Internet history

Discussion in 'privacy problems' started by TheModernAge, Mar 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheModernAge

    TheModernAge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Posts:
    2
    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
     
  2. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    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.
     
  3. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    Are you able to download some new history cleaner if you do not have access to the admin account?
     
  4. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    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.
     
  5. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    Of course, if you can boot from a Live CD, nothing is kept:)
     
  6. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     
  7. Rmus

    Rmus Exploit Analyst

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    3,943
    Location:
    California
    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
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2007
  8. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    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
     
  9. TheModernAge

    TheModernAge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Posts:
    2
    How would you go about booting from a live CD?


    BTW thanks for all the posts.
     
  10. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    One question: spy1's comment is pertinent. What computer are you using?
     
  11. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     
  12. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    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
     
  13. Genady Prishnikov

    Genady Prishnikov Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    That's about the sum of it. Well said, Pete.
     
  14. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2007
  15. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    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
     
  16. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    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
     
  17. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    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.
     
  18. pugmug

    pugmug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    413
    Let's see.Person with 2 post at this time and with no admin.account.It does not take rocket science.
     
  19. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    Got me there pugmug...
     
  20. pugmug

    pugmug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    413
    Lol,was not out to get anyone, Someone.Just using logic,call me Spock.Lol.
     
  21. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     
  22. pugmug

    pugmug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    413
    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?
     
  23. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    824
    Location:
    United States
    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.
     
  24. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
  25. zcv

    zcv Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Posts:
    355
    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.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.