Broadband Tech > Security > Security > WebWasher the BIG Test

WebWasher the BIG Test

Thanks Ethics13 for the test last night. The more members we have testing WW, the better evidence we have to show to the development team.

Now, here are some hard questions.

For instance, if you have a direct connection to the Net, cable or DSL without any proxy, the WebWasher site has this to say:

I have a direct Internet connection. My provider says that I should not switch to manual proxy configuration and that, if I do, I will no longer be able to get a connection to the Internet. Is WebWasher not compatible with my provider?
A: WebWasher should be compatible with all providers. If a direct Internet connection is specified in your browser, switch to manual proxy configuration and enter "127.0.0.1" for HTTP and "8080" for the port. WebWasher is a local proxy server on your computer that can set up a direct connection to the Internet.

Please check if you have this enabled. I do, and I myself have run the BIG test (no puns intended)... I did not receive all those cookies, or pop-up windows.

If you are testing without this proxy information, then WW is not going to stop anything.

What nutra and I have been working on is... with the proxy-server information configured, there are still certain cookies that get through the BAD setting. Why is this? WebWasher has not answered.

IMHO, customer service is everything. AVG may not have caught a well known virus, and their web site anti-virus database is non-existent, but I support AVG more today than last week because of their quick and honest responses (#1 & #2).

To date, I have only received two replies from the WW team. Only one has been posted here yet. I am starting to get the sense that their customer support is somewhat lacking when compared to a company like Grisoft.

This is truly enigmatic. Because WW appears to be working, yet when tested on certain sites, BAD cookies are getting through.

Another issue is the setting of neutral cookies to a user-determined expiry period. WW does not appear to be setting it at all. Although, in the link right above this comment, WW Support claims this thing works.

But how? For that, I'm swill awaiting a response.

Just remember, it may be prudent to set the proxy information for HTTP, Secure (HTTPS), and for others, if you like such as FTP. But really, the concern here is for HTTP and HTTPS.

I hope this clears up any ambiguities.

reply to ethics$
Porn sites tend to be great spots for firewall and spyware app testing. Load testing, too, because they are among the most over built sites on the web... nothing wrong with this approach. In fact, I have a sense that you're more likely to find something "in the wild" at the porns than at the cracker sites. That's not always an unscrupulous operator, either. They are the world champion copyright thieves, and a lot of 'em download stuff willy nilly from their competitors, and aren't the most articulate practitioners of good security practices, themselves... you did cover your eyes, right? --- some of that stuff is just plain disgusting in the most objective analysis! Don't try this one right after lunch, gang! Still, it is a great "frontier" for trying out a new virtual sixgun...

Cracker sites are a lot more subtle. Last thing some script kiddie wants to do is accidentally screw around with a real cracker; you just don't want to make a real cracker angry - you wouldn't like a real cracker when he's angry... hehe... so you probably have better sense than to run a honeypot server "for crackers" to attract victims. No, you would want to appear to be distributing music, porn, warez... something that would draw in a victim by curiousity. Just a tip... when you troll for cracks, be vewy, vewy caweful... 'cause when you hunt bear, you should never be surprised to find a bear... and while staring at a big grizzley with an bad attitude is no time to be suddenly remembering that you forgot to load your rifle...
--
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most times he will pick himself up and carry on. - Sir Winston Churchill

reply to ethics$
Needless to say, WW has not responded to these additional questions. That does not make me a particularly satisfied user (even though the application is free).

Just like ZA, if service delivered successfully and the product offers an average solution, I will support the company and purchase the software.

But if their support team continues in this fashion with almost no coherent response, I will lose web washer and no longer pitch it to anyone.

My 2¢.

reply to gwion
gwion,

Some SUPERB advice there.

I thank you. Although, I knew most of it from BAD experience in the past (yes, I've found a bear or two ) it never hurts to re-iterate that info.
--
Folding can save a life!

reply to ethics$
Great news!

Weibke from the WebWasher support crew just replied back to me after reading about our concerns. Here are the replies, and we can now put to bed some of the issues:

thank you very much for the URL. We will have a look at the forum and compare it with our bug database.

the solution for the discussion in your forum is that WebWasher cannot filter HTTPS sites and thus no HTTPs cookies. Meta tag cookies cannot be filtered yet either but this function will be implemented in the following version.

Once this application comes out with an enhanced version, I for one will test it again. Since technology is always evolving, one cannot stay "stale". That is one reason why I left NAV 2001 and subscribed to the likes of AVG and IPE.

However, a member of TDS-3 pointed out that while using WW, one can set IE to prompt for cookies. Hence, whatever WW does not catch, IE will. Now that is a wonderful idea.

A personal thanks to the WW support team. They had me worried for a brief moment since I was not receiving any replies.
--
»All your Smurf are belong to Smurf!
»Ad/Cookie Blocking App Reviews

said by Zhen-Xjell:

---

Great news!
Meta tag cookies cannot be filtered yet either but this function will be implemented in the following version.

---

quote:

---

However, a member of TDS-3 pointed out that while using WW, one can set IE to prompt for cookies. Hence, whatever WW does not catch, IE will. Now that is a wonderful idea.

---

Glad I stayed with IE 5.5. (ducking and running)

reply to ethics$
Well,I was having some problems with WW. I have to say thanks to Z-X. After following some of his advice. I tried WW at many places. Inc Zdnet and yes sorry some porn sites. No ads, No popups, Nothing. Hmmmmm. I will see what happens over the next few days.
:)
--
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

reply to Zhen-Xjell
Many thanks Zhen

quote:

---

the solution for the discussion in your forum is that WebWasher cannot filter HTTPS sites and thus no HTTPs cookies. Meta tag cookies cannot be filtered yet either but this function will be implemented in the following version.

---