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

[Florence]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

Phorm have gone cookie crazy. Every major page you visit on their site sets a new session cookie. Looks like a poor man web analytics.

How bizarre, every page has its own DNS sub domain.

More clutter or are they really such bad lot of scriptors?

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Florence

More clutter or are they really such bad lot of scriptors?

nah , i phink they are trying to work out how cookies work so they understand how to phorge them :P

peter

[Portly_Giraffe]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

Just a quick hint for people who are interested in Phorm's previous rootkit activities, follow the road to CDT.
Alexander Hanff

in case anyone is wondering:
http://www.cdt.org/privacy/20051103istcomplaint.pdf

See http://www.inphormationdesk.org/attributions.htm for other attributions.

[isf]

Every time Phorm get a PR release reprinted or a favorable writeup, we need to hammer the publisher with complaints. I think we can do much more damage to Phorm associates than we realise. Nobody wants to drink from a poison chalice!

Huntsworth are the parent company of Phorms PR firm.

[warescouse]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

I thought I'd apply the Turing Test to 'Ask Emma', see if I could tell whether it was really Emma or just automated replies.

I believe it passed;
...cut

I just tried this out. I now know where Phorm got the algorithm to help the PhormPR team out with their cut and paste responses to questions and points made. Obviously, this model is a later model and is a little more sophisticated judging by the final Q&A you displayed regarding Rob.

Is it possible that this is where BT gets its legal advice from? It has been a big secret. I wonder if you may well have accidentally stumbled on the answer Pete.

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

http://www.cdt.org/privacy/20051103istcomplaint.pdf

Déja vu, anyone?

The ContextPlusWeb site, http://www.contextplus,com says that its software “makes it amazingly simple for both web sites and web software products to offer their services to consumers for free, in return for viewing highly targeted, contextual ad messaging based on the consumer's unique browsing behaviour.�

(My bold, btw)

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by OldBear

Déja vu, anyone?
(My bold, btw)

I am actually going to contact CDT tomorrow and find out what the result of their complaint to the commission was and whether or not any damages were awarded. The reason being that the document states ContextPlus jumped the country and changed their whois details to a Paris address, so it could be that CDT was never able to receive damages from ContextPlus (aka 121Media). So being the responsible citizen I am it seems only right that I let them know where they can now find Kent in order to retrieve said damages.

Oh and lets not forget, 121Media was "transferred" to Phorm Inc. as opposed to being a seperate entity, so they shouldn't be able to get out of liability since it was basically just a company name change, all assets and shares were transferred to the new name.

Alexander Hanff

[OldBear]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

So being the responsible citizen I am it seems only right that I let them know where they can now find Kent in order to retrieve said damages.

It's the honest thing to do.

[bluecar1]

Originally Posted by Portly_Giraffe

in case anyone is wondering:
http://www.cdt.org/privacy/20051103istcomplaint.pdf

See http://www.inphormationdesk.org/attributions.htm for other attributions.

very interesting, similar wording to that used by phorm

peter

---------- Post added at 01:10 ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 ----------

pete this works on IIS, but has to be on a .shtml page as the get remote_addr is a server side include

just got to put the relevant ip ranges in

so going to do a redirect on my main page later with a banner like "checking your ISP before i allow you access to my site"

peter


<script language="javascript">

<!--
var ip = '<!--#echo var="REMOTE_ADDR"-->';
if (ip < "86.128.104.255" && ip > "86.128.104.1" ) {
alert("You are visiting this website from an ISP who uses Webwise from Phorm and so your access to this site is blocked ,

your IP is " +ip);
if (confirm("Click OK to learn more at nodpi.org or CANCEL to go to webwise opt out page "))
{location.href="https://nodpi.org" } else {location.href="http://webwise.bt.com" }
}
// -->
</script>

[AlexanderHanff]

Pete,

Would it possible to write a firefox addon which defaults Firefox to HTTP 1.0 so it will ignore the 307 requests? I am curious as to whether this would bypass the DPI kit or go into an infinite loop.

Alexander Hanff

[bluecar1]

alex,

in the internet option, advanced tab there are 2 tick boxes about using http 1.1, would unticking these revert IE to http 1.0 and block the 307 redirects as well?

peter

[AlexanderHanff]

Originally Posted by bluecar1

alex,

in the internet option, advanced tab there are 2 tick boxes about using http 1.1, would unticking these revert IE to http 1.0 and block the 307 redirects as well?

peter

I think if you deselect them it would seem the browser won't respond to 307 responses but I have no way of testing it as I am currently in Vista due to a bug in the latest Ubuntu kernel so I can't set up Squid. Anyone got a Unix/Linux server they want to set up Squid on to test 307 responses?

OK a friend of mine is running Squid so were are going to test this in a couple of hours, I will let you all know what happens.

My thoughts are that this will cause an infinite loop, which won't help anything, however if it doesn't cause an infinite loop it might be a useful tool to bypass the 307 dance. I have no idea what impact this would have on Phorm's kit though.

For example, if it causes an infinite loop, how many clients would it take to crash their switch or render it useless? If it doesn't cause a loop how will it be dealt with? Phorm have stated that they use user agent to detect non HTPP 1.1 browsers but they haven't actually said how they deal with them and there has been no discussion as to what happens with clients who are not in the list but have http 1.1 disabled.

Alexander Hanff

[3x2]

[Florence]

Perhaps BT should drop Emma and move to Miss Deway she has much more class when asked about BT pimping the customers clicks..

http://www.msdewey.com/

and on that note I bid everyone a good night

[popper]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff
So being the responsible citizen I am it seems only right that I let them know where they can now find Kent in order to retrieve said damages.

Originally Posted by OldBear

It's the honest thing to do.

indeed, as is reporting any copyright and IP infringments to the crown, so much so they stress "it is imperative ".

remember i said long ago, these copyright and Ip points had got legs, when everyone was hooked on nothing but Ripa

from the ip and piracy page
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/crime/crime-wh...-reporting.htm
"
Reporting intellectual property crime

If you have concerns or are aware of any person that may be involved in IP crime, then you may report this through your local police or trading standards office. Alternatively, you may contact CrimeStoppers .

Those people involved with IP crime are generally involved with other types of crime such as benefit fraud, drugs and people trafficking. Therefore, it is imperative that you report any instance of IP crime that you are aware of, to the enforcement authorities.

We are building an intelligence database (TellPat) which is being used by all the enforcement agencies to record any instances of IP crime.

The information held on the database will be analysed and the resulting intelligence reports will be used by the IP Crime Group to carry out future joint enforcement actions throughout the country.

"

---------- Post added at 03:49 ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 ----------

Originally Posted by AlexanderHanff

I think if you deselect them it would seem the browser won't respond to 307 responses but I have no way of testing it as I am currently in Vista due to a bug in the latest Ubuntu kernel so I can't set up Squid. Anyone got a Unix/Linux server they want to set up Squid on to test 307 responses?

OK a friend of mine is running Squid so were are going to test this in a couple of hours, I will let you all know what happens.

My thoughts are that this will cause an infinite loop, which won't help anything, however if it doesn't cause an infinite loop it might be a useful tool to bypass the 307 dance. I have no idea what impact this would have on Phorm's kit though.

For example, if it causes an infinite loop, how many clients would it take to crash their switch or render it useless? If it doesn't cause a loop how will it be dealt with? Phorm have stated that they use user agent to detect non HTPP 1.1 browsers but they haven't actually said how they deal with them and there has been no discussion as to what happens with clients who are not in the list but have http 1.1 disabled.

Alexander Hanff

squid runs on windows , dont know if it works in vista though
http://squid.acmeconsulting.it/

legacy 2.6 and 2.7 with a Development release 3.0