| Pollute the data? Would it be possible to pollute the data by writing a program that, to the NebuAD box, looks like a browser? It could send out tons of bogus HTTP requests that would hide the sites your real browser is looking at by mixing them into the flood of packets. If enough users ran it, it would make the NebuAD data absolutely worthless.
If I were a programmer, I'd write it, but since I'm not, maybe someone out there could give it a shot. Call it SurfGuard, and every user out there would want it, even if they didn't know exactly what it did. |
|
 birdfeedrPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:5 | said by ISurfTooMuch:Would it be possible to pollute the data by writing a program that, to the NebuAD box, looks like a browser? Here you go. It will increase traffic on your connection, but ambiguous tracking data will come from it. So screw the NebuAd trackers. Now that's a P2P file to share: your anti-phorm database. 
You'll want to watch your cookies settings, of course. So, NebuAd comes along and recognizes the signs of Anti-phorm browsing and disregards that traffic. Anti=phorm gets a little more sophisticated. It's still cat-and-mouse.
Karl needs to keep talking to the technicians at the ISPs to stay posted on real defenses. |
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | reply to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch:Would it be possible to pollute the data by writing a program that, to the NebuAD box, looks like a browser? It could send out tons of bogus HTTP requests that would hide the sites your real browser is looking at by mixing them into the flood of packets. If enough users ran it, it would make the NebuAD data absolutely worthless. If I were a programmer, I'd write it, but since I'm not, maybe someone out there could give it a shot. Call it SurfGuard, and every user out there would want it, even if they didn't know exactly what it did. Another one I just created here: »wanip.org/anti-nebuad/
This one relies on the client, so short of them blocking the domain, they can't really do much to stop this one. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to ISurfTooMuch
I am starting to wonder if they have not considered this. IF they install the bandwidth caps (some have said as little as 20gb/month), this constant loading of "random data" might be enough to shove a user over the usage limit (so the ISP can collect extra $$). |
|
knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by Lazlow:I am starting to wonder if they have not considered this. IF they install the bandwidth caps (some have said as little as 20gb/month), this constant loading of "random data" might be enough to shove a user over the usage limit (so the ISP can collect extra $$). Very possible, but depending on the settings (load fake sites or real ones), how often you refresh will determine that. Just load up the task manager and watch the bandwidth counter. Do a before and after comparison (maybe after 15 minutes of run time) to see. Or even an hour. 20 gb of websites, is a loooooot of websites especially when you are just visiting the first page and then moving on afterwards. The refresh times probably don't even give enough time to do a full page load before it moves to the next now that I think about it. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | knightmb
You are assuming all they do is web browse. Add security updates, some legal music, some legal video, and the extra load MAY be enough to put one over the top.
My 73 year old neighbor (she was 70 when FC4 first came out) uses more than 30gb a month. She video phones each of the grandkids a couple of times per week. I use a lot more than that. |
|
knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by Lazlow:knightmb You are assuming all they do is web browse. Add security updates, some legal music, some legal video, and the extra load MAY be enough to put one over the top. My 73 year old neighbor (she was 70 when FC4 first came out) uses more than 30gb a month. She video phones each of the grandkids a couple of times per week. I use a lot more than that. In regards to the data polluting site I created, all is "HTTP" request and data. It doesn't produce traffic similar to what you are referring to.
Here's a metric that might help. I tested using the 3 second default refresh with the "mix with real sites" option so that every now and then it hits a real site (which greatly raises the bandwidth usage)
Here were the stats of my test (1 Hour test), YMMV of course
21.78 MB per Hour - 1,200 sites
Calculated (24/7 runtime): 522.72 MB per Day - 28,800 sites
Calculated (24/7 runtime): 15,681.6 MB per Month (30 days) - 864,000 sites |
|
