Do you clean your index.dat file in IE?

[JayK]

Just curious. Does anyone clear this? How often? Using what method? Software? or just manually ?

[Douglas]

Huh? What's Internet Explorer?

[eyespy]

Window Washer works well !! ;)

regards,
bill :)

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: eyespy link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=0#38608 date=1041295337]
Window Washer works well !! ;)

regards,
bill :)
" }-

Lots of freeware and commercial software do it (spider seems to be most recommended for freeware). But you need to restart correct? I've read that you can actually log
on as another admin user to kill the file but I never tried it.

I personally do it manually with eraser every time my computer starts up.

[mjc]

Doing it manually.

[Tassie_Devils]

Yes! Internet Sweeper here.

Set to "delete files in use" upon reboot so when I do a 'Sweep' of cookies, cache, etc. and after that [maybe even up to 1 week], a reboot clears the Index.dat back to its original 32Kb size.

[Gordon7000]

Yes. All index.dat files cleared every few weeks, using Spider, followed by a restart.

I realise, though, that Spider deletes only the contents, and not the index.dat headers.

Gordon

[Krusty]

Isn´t Internet Explorer a spyware ;D

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Gordon7000 link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=0#38800 date=1041440865]
Yes. All index.dat files cleared every few weeks, using Spider, followed by a restart.

I realise, though, that Spider deletes only the contents, and not the index.dat headers.

Gordon
" }-


What's the difference? I've cleared it manually and using spider and even with other software, everytime I get the same file size after cleaning

[Mele20]

I clean using Bear Delete, which only works with W98/SE, but it cleans history, temp, index.dat, recent office files and shell icon cache. It is a very fast batch file and is free. Highly recommended over at DSLR and used by many there.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,1870282~root=security,1~mode=flat


- Added URL tags to fix link

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Gordon7000 link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=0#38800 date=1041440865]
Yes. All index.dat files cleared every few weeks, using Spider, followed by a restart.

I realise, though, that Spider deletes only the contents, and not the index.dat headers.

Gordon
" }-Just curious, Gordon. What OS are you using? I used to use Spider with 98SE. I loved that program. I loved it so much, that I tried it when I 'upgraded' to XP. All of a sudden, I noticed something very unusual - every time I tried to access "System Information" (one of the ONLY utilities MS provides that I really like) the freakin "Help Center" would come up. At first I just figured I clicked a wrong link or something. But the same thing happened when I clicked directly on the msinfo32.exe file! I posted about that problem at BBR and Vampirefo came up with the solution: It was a .dat file that Spider was messing with in XP. He did a lot of detective work to figure that one out. So my question to you and anyone else running Spider on XP (and possibly W2K as well) is whether or not you've ever noticed that problem. If you're running XP, and Spider, and haven't ever tried to access "System Information", try it and see what happens.

sk

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Krusty link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=0#38803 date=1041444300]
Isn´t Internet Explorer a spyware ;D
" }-SPYWARE. Hell, it's MALWARE. But what can I say? I still haven't found any other browser that I like better. But I am always looking. :D

sk

[Gordon7000]

-{ Quote: "-{ Quote: "" }-


What's the difference? I've cleared it manually and using spider and even with other software, everytime I get the same file size after cleaning
" }-

Hi JayK. A while ago, I read somewhere that Spider clears the index.dat log files -including the detailed information contained in these logs - but leaves the log headers intact. Thus, the 'cleared' file will be about 32K after a reboot. (My PC has four separate index.dat files.)
I have never tried to delete these files manually, because I thought this couldn't be done while Windows was running.

Gordon

[Gordon7000]

-{ Quote: "-{ Quote: "" }-Just curious, Gordon. What OS are you using? I used to use Spider with 98SE. I loved that program.

" }-

Hi sk. Sorry to hear that Spider has been messing up your files on Windows XP. I haven't experienced this problem because I'm still running my antiquated Windows 98 on a Pentium II with a 450MHz processor! I hope you can find an alternative to Spider. I know there is a program that can open and display the full contents of the index.dat files (History Reader 5), and can delete the logs as well. However, it's a $50 shareware product, and I don't know if it's compatible with Windows XP.

Gordon

[JayK]

Hi Gorden

I thought that regardless of the method used for cleaning, windows will always recreate the index.dat files...

About manually cleaning index.dat (warning I'm not sure abt the accuracy of the info before, experts should correct me)

You can delete the index.dat files manually. As i understand it, under windows as long as explorer.exe is running, you cannot delete index.dat files.

So you either

1)Boot to dos and kill it there

2)Put a bat file that clears the file in the startup folder. Not sure why it works except maybe it loads before explorer.exe
does

3)Create another account with administration previlages (under win2k) and you can delete the index.dat files in another user account.

[snowman]

by Krusty: *Isn´t Internet Explorer a spyware *




Hey Krusty.....an all these years I thought is was the M$ os.....javascript:cool()

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Gordon7000 link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=0#38924 date=1041495322]
-{ Quote: "-{ Quote: "" }-Just curious, Gordon. What OS are you using? I used to use Spider with 98SE. I loved that program.

" }-

Hi sk. Sorry to hear that Spider has been messing up your files on Windows XP. I haven't experienced this problem because I'm still running my antiquated Windows 98 on a Pentium II with a 450MHz processor! I hope you can find an alternative to Spider. I know there is a program that can open and display the full contents of the index.dat files (History Reader 5), and can delete the logs as well. However, it's a $50 shareware product, and I don't know if it's compatible with Windows XP.

Gordon

" }-Thanks, Gordon. I kinda miss old Spidey myself sometimes! And yeah, I figured you were running 98SE. I think that's great. In fact, the more I keep running into little surprises with W2K, the more I miss the stability of 98SE. I think all this talk about XP and W2K being so stable is a crock. I almost NEVER crashed with 98SE. I do think W2K is faster, and I like the concept that it's a full 32 bit OS, vs. 16 bit for 98SE. But even after all this time and 3 service packs later, W2K is still a bug ridden piece of garbage. Between the Windows Explorer bugs (i.e. Can't retain settings after the 400th one) and now Internet Explorer, which can't quite negotiate date stamps when it updates so it's a total mess right now, it's a joke. A bad joke, but a joke nonetheless. Meanwhile, my Compaq 98SE hasn't had a single problem in over a year and a half. It reminds me of the way 'fancy sports cars' used to be. They were so finicky you needed another car as a backup to ever be able to get anywhere most of the time. It's a good thing I HAVE that Compaq with an AMD K-6 2 and the 98SE OS, or half the time I'd never be able to even get online to check my email. It serves as a great back up also to help rebuild my Asus333 with the 1 GB of memory and two 80GB HD's with W2K, which is just a big, expensive, fancy piece of crap. >:(
sk

[Tassie_Devils]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Gordon7000 link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=0#38800 date=1041440865]
Yes. All index.dat files cleared every few weeks, using Spider, followed by a restart.

I realise, though, that Spider deletes only the contents, and not the index.dat headers.

Gordon
" }-That's because Windows automatically re-creates the Index.dat file. It really has been deleted, but re-created and it will be 32Kb after a fresh reboot/re-create until you start surfin, then it will grow in size again. :)

[Gordon7000]

>> I thought that regardless of the method used for cleaning, windows will always recreate the index.dat files... <<

Hi JayK. Absolutely true. Windows will always create a new index.dat file - as Tassie-Devils has pointed out in his post! It just needs to be deleted regularly.

Gordon

[JayK]

Hi Gordon

Can I confirm that your statement
"I realise, though, that Spider deletes only the contents, and not the index.dat headers:"

is based on the observation that the size of the index.dat file that is always recreated?

[Gordon7000]

-{ Quote: " quoting: JayK link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=15#38967 date=1041509836]
Hi Gordon

Can I confirm that your statement
"I realise, though, that Spider deletes only the contents, and not the index.dat headers:"

is based on the observation that the size of the index.dat file that is always recreated?


" }-

Hi JayK. I'm not sure of the relationship between the fact that the index.dat headers are (supposedly) not deleted, and the fact that the recreated index.dat file (following a reboot) starts again about 32k - until the log begins to build up again during subsequent surfing.

Some people seem to believe that the index.dat file(s) are completely deleted, and then recreated afresh at reboot - and perhaps this is true. However, I remember reading somewhere that Spider (and other similar programs) delete the entire index.dat log *contents* but leave the *headers* (URLs?) to each individual log intact. Perhaps someone could shed some further light on this.

Gordon

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Gordon7000 link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=15#38974 date=1041512745]
Some people seem to believe that the index.dat file(s) are completely deleted, and then recreated afresh at reboot - and perhaps this is true. However, I remember reading somewhere that Spider (and other similar programs) delete the entire index.dat log *contents* but leave the *headers* (URLs?) to each individual log intact. Perhaps someone could shed some further light on this.

Gordon

" }- Here is a link to the technical description by the author of Spider. Maybe this will help. I was going to cut/paste it in but it's a little long. But anyone interested can check it out and see what you think.

sk

http://www.fsm.nl/ward/spiderus.html

[Gordon7000]

Hi sk.

Many thanks for this link. It seems to provide some useful information on Spider. I'll check it out in more detail later on...

On checking the author's history file, it would seem that the earlier versions of Spider did not remove the URL's in the index.dat file(s). However, in later versions, the author advises that both cookies and URL's are deleted by Spider.

Hopefully, then, Spider should completely delete the entire histories contained in the index.dat files. Sorry for raising unnecessary concerns.

Regards,

Gordon

[Uguel707]

Most of the time, I do it manually, I go by into the option menu in Crazy Browser bar. In fact, I try to do as much as I can without the help of any program. Once in a month, I clear them with the help of a tweak, I always found a little more files in it. Otherwise I do it myself. ;)
Bye ! Uguel

[FanJ]

With respect to the original question: Yes.
I use that excellent piece of software IEClean ( www.nsclean.com ); the cleaning is done with every reboot.
IEClean is always running here.
For Netscape users there is his brother NSClean.
Both are not free, but make no mistake: in my humble opinion they are worth every cent.

BTW: I also have Window Washer, which is also a nice program.

[the Tester]

I use Crazy Browser,which runs on the IE engine.I usually clean my index.dat file daily.I run Supercleaner(shareware $29.99 lifetime license)and it does that on startup.I clean the garbage files it finds every month or so.I have Aluria's Spyware Eliminator and the interesting thing about that program is I can view dat.file with it and delete it.Supercleaner is from http://www.southbaypc.com

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: FanJ link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=15#39612 date=1041732619]
With respect to the original question: Yes.
I use that excellent piece of software IEClean ( www.nsclean.com ); the cleaning is done with every reboot.
IEClean is always running here.
For Netscape users there is his brother NSClean.
Both are not free, but make no mistake: in my humble opinion they are worth every cent.

BTW: I also have Window Washer, which is also a nice program.
" }- And I think what's become clear is that the more up to date .dat cleaners can in fact do the job safely, and that programs like Spider, which were designed for a completely different context do not perform well on XP systems for which they were never designed in the first place. The fact that they seemed to run without any negative consequences only disguised what was going on behind the scenes. And the fact of the matter is, if people have alternatives to System Information, and don't really care that Spider knocks it out, I would venture to say that Spider STILL could be used; just as long as you know the side effects. But with a product like IE Clean that FanJ talked about, it would seem to make more sense to go with the more up to date product.

sk

[JayK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: sk link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=15#39638 date=1041743656]
And I think what's become clear is that the more up to date .dat cleaners can in fact do the job safely, and that programs like Spider, which were designed for a completely different context do not perform well on XP systems for which they were never designed in the first place. The fact that they seemed to run without any negative consequences only disguised what was going on behind the scenes. And the fact of the matter is, if people have alternatives to System Information, and don't really care that Spider knocks it out, I would venture to say that Spider STILL could be used; just as long as you know the side effects. But with a product like IE Clean that FanJ talked about, it would seem to make more sense to go with the more up to date product.

sk
" }-

In my newbie eyes, it's not really necessary to pay for any security product except for anti-virus and anti-trojans.

Privacy tracks cleaning is in my view a secondary priority product. Nice to have , but not necessary.

[Primrose]

Everyone seems to have their own special and preferred way of handling index.dat. ;D

Since we always fall short on explaining it all because there is still out there people who use everything from Win95 to WinXP and it is a fact you can not do it the same for each of these OS...I think the page and links Milly has put together is a very good synopsis of the issues and what methods you might try until you...yourself...the user are satisfied...

Here is an excerpt:

"Or these programs which focus on 'features'. But you'll need to check how thoroughly they are deleting the 'old' URLs and/or index.dats, if that is important to you. Some of them just use IE's own mechanism to do it, and that will leave the index.dats to grow and grow forever, and often leave 'orphan' files of which IE has lost track"


This is the link.
http://www.imilly.com/winclean.htm



Enjoy ;) It has something for everyone !

[solarpowered candle]

Here is a site with a little blurb about a solution for Index.dat files dilemma with a free receipt for wind95/98/ME
and wind2000/XP

[solarpowered candle]

LOL 4got to put this in

http://www.markusjansson.net/eienbid.html#netbios

robert

[Krusty]

Hi

I do clean up the index.dat file using CleanUp ;)
http://www.freebies4ya.com/members/cleanup.asp
It makes a nice toilet flush noise :D

*Ari*

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: solarpowered candle link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=30#40261 date=1041983940]
LOL 4got to put this in

http://www.markusjansson.net/eienbid.html#netbios

robert
" }- LOL. I hate when that happens too. Especially in emails. People get it and are like: "WTF?", especially if I don't catch it until later on. If I catch it and send the fix right away and they see two consecutive sk emails in their in-box they figure: "There he goes again; he either forgot the link, or the image, or something". :-\

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot...
thanks for the link. I really like Markus's stuff.
;)

[notageek]

I use spider for cleaning my index.dat file. I also tried a program named ilSystem wiper to clean my index.dat file among other things. ilSytem wiper worked fine.

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: notageek link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=30#40290 date=1041993765]
I use spider for cleaning my index.dat file. I also tried a program named ilSystem wiper to clean my index.dat file among other things. ilSytem wiper worked fine.
" }-What OS?

[notageek]

SK I use WIn98 but both brograms worked well with my wifes work computer which is running win2k.

Ari I tried cleanup and it don't work as good as spider does. but I did like the fact that it cleans out favorites and games. The flush sound is rather funny at first.

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: notageek link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=30#40419 date=1042041183]
SK I use WIn98 but both brograms worked well with my wifes work computer which is running win2k. " }-Thanks, n.a.g. Just for my own edification could you possibly check on the W2K machine and see if it's possible to access "System Information"? I've switched from XP to W2K and if Spider works on a W2K system I'd load it again. Thanks.
sk

[notageek]

I'll check for you.

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: notageek link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=30#40424 date=1042042232]
I'll check for you.
" }-Thanks. I appreciate it.
sk

[javacool]

Just to add, I'm using MRU-Blaster to clean my index.dat file now (with secure file deletion, no less). ;D

Best regards,

-Javacool

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: javacool link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=30#40712 date=1042143845]
Just to add, I'm using MRU-Blaster to clean my index.dat file now (with secure file deletion, no less). ;D

Best regards,

-Javacool
" }- MRU-Blaster. Hmmmm. I think I've heard of that. It's supposed to be really good. I probably should go check it out. Thanks, Javacool guy.
;)

[controler]

I sure didn't know MRU-Blaster deleted the Index.DAT file either.
I am going to give it a try also.
Javacool builds nice stuff ;)

Thanks

Javacool

[javacool]

-{ Quote: " quoting: controler link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=30#40794 date=1042165890]
I sure didn't know MRU-Blaster deleted the Index.DAT file either.
I am going to give it a try also.
Javacool builds nice stuff ;)

Thanks

Javacool
" }-

Thanks for the compliment! ;D

The functionality was just included as part of the new plug-ins (in the version 1.5 of MRU-Blaster released today). 8) If you enable the IE Temporary Internet File Cleaner plug-in, it will delete that index.dat file on reboot after you clean in MRU-Blaster (the separate file that enables this deletion deletes the index.dat file with a 2-pass wipe). The Cookie-Blaster plug-in will also set-up deletion of the cookies folder index.dat file on reboot. And you can easily run both plug-ins and both index.dat files will be wiped.

Of course, MRU-Blaster still functions perfectly if you decide not to use either of the plug-ins (and they are disabled by default).

Best regards,

-Javacool

[solarpowered candle]

Cool thankz Javacool

[luv2bsecure]

Javacool gave me the opportunity to help test the new plug-ins and I have to say - very impressive. We put it to the test, through the wringer so-to-speak with various file recovery methods and the new MRU-Blaster plugins do a superb job --- it does exactly what it claims to do.

Excellent software!

John
Luv2BSecure

[sk]

Thanks for the update, John. It sounds really exciting!
:)
sk

[Tassie_Devils]

-{ Quote: " quoting: luv2bsecure link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=45#40834 date=1042171668]
Javacool gave me the opportunity to help test the new plug-ins and I have to say - very impressive. We put it to the test, through the wringer so-to-speak with various file recovery methods and the new MRU-Blaster plugins do a superb job --- it does exactly what it claims to do.

Excellent software!

John
Luv2BSecure
" }-Yep, I got it yesterday and it sure works. NOW, I can do all the particular file cleaning I needed with MRUBlaster/Plug-Ins without having to open my other cleaner to delete the Index.dat file. Great.
Cheers.

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: javacool link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=30#40803 date=1042167355] The functionality was just included as part of the new plug-ins (in the version 1.5 of MRU-Blaster released today). 8) If you enable the IE Temporary Internet File Cleaner plug-in, it will delete that index.dat file on reboot after you clean in MRU-Blaster (the separate file that enables this deletion deletes the index.dat file with a 2-pass wipe). The Cookie-Blaster plug-in will also set-up deletion of the cookies folder index.dat file on reboot. And you can easily run both plug-ins and both index.dat files will be wiped. Of course, MRU-Blaster still functions perfectly if you decide not to use either of the plug-ins (and they are disabled by default). Best regards, -Javacool" }- Okay, Javacool. This is jogging my memory back maybe a little too far, but if I'm not mistaken, I seem to recall reading - either on the Spider site or the Eraser site - that MS was so insidious with its .dat files that even after you clear the index.dat files for cookies, history, TIF, there is STILL the matter of the system.dat, and user.dat files, that, again, if I'm not mistaken, are NOT as amenable to cleaning, and which still contain tons of redundant information. And that with those files, if you delete them they reappear from a cache .cab file possibly, or something to that effect.

As I said, I'm kind of fuzzy on this because it's been years since I've read it, but at the same time some parts of that really stick out, because I remember thinking at the time: "Man, this is pretty evil stuff by design here". So since the focus here is privacy I just wanted to make sure there weren't any false senses of privacy/security floating around, given the formidable obstacles MS placed in everyone's way. And I figured if anyone would know the inside/out scoop, it would be you.

sk

[javacool]

-{ Quote: " quoting: sk link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=45#41079 date=1042252300]
Okay, Javacool. This is jogging my memory back maybe a little too far, but if I'm not mistaken, I seem to recall reading - either on the Spider site or the Eraser site - that MS was so insidious with its .dat files that even after you clear the index.dat files for cookies, history, TIF, there is STILL the matter of the system.dat, and user.dat files, that, again, if I'm not mistaken, are NOT as amenable to cleaning, and which still contain tons of redundant information. And that with those files, if you delete them they reappear from a cache .cab file possibly, or something to that effect. " }-

Those files actually store your registry and other computer hardware related information - but there is an issue with them.

When you delete an item in the registry, the files that store the registry on disk actually don't get smaller in Windows 9x - where data used to be is simply overwritten with garbage. There's a process called "compacting your registry" which can be used to re-build clean and smaller registry files, but it is NOT recommended unless the user has manually edited the registry before.

-{ Quote: "As I said, I'm kind of fuzzy on this because it's been years since I've read it, but at the same time some parts of that really stick out, because I remember thinking at the time: "Man, this is pretty evil stuff by design here". So since the focus here is privacy I just wanted to make sure there weren't any false senses of privacy/security floating around, given the formidable obstacles MS placed in everyone's way. And I figured if anyone would know the inside/out scoop, it would be you.

sk
" }-

If you clean the index.dat files, you get rid of one of the most dangerous information-stores in Windows. While the system.dat and user.dat files *may* store some additional information, they DO store registry and computer hardware information (some versions of Windows use even more files than just the two you mentioned). I recommend that no one goes messing with those files (in fact on Windows NT, 2000, and XP, the system does not allow you to directly manipulate those files).

I'm going to take a closer look at them on a Windows ME system, but it may take a while to comb through all the data.

Best regards,

-Javacool

[sk]

To Javacool:

What's bubbling up as I read what you wrote is that absolutely, the system and user .dat files have a bunch of registry stuff. But think about that for a second: The REGISTRY STUFF they have IS a lot of the MRU types of things. The registry is loaded with stuff like that. And supposedly, when you bust open the system and user data files, it ALL comes gushing out like a split coconut. :-\

And again, it depends what level of security/privacy you're talking about. If you're talking about wiping drives 41 times so data can't be recovered, for example, then something sitting there as ripe as a system or user data file suddenly becomes quite a different matter, especially if one is thinking that one's privacy has already been secured. What I'm recalling now is an account of someone's utter amazement that stuff from YEARS ago had suddenly come back to life via the good old system and user files. Almost like my reaction the first time I ran Directory Snoop; I just looked at the 5,000 or so red lettered smoking gun trail of every site, pic, mpg, vid, you name it, that I had ever surfed on that computer - my work laptop computer, btw - and my jaw just dropped open. Especially since we'd just gotten the memo about what would happen if we were caught using our work laptops for personal use. It would have been pretty hard to justify a lot of those references working for a local department of aging, don't ya think? Yeah. Me too.
:o

I'm sure when you get a chance to take a peek, you'll let us know. Thanks, Javacool. Hope this was helpful.

sk

[javacool]

-{ Quote: " quoting: sk link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=45#41094 date=1042258826]
To Javacool:

What's bubbling up as I read what you wrote is that absolutely, the system and user .dat files have a bunch of registry stuff. But think about that for a second: The REGISTRY STUFF they have IS a lot of the MRU types of things. The registry is loaded with stuff like that. And supposedly, when you bust open the system and user data files, it ALL comes gushing out like a split coconut. :-\

And again, it depends what level of security/privacy you're talking about. If you're talking about wiping drives 41 times so data can't be recovered, for example, then something sitting there as ripe as a system or user data file suddenly becomes quite a different matter, especially if one is thinking that one's privacy has already been secured. What I'm recalling now is an account of someone's utter amazement that stuff from YEARS ago had suddenly come back to life via the good old system and user files. Almost like my reaction the first time I ran Directory Snoop; I just looked at the 5,000 or so red lettered smoking gun trail of ever site, pic, mpg, vid, you name it, that I had ever surfed on that computer - my work laptop computer, btw - and my jaw just dropped open. Especially since we'd just gotten the memo about what would happen if we were caught using our work laptops for personal use. It would have been pretty hard to justify a lot of those references working in a local department of aging, don't ya think? Yeah. Me too.
:o

I'm sure when you get a chance to take a peek, you'll let us know. Thanks, Javacool. Hope this was helpful.

sk
" }-

Supposedly, the behavior of Windows is to overwrite deleted items with garbage data in those files (it doesn't actually free up any space in those files when you delete items in the registry, at least in Windows 9x - who knows why ::)). Again, I'll have to try to verify this when I get time.

Best regards,

-Javacool

[Jason Berry]

sk: There is not the registry and then two files that are storing registry information in some sneaky way.
user.dat and system.dat IS THE REGISTRY.

[sk]

I know you will, Javacool. And again, I might be mistaken, because not only was it a long time ago, but it was an area about which all I knew was what I was reading then and there, but I could almost swear I remember something about the infamous 'backup registry' files in 98SE, in the backup cab file. And if something got mucked up with the system or user data files, it went and pulled the next ones in line from that cab file. I don't want to send you on any wild goose chases, but in the event that I'm even halfway in the ball park, I figured I'd share it with you. I just wish I could give you more specifics; but I don't think it's a dead end, either.

sk

[sk]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Jason Berry link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=45#41099 date=1042259943]
sk: There is not the registry and then two files that are storing registry information in some sneaky way.
user.dat and system.dat IS THE REGISTRY.
" }-Okay. That clears that up. Well, then, if one clears out the index.dat files, but does nothing whatsoever to/with the actual registry files, doesn't the registry contain all the MRU information, regardless of whether or not it gets deleted in the cookies and TIF and history and recent docs data files? At least some of that information remains in the registry, doesn't it?

And that goes to what I just posted as well. If you have backups of the registry in the backup cab file, at least in 98SE, it'll just draw it from there. I think one of the attempts to pull this off was to nuke the original registry files, and have a bland, 'clean' registry file in the cab file, so that if/when Windows drew that as a replacement, you'd have solved the problem. But I'm not sure it worked all that smoothly; although that just might have been 'the' fix, now that I think about it.

sk

[javacool]

-{ Quote: " quoting: sk link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=45#41102 date=1042260316]
-{ Quote: " quoting: Jason Berry link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=45#41099 date=1042259943]
sk: There is not the registry and then two files that are storing registry information in some sneaky way.
user.dat and system.dat IS THE REGISTRY.
" }-Okay. That clears that up. Well, then, if one clears out the index.dat files, but does nothing whatsoever to/with the actual registry files, doesn't the registry contain all the MRU information, regardless of whether or not it gets deleted in the cookies and TIF and history and recent docs data files? At least some of that information remains in the registry, doesn't it? " }-

Technically, it shouldn't - Windows should be overwriting the space where registry information was once stored with garbage data once it is deleted. Registry MRU items that you deleted should be gone and overwritten with garbage data. And file-based TIF, cookies, recent docs, etc aren't stored in those files - not even in just link form.

-{ Quote: "And that goes to what I just posted as well. If you have backups of the registry in the backup cab file, at least in 98SE, it'll just draw it from there. I think one of the attempts to pull this off was to nuke the original registry files, and have a bland, 'clean' registry file in the cab file, so that if/when Windows drew that as a replacement, you'd have solved the problem. But I'm not sure it worked all that smoothly; although that just might have been 'the' fix, now that I think about it.

sk
" }-

That does sound very possible, although I'm not sure which machine I want to sacrifice today to test it. ;)

Best regards,

-Javacool

[sk]

Well, whichever one you choose, we all know it will have gone down for a good cause! ;D (What the heck; just make a full image b/u and let er fly!)

As an aside, Javacool. If in fact this actually turns into something significant, is there a way you can then build in a fix directly into one of your existing programs? Or is this something that would take a new program to counter. Again, to the best of my recollection, I think this was the point where the Spider or the Eraser author said there was just nothing more that either he or his program could do. The system and user .dat files were just too problematic. I know it had to be something like that because I remember thinking: Well, then what was the point of clearing out the first ones if these still were such a bear. And I think that's when I d/l'd some text editor and went into those reg files and it was like the first time I looked into Directory Snoops list. I think the gist of his final parting message was: "Don't count on either privacy or anonymity when you surf the net."

sk

[javacool]

-{ Quote: " quoting: sk link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=45#41106 date=1042261806]
Well, whichever one you choose, we all know it will have gone down for a good cause! ;D (What the heck; just make a full image b/u and let er fly!)

As an aside, Javacool. If in fact this actually turns into something significant, is there a way you can then build in a fix directly into one of your existing programs? Or is this something that would take a new program to counter. Again, to the best of my recollection, I think this was the point where the Spider or the Eraser author said there was just nothing more that either he or his program could do. The system and user .dat files were just too problematic. I know it had to be something like that because I remember thinking: Well, then what was the point of clearing out the first ones if these still were such a bear. And I think that's when I d/l'd some text editor and went into those reg files and it was like the first time I looked into Directory Snoops list. I think the gist of his final parting message was: "Don't count on either privacy or anonymity when you surf the net."

sk
" }-

IF I would build some sort of user.dat/system.dat cleaning/compression functionality, it would probably be in a separate "test" program (where the possible risks would be clearly marked - i.e. for advanced users only), because I am also finding them a lot of trouble to do much with (especially between different versions of Windows). :-\

It doesn't sound like the cleaning/compression of those files will ever be a functionality built-into MRU-Blaster, if that's what you are asking. But there is much more coming for that program. ;D

Best regards,

-Javacool

[sk]

So, Javacool, first of all thanks for checking and getting back with your update. Second, however: The $64,000 question now becomes: Without the current ability to do much about the registry .dat files, what is the bottom-line impact on any Windows user's real world privacy, given the inherent nature of the those files?

sk

[javacool]

-{ Quote: " quoting: sk link=board=20;threadid=5844;start=45#41401 date=1042338231]
So, Javacool, first of all thanks for checking and getting back with your update. Second, however: The $64,000 question now becomes: Without the current ability to do much about the registry .dat files, what is the bottom-line impact on any Windows user's real world privacy, given the inherent nature of the those files?

sk
" }-

Given that, IMHO, there will never be 100% privacy on a Windows system - very little (if those files do contain deleted data that somehow wasn't overwritten with random data and someone were to delete them, there is probably just another mechanism in Windows that stores the same or even worse data that we don't know about or that simply cannot be messed with).

System logs, MRUs, etc that some consider to be a privacy issue can also be very useful to another person. It's all a trade-off, but there are ways we can reduce the amount of information our computers store without a significant loss of functionality, and thus increase the level of privacy our PCs provide. Programs like MRU-Blaster, that delete the major usage tracks, can help tremendously in this regard.

The only way to truly "clean" your computer is to wipe the whole hard drive with a 20+ pass DoD standard wipe and then punch 1 inch diameter holes in random places on the physical disk (and even then, there's always the possibility that some new technique could manage to resurrect a small amount of data - to make sure, run over the hard drive with a car a couple of times after doing the above steps). Of course, you'll be missing an important component of your computer then.

Best regards,

-Javacool

[sk]

Don't forget nuking CD's in the microwave too.
8) ;D
But seriously, given the low level structure(s) involved here, is this really a browser issue, or an OS issue. (This is obviously one of the old issues between just HOW intertwined the browser and OS are in a Windows environment.) My question is: Is this an instance where another browser WOULD significantly make a difference, or, because it's so entwined with the registry, would you literally have to switch to a completely different OS in order to avoid these types of problems? And do other OS's have their OWN peculiar security risks? Just some things to think about.

sk