|
|
Posted by Jan Panteltje on 05/23/07 11:00
On a sunny day (Tue, 22 May 2007 21:12:23 +0100) it happened John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in <DYadnXteKMwA087bRVnyvAA@bt.com>:
>See my reply to Nappy.
>
>As`it's open source, you are at liberty to inspect the source code to
>see what it does or get a competent programmer to inspect it for you &
>rewrite the offending part.
Yes I can actually do that, even had the source of Mozilla ar one time,
any idea how big those sources are??????
Now I have some experience working through big sources, and it is very very tricky
to be 100% sure you did not overlook something, I'd say there is no 100% guarantee,
even if you have a team working at it.
> As it's released under the GPL, you can then
>distribute your version under the same licence.
I started writing a web browser, in fact part of this news reader (NewsFleX see header I wrote it),
but gave up as it was a moving target and a lot of duplicate work.
There is lynx too....
>I would think if there was any sinister purpose, we would have found out.
See my remark above.
It _is_ sinister as they pose as google, I even typed http://72.14.253.93/ in the browser
and up came google search English although I am in .nl.
of course now nothing comes up with the firewall :-)
>The default cache for Firefox holds 20 entries, by the way, & I set
>Firefox & all other browsers to clear the URL cache on exit. The URLs on
>the list I have here are from before I enabled this setting.
>
>This link came up while I was checking:-
>
>http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=550544&sid=62695685c30bf7ea6f93e6125f59b57c
>
>They're not worried.
But I am:
quote:
# Phishing Protection is enabled?
When Phishing Protection is used in default mode, no information about the
-----------------------------------**************------------------------
# sites you visit is sent to Mozilla or anti-phishing partners. Rather,
# sites are checked against a local list that is downloaded to your computer
# and updated on a regular basis. When sites are checked against online
# anti-phishing services such as Google, the address of each web site you
# visit is sent to the online service over a secure SSL connection. H
end quote
I have underlined something here, this already proves the mechanism is there
to DO SEND the sites you visit.
Now all we need is the secret command they need send to dump that data.
Yes I have run snort (snort is a packet sniffer) but really have more fun things to do,
firewall is much more effective.
To be short: I want it to ask for permission to update (else it is illegal anyways),
I want it off by default, I want them TO WORK UNDER THE COMPANY NAME THEY REALLY ARE.
In fact I want it gone.
Google, to me, although extremely useful, lends its name to all sorts of undercover
operations it seems, some time ago I found some other search engine also using google address
space IIRC.
>To be totally safe, though, just click the work offline item in the file
>menu when you're not actually using the connection.
mm
I have now about 390 IP address (some of them all 256 at the time) in the firewall.
Each and everyone of these did either an attack on my server, not respect robots.txt,
or some undercover false flag operation without asking.
How safe my system is.
probably every security agency in the world reads what I type:_)
LOL I have no illusions....
Possibly more secure is when I pull the DSL plug :-)
>The server it connects to from here is, according to my firewall's
>connection back tracing facility, at an IP address owned by Google &
>physically located on one of their sites. The connection goes through
>about 10 links. The really paranoid among us would worry about this
>record being faked or a packet sniffer being installed at one of these
>locations.
>Alternatively, use IE & put up with what Billy boy does.
Never, especially after saying Linux violates patents.
Well let him reveal source, and let look at all the code they stole.
> Or go to the dark side & use a Mac with Safari;-)
Jobs _is_ a good sales person, but why pay 2x?
>Tciao for Now!
>
>John.
CU
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|