Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

It seems pretty clear that BT, VM and 'tother lot have agreed between them that BT will carry out (and, as we know, has already carried out) testing on behalf of all three.

If VM and TalkTalk agreed that BT would do the trials, and if the trials were illegal, then it would seem as if VM and TalkTalk would be in legal difficulty too. I imagine if BT were being prosecuted all on their lonesome, someone might just manage to find the minutes of the meetings involving VM orTalkTalk, that could give them some company in the dock. (That's company in both meanings of the word!)

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Jamie,

I hope you don't mind but I just asked the badphorm admins to suspend the thread temporarily so you can sort this out without people being at risk.

Alexander Hanff

Thanks.

Time to kick the support desk again...

Technical question. If Phorm works by setting cookies with the Webwise UID, is there anything to stop 'Anti-Phorm' web sites (including, hopefully, CF) reading this cookie with client-side script and generating a pop-up warning:-

Warning - you are being Phormed and your 'anonymous' WebWise ID is 123456789ABCDEF

If this works, it should throw some doubt in even non-technical users' minds on the assertion that the ID is anonymous and cannot be tied back to the user.

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by R Jones

If VM and TalkTalk agreed that BT would do the trials, and if the trials were illegal, then it would seem as if VM and TalkTalk would be in legal difficulty too. I imagine if BT were being prosecuted all on their lonesome, someone might just manage to find the minutes of the meetings involving VM orTalkTalk, that could give them some company in the dock. (That's company in both meanings of the word!)

I doubt very much that VM or TT are doing anything other than a 'wait and see'. There would be no way that there would be some collusion as they are all vying for a piece of the same pie with limited ingredients.

For BT to undertake costly trials and then hand this information out to business rivals makes no sense.

I expect it's nothing more than VM saying at board level "hey, let's do nothing until we see if BT get away with their plans, if they do then we can go ahead, if they don't then we can walk away scott free and claim the moral high ground by telling our wonderful customers we won't have that nasty Phorm"

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Technical question. If Phorm works by setting cookies with the Webwise UID, is there anything to stop 'Anti-Phorm' web sites (including, hopefully, CF) reading this cookie with client-side script and generating a pop-up warning:-

Warning - you are being Phormed and your 'anonymous' WebWise ID is 123456789ABCDEF

If this works, it should throw some doubt in even non-technical users' minds on the assertion that the ID is anonymous and cannot be tied back to the user.

As I understand it the website can never see the webwise UID

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

As I understand it the website can never see the webwise UID

Oh but it can...the cookie is only stripped out on http communications. Using SSL you could access the cookie as the Phorm kit won't be able to strip it out.

Alexander Hanff

[Pasanonic]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Oh but it can...the cookie is only stripped out on http communications. Using SSL you could access the cookie as the Phorm kit won't be able to strip it out.

Alexander Hanff

Ah, yes. I can see that now.

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

As I understand it the website can never see the webwise UID

My understanding (but I'm open to correction) is that the webwise UID is stripped off the cookie by the Phorm kit before the page gets back to the web site.

However, if you visit a web site via a Phormed ISP, thus acquiring the Webwise cookie, then subsequently visit that same website via a non-Phormed ISP, thus bypassing the cookie-stripper, the web site will get the UID. However, what I was suggesting is that the web site uses client-side script to read the UID AT THE CLIENT END. It can then be used to generate a warning, or, if the web site is malicious, to simply copy the UID to a non-Phorm cookie for harvesting by the web server.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Pasanonic

I doubt very much that VM or TT are doing anything other than a 'wait and see'. There would be no way that there would be some collusion as they are all vying for a piece of the same pie with limited ingredients.

For BT to undertake costly trials and then hand this information out to business rivals makes no sense.

I expect it's nothing more than VM saying at board level "hey, let's do nothing until we see if BT get away with their plans, if they do then we can go ahead, if they don't then we can walk away scott free and claim the moral high ground by telling our wonderful customers we won't have that nasty Phorm"

That's why I used the "if" word. And so much of what BT have done so far doesn't make sense that I have totally given up using "sense" as a criteria for judging their actions. Kent Ertugrul has been dragging them round the PR field by their ankles and they are STILL going along with it. He releases information when he wants to and lands them in a PR mess, he makes bold and dubious claims which they have to justify to their customers, he jerks them up and down on his string, and they just take it.

[jelv]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Technical question. If Phorm works by setting cookies with the Webwise UID, is there anything to stop 'Anti-Phorm' web sites (including, hopefully, CF) reading this cookie with client-side script and generating a pop-up warning:-

Warning - you are being Phormed and your 'anonymous' WebWise ID is 123456789ABCDEF

If this works, it should throw some doubt in even non-technical users' minds on the assertion that the ID is anonymous and cannot be tied back to the user.

Yes you can - have a look at http://www.dephormation.org.uk/web_m...ipt%20Tripwire

[lucevans]

Originally Posted by popper

Its a trojan disguised as a codec and drops quietly and happily into
your system through Media Player (unless you are one of the few
cautious types who set it to choose "Don't download codecs without
bloody asking me first!"). For the OP this means a couple of things.

1. Your PC is now infected and has been recruited into a botnet.
2. Your website is infecting other PCs every time one visits it.
3. Your PC is now being used by a - probably criminal - gang.
4. The hard one - you know about it, so you are responsible.

In essence, this means fix the website, or you could be sued. Clean
your PC, or you could be sued. Report the hacking to your hosting
provider, or you could be sued. Report it to your local or national
police, or - worst of all - you could be charged as an accessory to
the criminal activity probably now going on with your PC and with all
your website visitors. Yes, this is serious. You need to deal with it."

What's the story with Captain's video links? Can anyone confirm that it has been hacked and what's it downloading? Does it affect only Windows users, or are Linux and Mac people vulnerable as well? Sod's law...I had just clicked the link and started to listen to the videos whilst cathing-up with reading threads here

[CaptJamieHunter]

Originally Posted by lucevans

What's the story with Captain's video links? Can anyone confirm that it has been hacked and what's it downloading? Does it affect only Windows users, or are Linux and Mac people vulnerable as well? Sod's law...I had just clicked the link and started to listen to the videos whilst cathing-up with reading threads here

The site has been hacked and a script added to the end of the page. I'm a Linux user here so I haven't seen this at all. As soon as the hosting company's support desk confirm that access has been restored then the hacked page will be deleted and the original one restored.

The Divshare videos are still there for now:

Simon's introduction to the meeting
Divshare 1: http://www.divshare.com/download/4272837-af5
Divshare 2: http://www.divshare.com/download/4277045-b75

Kent's presentation
Divshare 1: http://www.divshare.com/download/4273355-a42
Divshare 2: http://www.divshare.com/download/4277485-cad

Dr Richard's presentation
Divshare 1: http://www.divshare.com/download/4272983-3b5
Divshare 2: http://www.divshare.com/download/4277138-305

Dr Richard's QA
Divshare 1: http://www.divshare.com/download/4273114-0ee
Divshare 2: http://www.divshare.com/download/4277168-e83

Alexander's speech
Divshare 1: http://www.divshare.com/download/4273200-ecb
Divshare 2: http://www.divshare.com/download/4276949-782

[Kursk]

Any sign of the PIA anyone please? The undertaking was that it would be prepared by the end of the month which is nearly upon us.

[popper]

well there is still 26 hours and 50 minutes left so far do's

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by popper

well there is still 26 hours and 50 minutes left so far do's

Hrhrhrhr true. I'd expected to see it sooner; it could easily be constructed from the free advice provided on this forum

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Any sign of the PIA anyone please? The undertaking was that it would be prepared by the end of the month which is nearly upon us.

And there are 2 and a half hours for BT to give us 24 hours notice of their forthcoming trials which are due to start by the end of April (having been previously postponed from mid-March)