." }-
I see you're fond of making suppositions.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Its you that's judging motivation, not me.

On the facts, not on your suppostions, someone wants to delete history off a computer that they don't own and wants to hide that action. Its you that's (emotionally at that) reading all sorts of things into this." }-Strictly speaking, you're inferring a lot here. Read again the explicitly stated facts. The inferences you make might be reasonable, but you really shouldn't confuse those inferences with explicitly stated facts.

Blue

[Carver]

-{ Quote: "I see you're fond of making suppositions." }-
Naa, just asked a question.

[zcv]

-{ Quote: "Strictly speaking, you're inferring a lot here. Read again the explicitly stated facts. The inferences you make might be reasonable, but you really shouldn't confuse those inferences with explicitly stated facts.

Blue" }-
HI Blue,

Ok, we're going around and around on this and don't thnk we'll come to an agreement here.

The judgement that counts is yours, you could have shut this down and chose not to.

[Bubba]

-{ Quote: "could have shut this down and chose not to." }-Why should it be shut down :-\

The thread starter posed questions and received answers related to those questions. Some of the other responses....tho not off topic per say....are nothing more than personal opinions related to personal perceptions based soley on the contents of one post (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=956490#post956490) by the thread starter.

As long as members personal opinions are respected and the participation remains at a appropriate discussion level everything will be fine.

Bubba

[zcv]

-{ Quote: "Why should it be shut down :-\ " }-
Hi Bubba,

Should have written: removed the original post.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Ok, we're going around and around on this and don't thnk we'll come to an agreement here.

The judgement that counts is yours, you could have shut this down and chose not to." }-zcv,

You stated that there were specific facts in front of everyone. According to your post, those facts were: A user wishes to delete the Internet history from a computer
A computer which the user did not own
The user wished to hide the fact that the history was deletedIn fact, only the first of those facts is explicitly stated. The second and third are inferred.

Regards,

Blue

[zcv]

-{ Quote: " The second and third are inferred.
" }-
Yes, ownership is inferred, or I should say, lack of it.
-{ Quote: " The main problem here is that there is an admin account (which i cannot access) that keeps an internet log that cannot be altered (or at least i do not know how).

Is there anyway to keep the sites visited on a seperate user off of the admins computer log either manually or with a free program.
" }-
Well, I read that as hiding - more to the point, altering data.

This is the heart of the matter and our difference.

Regards

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Yes, ownership is inferred." }-In other words, not a fact.

-{ Quote: "Well, I read that as hiding - more to the point, altering data.

This is the heart of the matter and our difference." }-Again, inferred.

I have absolutely no problem with your position. It differs from mine and that's absolutely fine. I am strident when clear inferences are explicitly sold as fact and happen to believe the distinction is rather important to maintain when operating with incomplete information.

I'm done.

Regards,

Blue

[GS2]

I would go for the LiveCD route also, though one may have some trouble if it has a PCI wireless card - depends on the chip used. But a cabled Ethernet connection would be fine.

Incidentally all this can be found out on a search engine, so not really much point worrying about the inferred or actual facts of who this person may/may not be - they got their info now so the old water has passed under the bridge.

[tayres]

-{ Quote: "It's called "Responsibility 101"" }-

Apart from the original question about how to go around in place security, this thread reveals something about the values and the capacity for discernment of the respondents, not just technical knowledge. It also raises the larger question of what responsibilities members have towards others when offering advice, with some arguing for more responsibility (using "judgment") and others for less (by being more "nonjudgmental").

We seem to have little problem when deciding whether or not someone is a troll in these forums and react accordingly, but in this case have invoked all sorts of reasons to avoid using the same kind of judgement for a matter that is almost certainly as important, if not more so.

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Apart from the original question about how to go around in place security, this thread reveals something about the values and the capacity for discernment of the respondents, not just technical knowledge. It also raises the larger question of what responsibilities members have towards others when offering advice, with some arguing for more responsibility (using "judgment") and others for less (by being more "nonjudgmental").

We seem to have little problem when deciding whether or not someone is a troll in these forums and react accordingly, but in this case have invoked all sorts of reasons to avoid using the same kind of judgement for a matter that is almost certainly as important, if not more so." }-tayres,

Points taken, and they are valid ones to raise.

Part of the question being discussed towards the end of this thread is being precise and objective regarding what one infers about information offered. If one wishes to make assumptions and proceed on that basis, that is absolutely fine, just realize that there is a difference between assumptions and objective fact and try not to relabel one as the other.

As for forum trolls and other matters, I always strive to objectively assess the information at hand and provide the benefit of doubt to all when working with incomplete information. At times that benefit is appropriate, at times it's not, and at times we'll never know.

Cheers,

Blue

[dallen]

-{ Quote: "Apart from the original question about how to go around in place security, this thread reveals something about the values and the capacity for discernment of the respondents, not just technical knowledge. It also raises the larger question of what responsibilities members have towards others when offering advice, with some arguing for more responsibility (using "judgment") and others for less (by being more "nonjudgmental")." }-
I like the way you articulate and restate the questions raised in this thread. In my opinion, you have stated the questions in a very clear and concise way. For what it's worth, I feel you have chosen your words well.

[EASTER.2010]

-{ Quote: "Just a personal opinion here, but I think you folks are overanalyzing the situation. As someone once remarked, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1074641)

Blue" }-

Theres always going to be some tinge of possible overreaction when presented with details as been suggested at the start of this, but thats no reason alone to discount spy1 and other's bringing to the surface those concern's. The more dialogue either way the closer to drawing a better more concise conclusion wouldn't you think?

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Theres always going to be some tinge of possible overreaction when presented with details as been suggested at the start of this, but thats no reason alone to discount spy1 and other's bringing to the surface those concern's. The more dialogue either way the closer to drawing a better more concise conclusion wouldn't you think?" }-EASTER.2010,

I didn't dismiss them. If one has a concern regarding facts not explicitly in evidence, posing a simple question can serve two functions:

1. Alert others to issues that they may not have considered
2. Allow people to render informed decisions and not jump to conclusions.

However, questions were not explicitly asked and judgement was rendered. Some may not be able to, as spy1 put it, "presume good intention". So be it. Yet, in the absence of firm and explicit evidence, I choose not to presume bad intention.

Cheers,

Blue

[pugmug]

All well and good, but has TheModernAge posted back to answer any concerns at this time?

[argus tuft]

No, he was scared off :(

[zcv]

-{ Quote: "No, he was scared off :(" }-
By What?

[Carver]

Don't you mean by whom.

[argus tuft]

-{ Quote: "By What?" }-
A two page discussion about whether he/she had any right to ask the question, or expect an answer??

[zcv]

-{ Quote: "Don't you mean by whom." }-
I did mean what - certainly not from board policy.
-{ Quote: "A two page discussion about whether he/she had any right to ask the question, or expect an answer??" }-
Quoting Blue, that's an inference. :D

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Quoting Blue, that's an inference. :D" }- Touché..., and quite correct I might add :)

Blue

[argus tuft]

you got me there ;)
I came, I inferred, and I won't do it again. :(