Quote:
Originally Posted by SelfProtection
Since Port 8080 is also a recognized Web Server Port I would assume that Phorm may well also try to remove any such cookie from this Port as or when the their system is tested.
It might be wise to test on other ports as well!
|
They can't win (or be allowed to win)
They damn themselves if they do; let me explain why.
And so I move to 8088. And they start fiddling that about too. So I move to 8083. Or 7080. Or 6080. Today's value is 4080. Tomorrow will be 2080.
These guys haven't got a hope. So they start reading all traffic to try and suppress their leaking cookies? I can rewrite their cookie client side as '2008-05-11=PETESf4frjesa23a$FsVmH44e||COPY". Today. Tomorrow I'll write it as 'PETES=2008-05-11COPYf4frjesa23a$FsVmH44e||". Day after I apply a ROT13 algorithm. Day after that I split it, and join first x chars to last y chars.
And even if, they filter all traffic, all ports, accurately remove only their UIDs. including the rewritten and encoded copies I try to make.
Guess what?
I sue them anyway using the evidence of BT/Virgin/TalkTalk visits. And they can dispute the bill on the basis of their actual usage (which I will compare with the stats they give advertisers saying "99% of our customers are signed up to Phorm").
They won't escape the royalty bill. Particularly so if I can show they are maliciously concealing the usage to avoid the liabilty. That will look very silly in court. "Are you trying to conceal your usage?" "Err yes" "Scorched earth on your house".
They really are screwed (in the engineering fasteners sense) by copyright. Utterly screwed. They might not realise it yet, but without a doubt, they're screwed.
Pete.