PDA

View Full Version : Third-party cookies (questions)


Jim Verard
November 1st, 2007, 10:05 PM
Third-party cookies are a threat to privacy, no matter if they are season or persistent cookies and are deleted after the browser is closed, because after you leave a specific website, another one different can read the same cookie and identify you.

Let's say Google used a cookie for one of their services - Blogger (or even Orkut). There's another cookie which leads to Google.com himself. If I leave Orkut/Blogger without erasing myself the season/persistent cookie, each time I came into a different website which is using any of Google services, Google might be identifying myself, even if I am using a browser like XeroBank. Is that right?

I am asking you this because XB has a extension called PrefBar which allows me to place a button called "Clear Cookies" and always I am pushing that button after I left each website. It has become a habit for me.

And let's say some company owns different websites, different boards like Wilders Security and we don't know that. Is it possible for them, by only reading a cookie created on a different domain, knowing that I am Jim Verard from Wilders?

People are usually affraid of being traced by the same website, but what about them tracing the others?

Possible host-services which are quite different (using a lot of different names and domains) but in the end are always the same company?

Anyway, I can't find any option here on Firefox to block third-party cookies. Perhaps this option was removed? Where is it? I remember it was possible to accept only cookies related to that specific domain. Not now.

Some useful information from Wikipedia about third-party cookies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie):

{QUOTE-> Images or other objects contained in a Web page may reside in servers different from the one holding the page. In order to show such a page, the browser downloads all these objects, possibly receiving cookies. These cookies are called third-party cookies if the server sending them is located outside the domain of the Web page.

This condition is common with on-line advertisement. Indeed, web banners are typically stored in servers of the advertising company, which are not in the domain of the Web pages showing them. If third-party cookies are not rejected by the browser, an advertising company can track a user across the sites where it has placed a banner.

In particular, whenever a user views a page containing a banner, the browser retrieves the banner from a server of the advertising company. If this server has previously set a cookie, the browser sends it back, allowing the advertising company to link this access with the previous one.

By choosing a unique banner URL for every Web page where it is placed or by using the HTTP referer field, the advertising company can then find out which pages the user has viewed. The same technique can be used with web bugs. These, unlike the obvious banners, are images embedded in the Web page that are undetectable by the user (e.g. they are tiny and/or transparent)

Third-party cookies are used to create an anonymous profile of the user. This allows the advertising company to select the banner to show to a user based on the user's profile. The advertising industry has denied any other use of these profiles.

Many modern browsers, such as Mozilla Firefox, Internet Explorer and Opera block third party cookies if requested by the user. Internet Explorer version 6 allows a mild form of blocking, called leashing. A leashed cookie is a third-party cookie that is sent by the browser only when accessing a third-party document via the same first-party.

For example, if third.com sets a cookie when an image is requested, and this cookie is set for the first time when the user views a document from first.com, the same cookie is not sent if the user downloads a document that contains the same image but the document is on another site other.com, if the cookie is leashed.

A leashed cookie is different from a blocked cookie in that it is sent, in this example, if the image is contained in another document from the same site first.com. <-QUOTE}

WSFuser
November 1st, 2007, 10:33 PM
For your Firefox question: the option to block third-party cookies is no longer available in the UI, but you can set it. Go to about:config > Network.cookie.cookieBehavior > change the value to "1".

Rmus
November 1st, 2007, 10:36 PM
{QUOTE-> Anyway, I can't find any option here on Firefox to block third-party cookies. <-QUOTE}See here:

How to Block Third Party Cookies in Firefox
http://www.firefoxhacker.com/2007/02/15/how-to-block-third-party-cookies-in-firefox/


---
rich

benny bronx
November 1st, 2007, 10:50 PM
Good tip. Thanks

Mele20
November 2nd, 2007, 08:11 AM
{QUOTE-> For your Firefox question: the option to block third-party cookies is no longer available in the UI, but you can set it. Go to about:config > Network.cookie.cookieBehavior > change the value to "1". <-QUOTE}

It is this, and other bad privacy/security decisions by MoFo, that keep me using 1.5. I think what 2.0 has done to privacy is awful. I might as well use IE. In fact, IE6 is better now for privacy than is Fx. Very sad.

Pedro
November 2nd, 2007, 09:36 AM
Hello Jim,

Don't you use CookieSafe?
The FF extension, works like NoScript but with cookies. What's wrong with it?

Jim Verard
November 2nd, 2007, 11:18 AM
{QUOTE-> It is this, and other bad privacy/security decisions by MoFo, that keep me using 1.5. I think what 2.0 has done to privacy is awful. I might as well use IE. In fact, IE6 is better now for privacy than is Fx. Very sad. <-QUOTE}How's that possible if Internet Explorer doesn't allow you to erase all temporary internet files? You have to use CCleaner always to erase all the garbage Microsoft left behind on your computer. That kind of thing doesn't happen with Firefox. At least he erase everything after is closed. And all cookie configurations are easier than IE. I can't figure out until today how to deal with them while using IE. :gack:

I agree with you about the decision of remove this option, it was a very bad idea. On the other hand, Firefox have an option to use Google resources for each website visited, to check if it's a fraud. So much for privacy, uh? ::)

{QUOTE-> Hello Jim,

Don't you use CookieSafe?
The FF extension, works like NoScript but with cookies. What's wrong with it? <-QUOTE}I was about to make the download, and then I read this:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2497
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/reviews/display/2497

{QUOTE-> I give a 10 because it clears ALL other cookies than those I wish to save, and those I want to keep will be stored in a file which FF does not access. Just what I was looking for. And above all, it can block cookies if you want to. My only question is, what does "disable 3rd party and !subdomain popup menus" do? <-QUOTE}The last thing I need here is something who might jeopardize my privacy, and hide anything I need to be sure that is destroyed.

WSFuser
November 2nd, 2007, 11:24 AM
{QUOTE-> I was about to make the download, and then I read this:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2497
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/reviews/display/2497 <-QUOTE}
Just use CS Lite. CookieSafe is no longer being developed anyways.

aigle
November 2nd, 2007, 11:42 AM
{QUOTE-> For your Firefox question: the option to block third-party cookies is no longer available in the UI <-QUOTE}
That,s a very bad decision. I wonder why they did it?

Pedro
November 2nd, 2007, 11:56 AM
{QUOTE->
The last thing I need here is something who might jeopardize my privacy, and hide anything I need to be sure that is destroyed. <-QUOTE}
Why does it jeopardize privacy? Because it stores cookies in its own folder or ? (i really didnt understand, sorry if i'm flashing my dumbness here ;D )
{QUOTE-> Just use CS Lite. CookieSafe is no longer being developed anyways. <-QUOTE}
Is it final yet, and in the addons site? TIA

WSFuser
November 2nd, 2007, 11:57 AM
Heres one explanation I found (not official though):
{QUOTE-> It's not an excuse. The devs felt that too many 3rd party cookies were getting through anyway, and to block them all effectively would prevent most of the web from working properly. It lead to a false sense of security so it was taken out. <-QUOTE}
Also heres the bug page: Bug 349680 – "Allow sites to set cookies for the original site only" missing from cookie preferences (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349680)

{QUOTE-> Is it final yet, and in the addons site? TIA <-QUOTE}
Final yes (http://forum.softwareblaze.com/viewtopic.php?t=137) but not on the addons site. Needs more reviews or something.

GrailVanGogh
November 2nd, 2007, 10:30 PM
{QUOTE-> It is this, and other bad privacy/security decisions by MoFo, that keep me using 1.5. I think what 2.0 has done to privacy is awful. I might as well use IE. In fact, IE6 is better now for privacy than is Fx. Very sad. <-QUOTE}


What are those other issues Mele? A thread was created at BBR for voicing concerns and complaining about Fx v2 but you chose not to post anything.

How hard is it for you to go in and change one number in about:config to block 3rd party cookies or to use an extension like CS lite or Cookie Safe which works fine?

You have Proxo so you should have no concerns about cookies in any browser and if your really truly concerned about security and privacy why not use sandboxie?