Broadband Tech > Security > Security > Web Bugs - Block em...

Web Bugs - Block em...

quote:

---

Intelytics Personal Sentinel monitors Internet surfing activity for web bugs and graphically displays the real time privacy risk level of each website visited. It filters undesirable content and online advertisements, as well as removes privacy threats from your system.

---

Was a thread here in Feb that discusses Hosts file »Another Privacy Issue, Web Bugs a long read but it is free with a little work, and works with no system resources burned up.
--
Voted lately? Vote DSLReports UP

reply to QuaffAPint
That Hostfille works great too. I've been useing it for 3 weeks now and not a problem one.

If I recall I believe Rxdoxx poited me to that thread
--
Never give up!

reply to Rxdoxx
Yea, after my initial poking around with it, it appears to do the same thing as a hosts file. You basically give it a list of what to filter out.

A more general question I have is - what are the carriers of web bugs, and is it something that will simply be deleted when you empty your Temp Internet Files..?

Thanks...
QuaffAPint
--
»clippersoft.hypermart.net - Home of Clip On Boots - Play MP3s at StartUp

Web Bugs, IIRC, are little 1x1 images, usually the same as the background color or transparent, that plant cookies on your system without your knowledge.
--
The only value an Opinion has is the one You give it.

reply to QuaffAPint
If these folks at Intelytics aren't blowing smoke then our security headaches have just gone through the roof!!

from the Intelytics site

" Among the actions of which it is capable, the web bug can see which pages were
recently visited by a Net surfer; it can also recover the electronic addresses
preserved in e-mail software and transmit them discretely to a third party.
Lastly, when a Net surfer sends a response by e-mail, the web bug is able to
send a copy of this message to a party unknown by the user.

In fact, anything is possible with a web bug. It can locate, on the user's
computer, all the user's passwords, including his confidential financial
information. The web bug can even destroy the cookies which could have
revealed the site from which the web bug originated. More serious still, it can
destroy files, deteriorate information (for example, the contents of an electronic
message or a commercial proposal), and even destroy all the files on the PC.

"It functions like a virus", summarizes Richard Smith, Data-Processing Director
of Privacy Foundation."

Quaff, -how is it on system resources?
-is this a proxy type service-their site devotes little space to how it works? and took me a while to see that it is indeed free. Maybe its my eyesight.

reply to QuaffAPint
Thanks for the link Quaff, I have been looking for something to block web bugs.
I just downloaded the file but have not yet installed it.
Does it use a lot of resources?
What do you think of the program?

I am not using the hosts file so I can't compare.
Instead I am adding the scum of the internet (Doubleclick etc)to my Restricted Sites,
and have Cookies disabled.
I think this accomplishes the same results as a host
file, and may allow me to access sites that a host
file would'nt (I might be wrong here, don't know for sure).

reply to QuaffAPint
Take a look here for an eye-popping list of types and numbers of web bugs on sites like yahoo, zdnet, excite.
»www.securityspace.com/s_survey/d···fic.html (actually the whole site is good) here is another link there »www.securityspace.com/s_survey/d···ite.html
Yes, they should be deleted when you clean up, but the information on you (especially if you have a static IP) has been collected elsewhere

techbc, good info, and true!

JoeyT, restricted sites isn't quite going to do it. What that does is sets restrictions on them but doesn't block them. When I had doubleclick in restricted sites I still could go there. Not anymore with hosts, I get page cannot be displayed error if I try, and little page cannot be displayed errors on other loaded web pages in the boxes/areas that are set for the ads Redirects take place before cookies and even before the web page fully loads. DadGumIt I can't add an attachment without losing all this typing so I'll post it next. The picture will show my back drop down menu. And you can notice one page cannot be displayed area (others are cropped) on the page I was visiting. The box also shows the sites that would have loaded and reported my activity (and IP) if hosts was not in place. Notice all of them loaded before the site I was at. Yes disabling/blocking cookies helps (mine were blocked) but web bugs is something a little more sinister than just cookies and restrictions. Hope this helps
--
Voted lately? Vote DSLReports UP

reply to bangaroo

Copy of Flow···nfig.zip 3,192 bytes (Copy of Flowpoint Config.doc)

reply to Rxdoxx
Man,it is tough keeping all these variables straight in my brain!
One moment I think I am set, next moment I break out in cold sweat with paranoia!

This somehow turned into a longer post then intended, but here goes anyway.

How I see it (at this moment!), the host file provides
protection by preventing any/all access to the URL's in the host file.
So this should be a total full proof solution.
The primary downside to the host file is it has to be maintained
and updated with new URL's (how do I know if I have them all, and
could too many eventually hurt system performance?).

With or without a host file, I still have to be concerned about the IE Security Settings such as,
Cookies
Java
Scripts
Active X
Plug Ins
User Persistence

Since I have most of the above disabled (some are prompt),
I think I am protected (if I am careful with prompts).

The last 2 exposures I can think of (excluding Viruses/Spyware) are:
IP address - tracking across multiple sites
Web Bugs - ??

Since I have a dynamic IP address, and cookies disabled, I don't need to worry about my "foot print"
being tracked over multiple sites and somehow matched with my Email address/name.

That leaves Web Bugs. I need to plug this hole.

I am not trying to start a debate on pluses/minuses of host files, security settings, etc.
Everyone is going to have their preferences and different comfort levels.
All I am trying to accomplish is to ensure I know all my exposures and implement a
method to minimize/prevent my exposures from being exploited.

reply to QuaffAPint
Cool info. I'll have to give it a shot. What I use now for web bugs, and other things, is Web Washer. Has done the job very well.

I eagerly await for someone to tell us about its efficacy.

System resource drain?
Is it a proxy type arrangement?
Or is it a filter like ZA?

reply to bangaroo
Quote "How I see it (at this moment!), the host file provides
protection by preventing any/all access to the URL's in the host file.
So this should be a total full proof solution.
The primary downside to the host file is it has to be maintained
and updated with new URL's (how do I know if I have them all, and
could too many eventually hurt system performance?)."

Good thoughts. Yes it needs to be maintained, but if you see the size of the hosts file from Martin's site (Win98 users can't open it in notepad-too big, but WinMe users can) here is a link to start at gorilla's site »www.accs-net.com/hosts/
I have added a couple of sites, especially the European ones that some Seti links take me to (just have to view the source code of the ad and enter it in to block it).
Unfortunately Martin is away for maybe a year so no updates are coming from there, but he has given us an incredible running start, and so far all US sites seem blocked.
You asked on memory usage? As far as I know, none! It is simple a file that your computer goes to to look for a numeric address for the www entries and if it finds the address there, doesn't have to go out to the internet to search for it. I have heard that putting the hosts file in the order you hit the most frequent sites for you will help a little, but that is a lot of tracking and work and not really worth my time for me.
What you will notice is that web pages will load faster because you have a lot less to load from certain sites, and if they have rotating ads, it is even nicer for your memory and resources

Thing I have discovered is that hosts.txt is inactive. When you remove the extension and have it as just hosts, then windows will view the file as a folder (even though it will NOT look like a folder with the icon). With the exception of getting my Rwin optimized, Hosts file is the best tweak I have ever done to my system.
Head hurt yet Joey? How about vbs? Go here »Virus/VBS I thing R2 has plugged a hole for me since I have some little vbs programs that I use. Script Sentry looks like another worry free winner for me.
--
Voted lately? Vote DSLReports UP
[text was edited by author 2001-05-12 14:48:26]

reply to Zhen-Xjell
Zhen and techbc,
I just tried out Personal Sentinel and WebWasher and the big shortcomings of both programs
is they do not provide any idea if/when or how many web bugs they are stopping.
There is no log or anything. You have to trust that the web bugs are being stopped.
So for now, I don't really feel secure/trusting these programs are stopping web bugs.
Neither program has integrated a Email Web Bug solution.
Personal requires another program, and Web Washer provides a button to work offline before opening mail.

Neither program passed this Web Bug test.
A Web Bug can be imbedded in programs and operate like spyware.
»www.privacycenter.du.edu/demos/bugged.html

Personal Sentinel
On a scale of 1-10 (10 best) I would give it a 2.
Besides the shortcomings below, I can't really tell what is going on and what the program is doing.
Resource use is only 1%-2% when sitting idle.
Interface is awful. All you get is a little green/yellow/red "Privacy Risk" status bar which is not
explained clearly.
Preference adjustments are minimal but simple/easy to follow.
Documentation is terrible - there is a button "Clean Bugs" that needs to be clicked, but no explanation of
what is happening before/after.

WebWasher
Scale of 1-10, overall I give it a 8.
However, for Web Bug reporting/understanding I give it 0.
Resources - 10% on my machine. A real resource hog.
Preferences - Very good. Tons of options/flexibility, but with it a lot bigger learning curve.
Features - Stops Referal, Change Browser ID info, great cookie control. Rate WebWasher a 10 here.
Documentation - very good.
[text was edited by author 2001-05-12 20:02:11]

reply to QuaffAPint
Well, I can't seem to get hosts working correctly on my 98 notebook - I had it working just fine on my NT machine that died (if you remember that incident - and I have never heard back from them either )

But with my 98 machine, even though I have the hosts file there - and there is no "txt" extension on it at all, I am not sure I have done things right. The original hosts file had a ".sam" extension and was a SAM file, but the new one never shows that it is a SAM file. I really don't know what I am doing wrong. . . . . .

The hosts file has no extension. Go to your DOS screen and check that it has none. Please check the directory of your hosts file on Win98, it must be in c:\windows.

reply to Rxdoxx
Rxdoxx,

If you don't want to see the ugly 404s splattered all over your webpages, EDexter is a cool little util. It acts as a little, local web server. Any links that are directed to localhost in the hosts file are picked up by Edexter and the 404s are replaced with tiny little images (a little purple bar and white space). Makes everything a bit more pleasing on the eye .

»www.edexter.com

reply to bangaroo

Personal Sentinel - Web Bugs - Block em...

reply to Anon

Re: Web Bugs - Block em...

reply to QuaffAPint
Looks interesting and promising. Installed it today. Can't wait to see how it performs. Just from reading the material and site info, looks like this has the potential to be a valuable security tool.

Thanks for the link QuaffAPint.
--
BuggSpy