Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildie
found it i think
<snip>
i found at least 3 ref to allow you to block cookies but how can they say they not intercepting cos they must have to read the state of the cookie or lack off em to find out if you in or out so bang goes the pass through not looked at if they looking for cookies or lack off before you can surf.
|
Blocking cookies from www .webwise .net is just a 'con' - it just demonstrates a fall-over feature of the script, the same fall-over is used for the 'black box' being too busy: if it does not get a response from www. webwise. net it passes the data stream back to the original url request. However, it has still been intercepted - just passed down a different decision path. No mention of the effect on the forged domain cookies.
You forgot the most effective method - the hosts file!!!!! When that blocks, it is blocked.
Using the hosts file does speed up your surfing for so many reasons - the browser is not having to run its cookie decision routine and the server is not having to make requests to the internet for content that will be rejected by the browser.
For *nix users including Macs the hosts file is in the /etc directory. It is in different places on Windows machines - just search for a file called hosts [note: there is no dot and no extension]
Every host file comes with instructions, basically along these lines. Edit with a text editor (NotePad is ok - not WordPad). Save a backup before you start editing. Add the following:
Code:
www.webwise.net 127.0.0.1
www.webwise.com 127.0.0.1
bt.webwise.com 127.0.0.1
www.oix.com 127.0.0.1
webwise.bt.com 127.0.0.1
etc
for each webwise, phorm and oix domain
Check that the saved file has not had .txt added as an extension by the text editor - rename as necessary, it must be
hosts or it will not work.
This is the block which prevents any surfing on a phormed connection. The claim is that the final version will not cause surfing to be blocked by this method [that means that the final version will be using a 'trusted' domain for the 307 redirects] so a full technical analysis becomes very important, if this is the case. (Or, will the intercept be running its own 'traceroute' from your computer to detect hosts blocks?)