Slashdot Mirror


New Web Browser Leaves No Footprints

eastbayted writes "InfoWorld reports a new web browser designed to protect users privacy is available for download. Called Browzar, it 'automatically deletes Internet caches, histories, cookies and auto-complete forms.' It also boasts a search engine, which the company will use to generate income. The 264KB application is the brainchild of Ajaz Ahmen, known for creating the U.K.'s first ISP Freeserve. The forthcoming version is for Windows only, but Mac and Linux versions will be available eventually."

388 comments

  1. Best idea I've heard all decade by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    This will be on work laptops across the world.

    Surfing for porn on the company's own hardware is a difficult problem to solve because you know that the machine's going to hang up on you right in the middle of some huge download and you're going to have to take that dead machine down to IT where they will come to know all about your little addiction.

    With this software, you can be sure you're clean even when the PC crashes.

    They selling stock?

    1. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by rtyall · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or they find out about when the unproven software ends up giving someone full access due to a dodgy exploit.
      I suppose only the same will happen with other browsers though.

    2. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by BSonline · · Score: 5, Insightful

      See, despite the importance of porn, there are a couple of things to watch out for. That "huge download" will most likely still be on the laptop. And if you are using your corporation's network, the server you are connecting to will still have a record. But, hey, if you still feel safe...

      --
      PS: That is what part of the alphabet would look like if the letters "Q" and "R" were removed.
    3. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by ignatus · · Score: 5, Informative
      If you got root at your pc at work, I suggest creating an additional account for you "personal recreation". An if you're really don't want anybody to see it, encrypt the home directory. I think that's a good protection against accidentally revealing uncomfortable information on your pc.

      However, You have to take into account that all your internet traffic passes through IT-departments gateway. So you better check wich policy they got on non-workrelated internet traffic. Best thing you can do is set-up an encrypted tunnel to some server outside your network (use HTTP-encapsulation if you can only use HTTP).

      I fail to see the benefit of using a supposedly secure browser. Any reasonably competent IT guy will see right trough it.

      --
      - Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
    4. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Set up a pr0n user on your laptop, then encrypt the entire user directory. Not a perfect solution - you still have swap and tmp to worry about, but it's better than trying to keep your history clean.

      Oh, and if you surf for porn using the company's connection, you're a moron.

      What? You aren't running Linux? You can't encrypt files without the admin having the master decryption key? Sucks to be you.

    5. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by dentar · · Score: 1

      Any DECENT firewall can still log where people are going.

      --
      -- I am. Therefore, I think!
    6. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      I keep forgetting that the majority of people who post here never get to leave their little offices.

      For those who travel on business and use hotel-provided broadband, this is a godsend.

    7. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by igaborf · · Score: 4, Funny

      If your porn browsing results in "huge downloads" on your laptop, you should probably have some paper towels handy.

    8. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by kdemetter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Torpark will do the same , it even encrypts your data .

      I don't know if it works trough the company firewall though .

    9. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Redlazer · · Score: 1
      As cool as that sounds, Maxthon can do exactly the same things. Granted, i dont think its that small a download...

      http://www.maxthon.com/

      -Red

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    10. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by 4solarisinfo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You aren't running Linux? You can't encrypt files without the admin having the master decryption key? Sucks to be you.
      Well, yes I'm running windows, it's a corporate machine and it is cheaper/easier for them to control us all that way. But yes, I do have PGP encryption to all my files so only I have access to them. Thanks for your concern, but if you know what you're doing, you can fix/tweak a lot of windows issues too.

    11. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow- why would you take the Laptop to IT if it hangs up during a pr0n download? Thats when you tell the tale that you only turned your back for a minute at Starbucks and the laptop was gone!

    12. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by multiOSfreak · · Score: 4, Funny
      Or they find out about when the unproven software ends up giving someone full access due to a dodgy exploit.

      Uh, you mean like Internet Explorer?
    13. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by windsurfer619 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Firefox plus Stealthier does the same thing as this app too. And likely has less exploits.

    14. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Reminds me a of the time when I was 12 years old...

    15. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 1

      Well, immediately upon using it, I noted that you couldn't press CTRL+Enter to automatically add "www." and ".com" to a web address. Also, there are no tabs.

      I'd rather just use Torpark and then just go to Tools>Options>Privacy>Settings... then check all the boxes and make sure to check "Clear private data when closing Firefox."

    16. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are laughing at you.

      - The IT Dept.

    17. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just use firefox on a u3 usbdrive and all your history and junk stays on the usb drive not on the computer.

    18. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Fabulous_Mr_E · · Score: 1

      Except, it isn't really is it? This browser deletes locally created files on your laptop, not the logs on any device between you and the internet, nor does it encrypt any of the data being sent and recieved. So it really isn't that much of a godsend unless you want to hide your tracks for when tech support has to find out why your screen is cloudy and your keys are sticky.

    19. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      it really isn't that much of a godsend unless you want to hide your tracks for when tech support has to find out why your screen is cloudy and your keys are sticky

      Isn't that the most appropriate circumstance?

    20. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Cromac · · Score: 1

      Or just run Firefox off a thumbdrive so you don't have to worry about encrypting the contents to keep the BOFH snooping. Or even better just remote to your home machine so no traces are downloaded to the company network at all. If all those avenues are blocked, get another job.

    21. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For windows users, download your free copy of Microsoft VirtualPC, boot up your favorite OS and browse all you want. In an emergency you can wipe the HD image and all (local) evidence vanishes. If you use a Knoppix ISO you don't even have to delete anything.

      For extra security set up a VPN server at your house (OpenVPN or Windows XP's VPN server) and open a connection from the VirtualPC to your house. If you have the option, connect your home network via one of your neighbors open access points.

    22. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by ACNSlave · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But yes, I do have PGP encryption to all my files so only I have access to them. Thanks for your concern, but if you know what you're doing, you can fix/tweak a lot of windows issues too.

      Thats nice. You get the feeling of "security" and we get to access your "secret files" via our keystroke logger. I think you've failed to think your cunning plan all the way through, MacGyver...

      Bruce

      --
      Today is a good day to code.
    23. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Lam+'al+Adie · · Score: 3, Funny
      Or they find out about when the unproven software ends up giving someone full access due to a dodgy exploit.

      Uh, you mean like Internet Explorer?

      No, very much unlike Internet Explorer.
      Internet Explorer is proven to give anyone full access due to several very straight forward exploits.
    24. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Set up a pr0n user on your laptop, then encrypt the entire user directory. Not a perfect solution - you still have swap and tmp to worry about, but it's better than trying to keep your history clean.

      Utterly worthless. Your admin probably proxies http.

      Oh, and if you surf for porn using the company's connection, you're a moron.

      Agreed. That's what home broadband is for.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    25. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by ArcticFlood · · Score: 1

      Considering that Browzar requires IE, I think it's safe to say that it's exactly like Internet Explorer.

      --
      This is here so you don't ignore the last two lines of my posts.
    26. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

      Actually, this browser sucks and is really a ploy to push the browsers search engine. I mean come one no tabbed browsing and you can't change your home page. Hmm, I wonder why you can't change the home page. Maybe because it is a ploy to push the search engine. Just my opinion. zero

    27. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try the print preview, that seem a skin for IE with one or two function.

    28. Re:Best idea I've heard all decade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ou're going to have to take that dead machine down to IT where they will come to know all about your little addiction."

      Most companies will know anyway no matter what browser you use. Who doesn't have to go through a web proxy these days at work?

  2. Safari has similar capabilitites by stego · · Score: 5, Informative

    Safari has a 'Private Browsing' mode that creates no history, cookies, cache.

    1. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by b1ufox · · Score: 2, Informative
      A simple cltr+shift+del is available under firefox too, which clears all your sessions, cache, authenticated sessions, browsing history etc.

      So just a browser which says it does it automatically perhaps know how to market on this issue,its not a very big deal now for other browsers too.

      --
      -- "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - TAE --
    2. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by martinultima · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Personally I still like Dillo – might not have CSS or JavaScript, but it's one hell of a fast browser (and not to mention it never stores any information on your disk) – and yes, it runs Linux.

      --
      Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
    3. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by creepynut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but what does Firefox do if it crashes, or you need to close it quickly?

      Not to mention, do this and you lose ALL your browsing history. What if you want to keep some of it?

    4. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by lmcplatte · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Safari's Private Browsing mode does a good job of not creating history and not remembering what was typed in search boxes, but it still builds cache and still accepts and stores cookies.

    5. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by HoosierPeschke · · Score: 1

      I apologize ahead of time... In United States, Linux runs Dillo!

      --
      Mr. Universe: "They can't stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal."
    6. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I personally would want to use a separate browser. If you take your machine down to IT and there's no browsing history on it if they fire your browser up, it sets alarm bells ringing. Either

      a) There was something in there that the user didn't want you to stumble upon accidentally
      b) The user is a little bit paranoid, and should be handled delicately

      At least if you use a separate browser, they'd fire your normal browser up and see the usual history (corporate intranet, work related stuff, bit of casual surfing) which fits the normal pattern and doesn't hold their attention. They may never discover your secret browser, and any associated history (or lack of).

      I work in IT for a UK university, and due to the large number of people we have working/studying here, it's a problem we come across every so often. Mostly it's scenario A, and after a little bit of digging, it turns out that they were up to all sorts of naughtiness after being let loose on a 100mbit connection.

    7. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by FirienFirien · · Score: 1

      ...for which you can set the cache size to 0 (or hit apple-option-E to empty); I believe you can also set cookies to expire with the session, but grant that that's not obvious from the preferences. You can definitely set cookies to reject, but that's true of any browser.

      --
      Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
    8. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can have firefox clear out all private information every time you shut it down. It's one of the standard options. Not sure what the procedure is if it crashes, but then again, when has firefox ever crashed? :P

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Install the Stealther FF plugin... creates a button to toggle real-time automatic retention and deletion mode.

    10. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 1

      well if you're running Firefox in linux, xkill never fails :)

      it never ceases to amaze me how long it can take windows to kill a program.

    11. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FireFox crashes on me an average of 3-4 times a week. They didn't create the feedback agent for nothing you know.

    12. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by JoloK · · Score: 0

      Umm.... then you don't use this browsar?

      --
      JoloK
    13. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by bano · · Score: 1

      I use this feature, I would like to make it persistent tho.
      I couldn't find anything in the plist about it. :|

    14. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by quantum+bit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Use 'End Process' on the processes tab rather than 'End Eask' in the applications tab.

      'End Task' sends the application's window a WM_QUIT message and gives it a chance to exit gracefully before timing out and prompting you to kill the process.

      'End Process' kills the process immediately, like sending a kill -9.

      FYI, xkill only seems to be fast because it causes the X server to immediately delete the target window. The actual process that was creating the window may or may not exit in a timely fashion when its connection is closed (if it's deadlocked, perhaps never). Regular kill, followed by a kill -9 if that doesn't work is the only sure way to go. Even then kill -9 may not work if the process is stuck in the kernel somewhere (e.g. NFS server disappeared).

    15. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by dhasenan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the former: restart it (make your homepage about:blank for safety) and ctrl-shift-del.

      For the latter: Firefox has profiles; use them.

    16. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by robosmurf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although it does accept cookies, any cookies that were created while Private Browsing was switched on are automatically deleted when Private Browsing is switched off.

    17. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by carnifex0 · · Score: 1

      My personal favorite method of dealing with hung apps is pskill, part of the PsTools suite - when you absolutely need to end a process right now.

      Also cool because you can kill processes remotely if you're an admin. Fun with friends!

    18. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by b1ufox · · Score: 1
      Yes, but what does Firefox do if it crashes, or you need to close it quickly? if crashes you cannot do much, if you need to close it quickly write a script to automate the process :).

      Not to mention, do this and you lose ALL your browsing history. What if you want to keep some of it? I wonder how can you keep a selective browsing history,how would a script or for that matter any piece of software know about your browsing history choice?

      --
      -- "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - TAE --
    19. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by ozbon · · Score: 1

      Personally, if I'm wanting that kind of thing, I use Portable Firefox on a USB stick.

      Seems to work fine in the general areas I work in.

      --
      I say we take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
    20. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by piranha(jpl) · · Score: 1

      Create a special "privacy-mode" profile for Firefox. Each profile uses entirely different settings, history, cache, and soforth from any other profile. This way, I've created a "privacy" profile that saves nothing to disk and is configured to use Tor as its proxy. What's more, you can run two Firefox instances of different profiles at once.

    21. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by u2mr2os2 · · Score: 1
      Not to mention, do this and you lose ALL your browsing history. What if you want to keep some of it?
      Do you mean some of the history from the private session or all your browser history? Safari's private mode only removes the history of the private session when you turn the private session off - it does not erase all of your browser history.
    22. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Not to mention, do this and you lose ALL your browsing history. What if you want to keep some of it?"

      Use more than one browser. I have FireFox and Opera installed on my computer. Opera's my main browser, but I use FireFox also because I have two GMail accounts. I suppose if I really wanted to, I could use FF for browsing the notti notti stuff and clear the history etc, then leave Opera for my regular browsing.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    23. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      I have never tried using "End Task" but in my experience, doing "End Process" on a process that is using too much CPU/memory often takes a while to end the process or simply never does so. On the other hand, kill -9 seems to always work almost instantly. I will have to try out pskill which another poster referenced.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    24. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never crashes for me, and I use it continuously at work. Is the rest of your computer stable, are you running a degraded Windows (been installed too long), etc?

    25. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dork.

    26. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by wwiiol_toofless · · Score: 1

      Was gonna say the same thing. Just pop in DSL with dillo and away you go! As far as I can tell, the virtual RAM partition is the only thing that stores info, and is destroyed upon reboot. Of course all your usage history are belong to AOL and Google , but hey whatcha gonna do?

      --
      the mods may say you posted flamebait, but to me it's a flame that warms my heart. rock on, brother! --chebucto
    27. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by yarbo · · Score: 1

      Don't use kill -9
      info
      more info

    28. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      Hence why I said "Regular kill, followed by a kill -9 if that doesn't work".

      Those sites you posted have things a bit confused as well. If a process doesn't respond to SIGTERM, sending a SIGINT seems a little pointless. If anything, the order is reversed. A proper escalation would be something like this:

      kill -HUP (user disconnected from terminal)
      kill -INT (user pressed CTRL+C)
      kill -TERM (user wants the process to exit)
      kill -KILL (user isn't giving it a choice anymore, wants OS intervention)

      There are many programs that trap SIGHUP to re-read config file, and SIGINT (see vim/emacs or even bc) that will do a proper shutdown when sent SIGTERM. Sending them after a SIGTERM fails seems a bit wrong.

      At least -9 isn't as evil as say, kill -BUS or kill -11 ;)

    29. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by quantum+bit · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, I meant to say but forgot:

      The KILL signal does not allow a process to run any cleanup code, which means blasting away with kill -9 may leave
      • child processes of a parent orphaned
      The child processes should check to see if the parent process is still running. Anyway, they'll probably die from SIGPIPE the next time the try to communicate with the parent.
      • temporary files open
      No. It may leave temporary files existing, but not open. Some really smart programs even unlink(2) temporary files after they're open so that this isn't an issue.
      • shared memory segments active
      That's an unfortunate result of a gaping design flaw in SysV IPC. Sometimes even processes that exit gracefully will forget to remove all their shared memory segments and semaphores. Judicious use of ipcs -mp is recommended.
      • and sockets busy
      Again, incorrect. The kernel will automatically close all sockets (and any file descriptors for that matter) as part of its process cleanup. Even when you use kill -9.
    30. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by drudd · · Score: 1

      You can have firefox clear everything when it starts up as well which fixes the crash problem.

      --
      Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    31. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by nacturation · · Score: 1

      kill -9 -1

      Go big or go home.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    32. Re:Safari has similar capabilitites by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Wow, I actually tried that on OS X.

      It rebooted, which surprised me because I'm a sudoer but not a super-user around here.

      By the way: Firefox took care of my private data as usual.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
  3. It sounded good until... by telchine · · Score: 1

    "new web browser designed to protect users privacy..."

    Sounds Good

    "...automatically deletes Internet caches, histories, cookies and auto-complete forms..."

    Sounds Good

    "...The 264kb application..."

    Nice!

    "is the brainchild of Ajaz Ahmen, [creator of] Freeserve."

    D'oh!

    1. Re:It sounded good until... by legoburner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Freeserve is a name I have not heard since the .com boom and hoped I would not hear again.
      That is great that privacy is protected provided you dont mind:
      server logs
      ISP logs
      upstream proxy logs/cache
      dns cache
      any identifiable information you give out to websites

      Nice idea for the 'hide-it-from-your-wife' crowd, but other than that not too much use for this, and not really anything that is not provided by extensions for existing browsers already.

    2. Re:It sounded good until... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Nice idea for the 'hide-it-from-your-wife' crowd, but other than that not too much use for this, and not really anything that is not provided by extensions for existing browsers already.

      Depending on how well it works, we're talking about a browser 10% the size of even links.

      Could be an advantage there, even if the privacy claims are bunk.

    3. Re:It sounded good until... by Beale · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's only 10% the size of Links because it uses the IE engine.

    4. Re:It sounded good until... by multipartmixed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Smells like it's using the IE engine to render the pages.

      There's no way you could pack a full graphical browser into 264K on a windows box.

      And, without graphics, a porn browser is hardly useful.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    5. Re:It sounded good until... by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Depending on how well it works, we're talking about a browser 10% the size of even links.

      Since it requires IE 5.5 or above, I expect it uses IE for most functions. Not bad in itself, but it will probably be vulnerable to all the exploits IE is, and users being unaware of that, especially visiting the seamier websites infested with drive-by installers, may be seriously screwed. Nevertheless, if you have to use a PC temporarily and only IE is installed, it would be better than just trying to clean up IE.

    6. Re:It sounded good until... by Eivind · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's not a browser. It's an extremely thin shell around an IE-component. It's an add-on for IE, basically.

      Firefox and Safari doesn't need this add-on, as they have by default options in their configuration to delete all sensitive information on program-exit.

    7. Re:It sounded good until... by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      "Freeserve is a name I have not heard since the .com boom and hoped I would not hear again."

      Actually Freeserve hasn't been heard of since 2004 (several years after the .com boom) when French ISP Wanadoo (who owns the ISP) rebranded the brand. It now becoming "Orange Broadband", after the mobile phone company which owns Wanadoo.

      Far from dying in the .com crash, it is still one of the main broadband providers in the UK, just under a different name.

    8. Re:It sounded good until... by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      yeah, don't know if it has that or not, but otherwise it's pretty limited. It should use random anonymous proxies by default with some fancy mechanism or something in that directions. I also wonder if its search engine has a way to circumvent http referrers, because on server logs it's pretty easy to see who searched for what with the normal search engines.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    9. Re:It sounded good until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can browse porn with links2 -g.

    10. Re:It sounded good until... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that it's probably just a VB or .Net app that uses the IE browser control to act as a browser. Which means that not only is it open to all the regular IE exploits, but we can't really be sure of what's being recorded and where. Did you know there's a file called Index.dat that stores all your browser history, as well as a bunch of other stuff. It isn't deleted when you delete your browser history, and can only be deleted if you boot into safe mode, or in some other operating system.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:It sounded good until... by kdemetter · · Score: 0

      ascii art porn ?

    12. Re:It sounded good until... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

      No, links2 has graphics support. You can run it with graphics enabled in X, or console with fbdev, directfb, or svgalib.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    13. Re:It sounded good until... by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Nice idea for the 'hide-it-from-your-wife' crowd

      Any slashdotter that has a wife and needs to hide anything, is simply doing something wrong. My wife has her account and her password, and I have my account and my password. She can't get into my account, and I can't get into her account. I set it up that way. It's fair and simple. I don't open her (snail) mail either, it's her mail, her privacy, her stuff. We might be married, but we are still two different entities (ehm, people...)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    14. Re:It sounded good until... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1
      Nice idea for the 'hide-it-from-your-wife' crowd, but other than that not too much use for this, and not really anything that is not provided by extensions for existing browsers already.
      Even for the hide-it-from-your-wife crowd, if just manually (or with extentions) clearing your cookies, cache, and history isn't enough to stop her, she'll find a way around this, too (it also means that you two have some trust issues to work out). I would also think a bigger concern along these lines is preventing spyware from installing and changing the homepage to porn and opening porn popups, which this doesn't seem to help prevent.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    15. Re:It sounded good until... by Trails · · Score: 1

      Actually, this kind of thing we be great for public access terminals (Internet Cafes, libraries, etc...).

      A lot of people leave cached files (images, etc...), cookies, cached pages with sensitive info on these terminals, and this would help.

    16. Re:It sounded good until... by Knetzar · · Score: 1

      I'd want this for public terminals. It would be nice not having to worry about the browser caching my passwords when I use a machine at the airport.

    17. Re:It sounded good until... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Since it requires IE 5.5 or above, I expect it uses IE for most functions.

      Therefore, the name "browser" is quite misleading. More of an anonymizer wrapper for MSIE.

      -b.

    18. Re:It sounded good until... by electronerdz · · Score: 1
      --
      Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
    19. Re:It sounded good until... by Hangin10 · · Score: 1

      That became quite clear when it popped up a "Internet Explorer JavaScript Error"ish box within the first two minutes of "browzing".

    20. Re:It sounded good until... by ebtebee · · Score: 1

      RTFA It actually does use IE as the rendering engine.

    21. Re:It sounded good until... by owlnation · · Score: 1
      Freeserve is a name I have not heard since the .com boom and hoped I would not hear again.
      I second that. Interesting things names. "Freeserve" was neither exactly "free" nor did it exactly "serve". In fact there was a lot of adware and spyware back in the days when such stuff wasn't called that. In the same vain, "Browzar" is only a front end to IE, and isn't exactly a browser.

      Once bitten twice shy, if freeserve "brains" are behind it I won't be downloading it.
  4. Not-a-fact! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Ajaz Ahmen, known for creating the U.K.'s first ISP Freeserve

    Freeserve was far from the UK's first ISP. There were hundreds of ISPs, including large players like Pipex, Demon, Compuserve and AOL in the UK, along with much smaller ones like Eclipse before Freeserve came along.

    Freeserve was the first ISP not to charge a monthly fee, but not the first to exist.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Not-a-fact! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Freeserve was founded in 1998, as the UK's first phone-bill-only ISP.

    2. Re:Not-a-fact! by phreakv6 · · Score: 4, Informative

      From TFA

      "..Freeserve, the first U.K. Internet service provider (ISP) to offer free Internet access to customers in the late 1990s."

      I dont know how that became..

      "..Ajaz Ahmen, known for creating the U.K.'s first ISP Freeserve."

      hats off to the /. editors

      --
      fifteen jugglers, five believers
    3. Re:Not-a-fact! by MooUK · · Score: 3, Informative

      It still wasn't free.

      In this country, local rate (0845) calls are not free.

    4. Re:Not-a-fact! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In this country, local rate (0845) calls are not free.

      Worse than that, they aren't even local rate! Freeserve was, however, the first ISP to run off their share of the call charges.

    5. Re:Not-a-fact! by kkiller · · Score: 1

      Free from monthly fees, but otherwise, yep - you paid through the nose for the time you were online.

      Freeserve's business model fell through when credible ISPs began to offer flat-rate monthly access packages - which included the cost of calls - though they adapted and are now part of the Orange mobile network.

    6. Re:Not-a-fact! by MooUK · · Score: 1

      And they still suck. I know this first hand; I've finally convinced the parental being to change his connection provider away from them.

    7. Re:Not-a-fact! by Marcus+Green · · Score: 1

      Freeserve was available at a local call rate. I don't consider local call rate "through the nose"

    8. Re:Not-a-fact! by TheBogBrushZone · · Score: 1
      Worse than that, they [0845 numbers] aren't even local rate!


      They were in 1998 when Freeserve was created (IIRC 1.3p/min during evenings and 1p/min at weekends). The local call rates have changed since then and the two no longer match.

      Effectively at the time you could have considered it free as ISPs at the time used actual local points of presence and geographic numbers that charged the same as 0845 but with a subscription on top. Only a year later in 1999 did ISPs start to provide toll-free (0800) access with or without subscription.

      The real myth is that Freeserve was the first. X-Stream was the first to offer subscription-free 0845 access but they required the user to view banner ads that paid for the service. ConnectFree was the first ISP to offer true subscription-free 0845 access they just didn't have Freeserve's level of press coverage.
      --
      And behold, a command prompt and he who sat upon it, his name was shutdown and -h 3:11 followed with him
    9. Re:Not-a-fact! by kkiller · · Score: 1

      Dammit, I did. For occasional email use it was fine, but if you wanted to use it regularly it quickly mounted up. Local rate calls came in at around 1p a minute - thats 60p an hour. Use it for two hours every night - £1.20 - that makes £8.40 a week. Internet use used to cost a bomb back then. To be fair, this wasn't just Freeserve's fault. No operator had really stepped up to offer flat-rate phone calls to ISPs until 1999, mainly in part to incumbent telecoms provider issues as much as anything else. The existence of large ISPs which relied on 0845 calls for revenues probably didn't help matters.

    10. Re:Not-a-fact! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, of course, it's Ajaz Ahmed.

      Not to mention that Ajaz might be overstating his role in the creation of Freeserve a teensy tinsy bit. But I couldn't possibly comment...

    11. Re:Not-a-fact! by smcleish · · Score: 1

      Yes, indeed - EUNet claimed to be the first when I worked for an ISP back in the mid-1990s (we poached the guy who put the wires in for the first commercial connection). I think Pipex was the first home user ISP. (Assuming we can ignore Compuserv.)

      --
      You can rent this space for $5 a week.
    12. Re:Not-a-fact! by prlewis0 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely... I used ConnectFree for quite a while back in the day. I also seem to remember them claiming that they owned the 0845 lines and rented them out to other ISPs (including Freeserve) to provide their services.

    13. Re:Not-a-fact! by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      For a while, IC24 (now Madasafish) operated a service where at weekends and evenings after 8, they'd let you call in completely free; no subscription, no call charges. Only downside was that it was sometimes hard to get a connection cos of the sheer volume of people connecting, and that it would knock you offline after 2 hours. Service was pretty quick if you could get connected though.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    14. Re:Not-a-fact! by g_attrill · · Score: 1

      Freeserve weren't even the first to offer non-subscription access, I was using FreeNet long before then, although I think they had a ten hour monthly limit.

    15. Re:Not-a-fact! by joe+user+jr · · Score: 1

      Connectfree did have a reseller programme where other "virtual ISPs" or "VISPS" as they called them could take a cut of the 0845 revenue in return for attracting the users, but, for the record, Freeserve was not one of those ISPs, and had their own deal with a telco.

      --
      .sigs: Just Say No!
    16. Re:Not-a-fact! by ickoonite · · Score: 1

      No. The first "free" ISP was X-Stream. You downloaded some software onto the computer which would display adverts in a bar at the top whilst surfing. Access was via an 0845 number. That was as free as it got, until everyone got in on the act, got rid of the ad bar and players like Freeserve entered the market. Some time later, X-Stream did a properly free service, with 0800 access. I also remember ic24 and Connect4Free offering similar services, although, of course, the lines were always busy and it was hellishly slow.

      But Freeserve was by no means the first. Not, as you say, as an ISP, nor as a "free" one.

      iqu :|

    17. Re:Not-a-fact! by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

      It still wasn't free.

      Given that every other service provider at the time was charging you a monthly subscription, it was considered free.

      In this country, local rate (0845) calls are not free.

      Neither were the dial up numbers for the other ISP's. Truely free (as in 0800) access ISP's only came along later ... and then disappeared again almost as quickly as they arrived.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  5. Hmm, seen this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, firefox again, with the "clear private data" on the tools menu...

  6. Browser with more honest PR department by sznupi · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heatseek

    At least they are more upfront with their mission... ;P

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:Browser with more honest PR department by Aethedor · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's funny. In order to hide your porn, you use software that has specifically been made to hide porn. no-porn-finding-girlfriend starts program. "Please, enter your password to access the porn".

      --
      It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    2. Re:Browser with more honest PR department by Knossos · · Score: 1

      The problem of course with software like this is that the name of the program will give it away.

      Ooh, whats Heatseek.exe... Google Headseek.exe... Instantly whoever is searching knows what you've been using it for. Of course, on the plus side the encryption means your goat porn jpgs aren't going to be easy to access.

      --
      Android Software Engineer
    3. Re:Browser with more honest PR department by Knossos · · Score: 1

      On closer inspection of the program, it seems that you can actually change the name of the program itself, and even change the icon for it on installation.

      Looks like my post (parent) is all lies ;)

      --
      Android Software Engineer
    4. Re:Browser with more honest PR department by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Why are you hiding it from a girlfriend? Wife, parents, children, house guests, these I can understand. But girlfriend?

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Browser with more honest PR department by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Nah, not using it really - found it yesterday whe browsing list of browser on Wikipedia. If I _would_ want anonymity, I'd probably use Torpark...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  7. Hmmm by Lex-Man82 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if Google Toolbar works with it?

    1. Re:Hmmm by rtyall · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or the My Web Search toolbar. I bet the adverts'll load reeeaalllly fast on this browser.

  8. Nothing new by davidbrit2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not trying to be an OSS zealot here (honestly), but how does this do anything that Firefox doesn't do already? Preferences/Options, Privacy, Clear Private Data tool settings button. (The way to get there might be different in the Windows version, but you get the idea.) You can have it blow away history, forms, passwords, download history, cookies, cache data, and authenticated HTTP sessions automatically when you quit. And a few of those can be disabled outright from the start. And of course, Safari has a similar option too.

    1. Re:Nothing new by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 0

      The feature is also available directy from the "Tools" menu.

    2. Re:Nothing new by VdG · · Score: 1

      You're quite right, of course, that this is nothing that you can't do with other browsers. However, I think that this might have a couple of advantages.
      One is that it might reach users who haven't thought about these things before. Sure: that's preying on potential customers' ignorance but some of them might be interested in a solution which doesn't require them to fiddle with browser settings.
      It could be useful if you're on someone else's machine - maybe even a Cybercafe or something like that. Gives a little added peace of mind. The small size of the download helps there.
      Cookies and history and such are actually pretty useful most of the time. I wouldn't want to do without them but I might be inclined to use something like this in addition to my normal browser(s) for those occasions when I want to be a little more discrete.

      Main thing to remember is that this isn't really aimed at the more technically capable users, who can do these things already if they want to.

    3. Re:Nothing new by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Funny

      'm not trying to be an OSS zealot here (honestly), but how does this do anything that Firefox doesn't do already?

      If the text is to be believed, it does 1 thing firefox doesn't.

      Fit on a 5.5" DSDD Floppy.

    4. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5.5" Floppy - are you sure? I've only ever heard of 3.5" and 5.25" floppies

    5. Re:Nothing new by davidbrit2 · · Score: 1

      Very true. And I can imagine that some among us might very well still be stuck with 5.25" floppy drives on our IBM desktops at work. ;D "USB? We don't need that. Now go clean out the rollers in these 9-pin serial mice."

    6. Re:Nothing new by finkployd · · Score: 2, Funny

      5.5" Floppy - are you sure? I've only ever heard of 3.5" and 5.25" floppies

      What! You never heard of 8" floppies? Kids these days.

      Finkployd

    7. Re:Nothing new by idji · · Score: 1

      Some other things it can do that firefox can't -doesn't need installing ie -can run off a USB stick -can be installed without admin permissions -start in less that 20 seconds (Have you ever seen firefox do that?) -not require 80M of RAM after half an hour -print a page without chopping of the last words on the right side

    8. Re:Nothing new by HansF · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's small and you can run the exe straight from the site. No install needed.

      --
      --> Insert Funny Sig Here
    9. Re:Nothing new by Henk+Poley · · Score: 1

      but how does this do anything that Firefox doesn't do already? Preferences/Options, Privacy, Clear Private Data tool settings button. [..] You can have it blow away history, forms, passwords, download history, cookies, cache data, and authenticated HTTP sessions automatically when you quit

      Probably nothing. But it might do better and actually *not store* this information to disk at all, and mark the memory non-swappable. Anything else and the (parts of the) data in those caches and stores will end up stored on your disk in empty clusters and file-tails or your swapfile/partition.

      And no, overwriting a file will just use new clusters to store the now-empty file to disk. And yes, you could 'scrub' all the supposedly-empty space, but that take ages (40-50MB/s, on a 200-or-so GB disk).

    10. Re:Nothing new by jackbird · · Score: 1

      I thought "running the exe straight from the site" was something we were all trying to avoid.

    11. Re:Nothing new by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      I just tested firefox startup on my workstation...

      10 seconds...and that's with the Google syncing junk and it checking for updates to an extension that i have.

    12. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget 3" floppies! (Amstrad CPC 464)

    13. Re:Nothing new by Amouth · · Score: 1

      "start in less that 20 seconds (Have you ever seen firefox do that?) "

      never noticed so i tried

      ie = 3 sec
      ff = 6 sec
      Opera = 4 sec

      and sence this think is nothign more than a shell aroudn the ie back then i don't see it as anything good.

      while it doesn't require an install it requires IE to be installed

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    14. Re:Nothing new by idji · · Score: 1

      now try it again with browzer

    15. Re:Nothing new by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Some other things it can do that firefox can't

      -doesn't need installing ie
      -can run off a USB stick
      -can be installed without admin permissions

      You might want to look at this.

      And possibly this.

    16. Re:Nothing new by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Depends, are you a tech person? If you are not, then you shouldn't be here, or you will be given bad advice. If you are a tech person, you have a better idea about what is safe and what isn't, and you now to stop a program from running, and you now how to fix a mistake.

    17. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>It's small and you can run the exe straight from the site. No install needed.

      Now that's a neat trick.
      I would have figured you had do download it, and then launch the executeable locally.
      They don't mind you running the browser on their webserver?

      So what do you launch on your PC that connects(to the remote browzar display I'm assuming) that is already installed on your machine? rdesktop? citrix client?

      After reading about this I thought it was just another simple IE control wrapper piece of shitware written in visual basic by some jerkoff dotbomber. Thanks for clearing up the client server thing, but please give us more details.
      This innovative technology sounds outstanding, Can't wait for the OSX and linux versions!

    18. Re:Nothing new by aunitt · · Score: 1

      If you read the prerequisites carefully you'll note that it requires IE. I suspect it's just a small wrapper around the IE COM object that just makes sure IE doesn't leave "droppings" lying around.

    19. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ICE BURN

    20. Re:Nothing new by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Especially because-- tell me if I'm not making sense here... but can't you set most browsers to use a cache of 0MB, keep a history of 0 days, and to not-accept cookies? What's the big deal?

    21. Re:Nothing new by argStyopa · · Score: 1


      If the text is to be believed, it does 1 thing firefox doesn't.

      Fit on a 5.5" DSDD Floppy.


      Are a lot of people doing much web browsing from pre-1992 computers?
      By 1990, IIRC, the 3.5" floppy was pretty much on every system, and by 1992 the 5.25" was pretty much GONE.

      --
      -Styopa
    22. Re:Nothing new by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      it's a frontend to IE, which is already running on windows as soon as it boots up.

      What's your point? I was saying the Firefox isn't as slow as it was said before.

    23. Re:Nothing new by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Hey, I never claimed the thing it did was USEFUL. ;)

  9. This comment authored with browzar! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    God it's slow! Prevented me from getting my usual first post.

    I suggest you download the black themed browzar - simply because they don't charge a $150 premium just to change the color to black like some other companies ;-)

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:This comment authored with browzar! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      I was in plenty of time to get a F. P. ... if I could get there.
      When I went to "read more" I got a "not found".

      Meanwhile, I like the fact that this little app can cruise all by itself. I am a fan of De-Bloated Apps.

      The Preview word is "Memory", which this Browzar apparently doesn't have.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:This comment authored with browzar! by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 1
      Meanwhile, I like the fact that this little app can cruise all by itself. I am a fan of De-Bloated Apps.
      Oh, then you want konqueror!
      -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4,3K 2006-06-14 02:46 /usr/bin/konqueror

      ;) Hint: the app uses the IE rendering engine, just like konqueror above uses KHTML. It's easy to be small if all your work is being done by a shared object file or it's local equivalent.

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    3. Re:This comment authored with browzar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I suggest you download the black themed browzar - simply because they don't charge a $150 premium just to change the color to black like some other companies ;-)


      Hey, you forgot the extra 20 GB of space! Of course for $150, you could also get this
  10. Knoppix? by epsalon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of what happened to me once, when I was manning a booth at a conference trying to convince people to use Linux. We tried to get people to buy a Knoppix LiveCD from us to try it out. So, two people came and were mostly intersted in the fact that if they use the LiveCD to browse the web, none of their data is saved anywhere.

    Regarding this "Browsar", does it delete all caches/cookies, or not save them at all? Because just deleting can be not secure enough unless you do it very carefully. Also, what about the swap? Is it deleted or avioded?

    1. Re:Knoppix? by phreakv6 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Regarding this "Browsar", does it delete all caches/cookies, or not save them at all?
      From the browzar FAQ
      Does Browzar store cookies? If so, why?

      Browzar only ever stores cookies temporarily, automatically deleting them when you close the programme. For many sites, such as internet banking or shopping sites, it is necessary to store cookies to keep you logged into the site or hold shopping cart contents while you perform your transactions. If you visit a site using Browzar where a cookie for that site already existed on the computer prior to you using Browzar - the cookie will not be deleted. However the cookie's 'Last Accessed' date and time stamp may be updated to the date and time you visited the site associated with the cookie using Browzar.
      --
      fifteen jugglers, five believers
    2. Re:Knoppix? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Frankly, that's BS, and only because it relies on IE. It's entirely possible to "store" cookies purely in RAM, and to prevent them from ever hitting swap. That's what Knoppix does.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:Knoppix? by cheshire_cqx · · Score: 1

      This is the solution. You will never be able to keep data from remaining on the HDD. So, a live CD like Knoppix--my choice would be MEPIS or Ubuntu--is a much better bet. You could also use the VMware player and install an OS, then wipe the .vmdk file before it goes back to the IT people. (Other wiping may be needed if indeed it's pr0n you're keeping hidden.) With VMware I'd use an encrypted file system.

    4. Re:Knoppix? by cheshire_cqx · · Score: 1

      Oh, and as others mentioned, do not use the office LAN (or VPN) for anything private (unless you SSH tunnel out of the corporate network first).

  11. Poor Business Model by roughshod_coder · · Score: 1

    A business model based on a feature that can be handled as a plugin or update to Firefox and IE is not sound.

    1. Re:Poor Business Model by creepynut · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that it'll fit on a flash drive, with only a 264kb disk space use? I'd say that's a nice selling point right there. Firefox requires an installation, and is dog slow from my flash drive. Yes, I know of Portable Firefox, and I use it, but it's still much slower than running the thing on the hard drive... especially when running from USB 1.1 at school in the older labs.

  12. Browzar is based on IE? by ncw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is unlikely that they developed a modern web browser from scratch.

    There is no indication on their web site that it is based on anything though.

    http://www.browzar.com/

    I found this one message on google groups (in french) which indicates it is based on Internet Explorer.

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/fr.comp.infosyste mes.www.navigateurs/browse_frm/thread/19f96a99deb3 0fc1/76965389104729e7?lnk=st&q=browzar&rnum=2#7696 5389104729e7

    Anyone know any better?

    --
    Every man for himself, all in favour say "I"
    1. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, it does require at least MSIE 5.5 in order to run.
      So yes, this is only a new frontend.

    2. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by hclyff · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quick check with process explorer shows that it uses mshtml.dll as well as MFC.

      "Coming soon" to linux indeed.

    3. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by Superken7 · · Score: 0

      It uses Mozilla Active X
      which is basically embedded gecko with the same API as the IE control.

    4. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by bendy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Given that the acid2 standards compliance test http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/ produces identical results in Browzar and IE (well, the version 6 I have installed anyway) I'd say it's a pretty good bet. It will be interesting to see how they go about producing a Mac or Linux version if they're just wrapping the IE renderer in some way.

    5. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by kafka47 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They said, "coming eventually". "Coming soon" probably means "eventually" which probably means, "never". :-)

      /K

    6. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by tritonman · · Score: 1

      So, it uses mshtml.dll and MFC? I would hardly call it a 264kb application then.

    7. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Load Browzar and surf to http://projectip.com/ then check the UserAgent.

    8. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      If it's based on IE rendering, that doesn't give me great confidence that this browser is not caching anything on disk.

      Personally, I'll stick with the off by one web browser for any local private browsing. It may not be a great web rendering browser, but it's totally contained with it's own rendering engine, will fit on a floppy disk, and everything is stored in RAM and is deleted once the browser closes.

    9. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Well, it does require at least MSIE 5.5 in order to run.

      In other words this browser is worse than fucking useless. It just embeds IE, tweaks what settings it can and then tries to clean up afterwards. If you want to do that, you can do it in Opera and in Firefox. I believe there are even builds of Firefox which run off a keychain and leave absolutely no tell tale clues they were ever there (e.g. cache files etc.).

    10. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by R2P2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Claiming eventual Linux support is just an easy way to increase the chances of an application getting a /. post.

    11. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      A 264kb plugin would be a more appropriate name then. I wanted to suggest w3m, but even the tar.gz of w3m is almost 2 MB. lynx tar.gz is 3 mb and the win32 binaries of links are also exceeding 300 kb. Hardly feasible that any browser would be smaller I'd say.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    12. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Pretty much what I expected. 264kb is a bit small to contain the entire set of web standards currently in use.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    13. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by Jekler · · Score: 1

      A frontend for an existing browser is only going to be as secure as the host browser, plus any holes the new frontend adds. I think Browzar is a waste of time. It's like pasting aluminum foil to your glass door and trying to claim it now has all the security of a steel door.

    14. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gecko is just as embedable as mshtml...it's not inconceivable that they could be working on a linux front-end for gecko.

    15. Re:Browzar is based on IE? by hclyff · · Score: 1

      I don't think so... if they wanted to do this, why wouldn't they build the browser around gecko from the start? It would save them half the work. Also using gecko means they have to release source code under MPL.

  13. Rendering engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this gecko, KHTML or WebKit based? Can someone run strings or is the exe packed?

    1. Re:Rendering engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      downloaded it... the black version!

      it is not mozilla engine but IE engine... at least on windows. Context Menu is disabled but you can access it by pressing the context-menu button on your windows keyboard...

      does not seem to be of any good to me. why would i want to use IE?

      oh and why does my captcha read "lawsuit" ???

  14. caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When returning from work one day I was greeted with an icy welcome and the rather tricky question "did you find any dirty college sluts then?"

    1. Re:caught by Teun · · Score: 1

      Well, did you?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  15. Hmm... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But does it work well on a USB flash drive? From the description it seems like it might. Anyone have an idea?

    Most browsers already give you options to allow you to not store most of this information already. Firefox has a key combo to (transparently, optionally) wipe out selected areas of this data. Someone mentioned an option for Safari. Opera probably has something too somewhere.

  16. Uses Mozilla Active X for embedded gecko by Superken7 · · Score: 0

    When i tried to run it under wine, the first thing it did was ask me to download mozilla active x
    Looks like they use embedded mozilla's browser engine, which is good i guess :)
    although that makes it not only 264KB! ;)

    "Embed the Mozilla browser engine (Gecko) into any ActiveX application. This control implements the same APIs as the Internet Explorer control making porting of existing applications reasonably straightforward."

    (However, i was not able to run it under my wine build.)
    I dont need such a browser when i can just ctrl+shift+del under ff, but its nice to have a
    264kB +(how much mozilla active x?well, still small) web browser.

    1. Re:Uses Mozilla Active X for embedded gecko by ravenlock · · Score: 1

      That's wine doing it's thing. On Windows, the IE engine is available, and the Mozilla ActiveX is not used.

  17. Standards by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    If this thing is 264K, and it (mostly) works, where are the other X megs of other browsers?

    Someone chime in with a Acid report.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    1. Re:Standards by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      If this thing is 264K, and it (mostly) works, where are the other X megs of other browsers?

      It requires IE to be installed. Basically, it's a skin.

    2. Re:Standards by Zadaz · · Score: 1

      As for the file size, the rest of the download is in C:/Program Files/Internet Explorer/

      It requires MSIE 5.5+, I have a pretty good idea what Acid will report.

    3. Re:Standards by MooUK · · Score: 1

      In IE. This apparently uses IE to do all its work, simply removing caches and logs and stuff.

  18. BS by tritonman · · Score: 1

    ok, does it delete your IP address from the web server logs too? No? Ok, I guess it doesn't protect your privacy.

    1. Re:BS by PrayingWolf · · Score: 1
      Oh, but its ok because that's how it was designed. FTA:
      Ahmed said. "Law enforcement can still go to ISPs if they want; we don't override anything."

      My addition:
      I mean, we wouldn't want to "override" anything, now would we? I mean we're not saying we can't do it - we just choose not to.

      I think we need to pay close attention to what this company does :-o

  19. Two major limitations by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1) It's closed source. So even if we assume good intentions on the authors' part, not many people have had a chance to scruitinize the code for weaknesses. The recent flap about how "wiped" mobile phones can still have their databases recovered is an example of this issue actually happening.

    2) It sounds like it only keeps the local computer clean of history. Which I guess is good if you don't want your boyfriend to find out you like the whole Furbie sex scene. But when you're later divorcing him because he won't put on a chipmunk suit, and his attorney subpoenas Yahoo to get records of your search history, you're not protected. I think to be protected from THIS sort of thing the browser ought to default to using an anonymizer proxy.

    1. Re:Two major limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why must he share the code? Its his product, sheesh, you OSS Zealots always want someone to share their code.

    2. Re:Two major limitations by Darth+Android · · Score: 1

      People should take a look at Torpark. It's a copy of Portable Firefox that automatically doesn't cache or save your history and uses the Tor network to create a true untraceable browser. It's preconfigured and works right out of the box and includes some other popular plugins such as NoScript. It can also be installed onto a USB key and carried with you so you always have it at your disposal.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are cruchy and good with ketchup.
    3. Re:Two major limitations by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful
      sheesh, you OSS Zealots always want someone to share their code.
      I didn't state a categorical mandate for all software to be open-source. I stated two downsides, in this particular application and in this particular domain, to the software being closed source. I didn't run around saying, "OMG - the code wants to be free!"

      Why must he share the code?

      I tried to be clear about the reason in my post. The argument is this:

      • We know from experience that source code in general tends to have security vulnerabilities.
      • We also know that fully covering your tracks is like security: just mostly getting it right isn't very helpful, because a knowledgeable hacker/investigator will exploit any known weakness.
      • The open source community has in general shown a more aggressive attitude towards finding and fixing vulnerabilities than have closed-source teams. This may have something to do with the relative size of the two programming groups, or that the users of the software are more personally motivated to find and fix vulnerabilities than are the vendor's paid programmers.
      • Therefore: in many cases an application can be more trusted to be secure if it's open source.
    4. Re:Two major limitations by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Well, if it's supposed to be secure, we want to be able to verify those claims; otherwise they are meaningless. And the best way to find out what a program really does is to read the source code. The second best way is to show it to a competent programmer whom you trust and ask them what they think.

      Turning your question around, why do you closed-source advocates not like the idea of showing off your source code? Are you ashamed of it? Is it full of schoolboy errors? Perhaps you've been using ints as pointers, or making assumptions about arrays in memory. Did you shamelessly rip it off without crediting the original author? Or do you think that by not telling anyone about the huge buffer overrun vulnerabilities, they won't be exploited?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    5. Re:Two major limitations by deviceb · · Score: 1

      ya thats kinda what i was thinking. That maybe this one works like Tor, or even annonimizer.com w/ some nice encryption.
      but it just cleans "footprints" as it says. Some thing that takes about 33.7 nanoseconds to do in Firefox.
      Perhaps the search tool can at least keep your Furbie records safe? That would be a 1up for this app.

      --
      Kill your TV
    6. Re:Two major limitations by mindwar23 · · Score: 1

      There is an existing client that solves both your problems and is designed to run off flashdrive: Torpark. It's a portable version of Firefox that doesn't write to your hard drive. And it uses the Tor network to bounce your signal through an onion network so the remote site will never know who/where you are. Of course that means it is slow, but pretty strong privacy. It's no VPN but it's free...

  20. Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplete by jolyonr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok. I just posted this to them as an example of why people should be very, very careful, but it's funny enough I should share it here.

    A few years ago I was doing IT consultancy in London, and a client had a problem with her PC all acting funny.

    I went along, it was the secretary/receptionist's PC so she moved over, and sat next to me watching what I was doing as I investigated.

    I found a suspicious DLL beginning with 'S' running on the system, so I did what you would normally do, do a google search and see what it comes up with.

    As soon as I typed the first 'S', up pops good old google autocomplete:

    "STD clinic london"

    I typed as fast as I could and hoped she didn't notice!

    Turned out her PC had a virus too.

    Jolyon

    --


    Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
  21. Submit buttons not working? by CdXiminez · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I tried it, it seems that Browzar doesn't execute 'input type="submit"'-buttons.
    Anyone else noticed this?

  22. and Opera too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera 9.0 > clear user record. voila.

    1. Re:and Opera too. by phooka.de · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not the same: In Safari, you don't create a footprint of what you don't want recorded frst, just to later erase it together with the rest of your browsing history, it just doesn't write anything about your web-surfing onto the disk while in "private surfing" mode.

    2. Re:and Opera too. by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But what about the stuff it stores in memory? presumably if you're using a non-encrypted swap partition, there's lots of data left in there after you close your browser. The sites which you need the most privacy on are the ones you need to log into. If you don't retain any cookies or other information, how does it maintain your session?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:and Opera too. by LindseyJ · · Score: 1

      URL-perpetuated session IDs? Yeah, they're a giant gaping maw of terrible security and coding practices (IMHO), but it's the easiest way of maintaining a session without cookies. That, or using hidden input tags with the session ID in them that can propegate across pages (for example, in a dynamic include file).

    4. Re:and Opera too. by robosmurf · · Score: 1

      Safari does accept cookies while Private Browsing is on. It just deletes them when you turn Private Browsing off again.

      Thus, you can still log into sites that need cookies, but you will need to do it each session.

    5. Re:and Opera too. by ioErr · · Score: 1
      presumably if you're using a non-encrypted swap partition, there's lots of data left in there after you close your browser.
      Since private-mode Safari appeared in Mac OS X 10.4, more commonly known as Tiger, and which also features encrypted virtual memory*, I don't really see the problem.

      * I can't remember if it defaults to enabled or disabled in a fresh install, but it is trivial to enable for the security conscious.
  23. Privacy and a search engine? by Zadaz · · Score: 1

    "It also boasts a search engine, which the company will use to generate income."

    Why do I have a feeling that you'll leave "footprints" on its search engine.

    (And they sure need some way to create revenue since there's no reason to use their browser.)

    1. Re:Privacy and a search engine? by c0reboarder · · Score: 1

      Duh, they make revenue with their search engine not by advertising, but by selling your search history!

  24. Firefox plugin by a_nonamiss · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a Firefox plugin that does the same thing. Stealther claims to do the same thing, but what I don't know is how well it really covers its tracks. A forensic investigation into a hard drive can easily reveal browsing history, even if one cleans his or her history and deletes cookies, etc. I have heard of a browser that actually "shreds" this information (similar to Eraser but I can't seem to find any information on this browser.

    --
    -Arthur
    Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    1. Re:Firefox plugin by Seb+C. · · Score: 1

      tried Stealther, and it seems to work fine. it juste log nothing while you're in stealth mode : the corresponding information logger are just disabled. As for a forensic investigation, i doubt it would find anything, since nothing is dumped to the hard disk. may be a RAM or swap dump would do it, but that's harder to do, and the data there are very likely to be overwritten,, so i guess stealther is good enough. Still, it doesn't prevent your companies proxy to write down logs or the targeted web site to log your IP, but you can however use some proxy anonymizer (simple free to use anonymous proxy) for wasting the target site log and combine it with transconnect (given you're using linux or some unix flavor) for preventing the proxy to log anything valuable (else the CONNECT command).

  25. Should we pursue this? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I realize there are sometimes good reasons to support anonymous browsing, like for whistleblowers, etc. But I wonder if the costs outweigh the benefits?

    I keep on seeing these stats about huge numbers of married guys who feel addicted to porn. That is, they know it's causing them relationship problems, but they feel they can't stop. And hiding their browsing history is a major modus operandi for them to continue their behavior.

    Yes, I realize there's a possibility that these guys would find some other venue even if they didn't have browsers that hide history. And yes, we certainly have a RIGHT to not be denied tools just because some people can't handle them. (E.g. alcohol, gambling, WoW.) I'm not asking whether or not we have a right to build such tools - I'm asking whether or not building such tools is the most excellent way to conduct ourselves.

    1. Re:Should we pursue this? by phooka.de · · Score: 1
      So you want to restrict yourself (and others?) to what is morally acceptable?

      Fine, does that mean morally acceptable to you? Or to white christian americans? Or to iranian fundamentalists?

      Freedom is a great thing. To even think about not doing something because others might use it to do something that some third party might or might not find acceptable - oh my god. Had we started off like this, we'd still be sitting in the trees, mating with the other chimps and feeling good about it. Which, compared to living in political correctness, might be better anyway.

    2. Re:Should we pursue this? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      And hiding their browsing history is a major modus operandi for them to continue their behavior.

      You need a special browser for that? You can't just tell IE, FF or Opera to clear out its cache, history, etc when you finish? You can't just configure FF to do it automatically?

      You can't just create yourself a user account and not tell your spouse the password?

      Besides which, they're clearly doing it now; I don't see that a new browser that makes it a little bit easier is going to change anything.

      I'm asking whether or not building such tools is the most excellent way to conduct ourselves.

      As opposed to what? Trying to force our own moral standards on those around us?

      If you really are concerned about all these poor, helpless men who are ruining their lives and their relationships, set up a helpline/counselling service, or donate to an existing one. This browser is largely irrelevant.

    3. Re:Should we pursue this? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1
      So you want to restrict yourself (and others?) to what is morally acceptable?

      Regarding restricting myself, heck yes. Don't you want to avoid doing things that pointlessly hurt other people? If you're so self-centered as to not care about hurting other people, then I don't think we have enough common ground for this discussion to be fruitful. And if I know that some situations tempt me to be a real a**hole, then yes, I try to restrict myself to not be in those situations.

      Regarding restricting other persons' activities: Most persons have the creative freedom to refrain from inventing things that they think will hurt the people they care about. I was asking whether or not a programmer, contemplating whether or not to create such a browser, should consider the possibility that making it will hurt some persons he loves. I was not raising the question about whether or not outside parties should act to prevent that programmer from creating such a browser.

    4. Re:Should we pursue this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to what? Trying to force our own moral standards on those around us?

      You know, you people suck. Doofus asks a philosophical/ethical question, makes no assertions saying we should outlaw porn or any such idiocy, and here you go off on this stupid tangent about forcing moral standards on people. As if asking a question and asking other people to consider the ethical/moral ramifications of our choices as a society is some sort of imposition. So what, then, saying, "hey, maybe we should try to use cars that use less gas?" would bring out your f'ing flamethrower, eh?

      Third class jackassery, that, and I'm f'ing sick of it.

  26. protect my privacy by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Protect my privacy, but sell my search results?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  27. Free to use it, free to NOT use it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It's like with knowledge. The problem is not the existance of the tools (or having the knowledge), the responsibility lies in applying it. You can use it, should the need arise. You can also not use it. The choice is yours.

    I do firmly believe in the personal freedom to do as you choose as long as nobody gets hurt. Tools should exist. Knowledge should be available. Take them and use them as you see fit, and let your conscience (or whatever is used to make an informed decision) be the judge whether and when to apply it.

    Just because abuse is possible doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Security comes from knowlege. Not ignorance. It's like with guns, if you outlaw something "bad", only the "bad" people will have and use it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Free to use it, free to NOT use it by MooUK · · Score: 1

      The one problem I have with that gun law argument is that if guns cannot be obtained legally, there could be less accidents and less spontaneous use of them. Naturally, I have no idea what the extent of that would be. (I also am unsure where I stand on that issue for various reasons...)

      Either way, except in the case of accidents, the responsibility is still with the person pulling the trigger. And that applies to most things.

      Alcohol may be part of the cause of various problems, but it's not an excuse - you CHOSE to drink in the first place; if you cannot control yourself when you drink, then don't drink. Same with anything else.

    2. Re:Free to use it, free to NOT use it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Accidents happen. By the diction of "if X doesn't exist, there would be no accidents with X", you'd have to ban cars, electricity (as well as almost any technology, down to fire), well, given that I had to use the Heimlich maneuver twice so far, ultimately you'd have to ban food.

      Can we say that's ridiculous? Life's dangerous. Deal with it. It usually ends fatally. If someone can't handle his guns safely, let Darwin's theory face a test and have the individual removed from the gene pool. It can only be beneficial.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Free to use it, free to NOT use it by MooUK · · Score: 1

      That's a fair point.

      It still leaves the issue of those who kill in the heat of the moment, who didn't go out and plan to do it, who would have found it harder to do if they didn't already legally own a firearm.

      But then, guns aren't the only way to kill someone.

    4. Re:Free to use it, free to NOT use it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Killing someone in the heat of the moment does not take a weapon at all. People pumped up with adrenaline are surprisingly strong and near immune to pain, giving them a definite edge over their victim. If anything, it would be easier to kill in the heat of the moment if weapons did not exist, whereas weapons do exactly the same amount of damage per round, whether wielded by a sane person or a madman.

      I live in a country with a very restrictive gun law. In other words, we have a lot of unlicensed guns going 'round, with people who don't even have the foggiest clue what their armament can do. I don't really consider this a good thing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Free to use it, free to NOT use it by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Hadn't thought of it that way.

  28. Autocompletes? by psychofox · · Score: 1

    Given that it autocompletes, I don't see that it can be that good about removing traces of where you've been...

  29. no web-activity is private! by aleator · · Score: 1

    what idea is to have a browser that deletes cookies and other _usefull_ things on the client side? cache is made so that less data has to be transfered. cookies are usefull for websites to let you remember request(parts). the real footprints are not left locally in the browser but on servers that keep their transmission logs for some time and providers that cache your IP's. therefore you do not have any influence on privacy on the net. but like in real life, what's the matter about privacy, if you do things with a good conscience and don't mind if others see what you do?

    1. Re:no web-activity is private! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally someone who realizes the benefits of cookies and caching of speed and convience. There is a good reason they were designed into nearly every reputibile browser availible, and I for one appreciate being able to retrace my searching steps expecially when I an trying to find a usefull site I googled for yesterday and also that the google logo for instance dosn't have to be retransmitted 50 times a day since I'm not too paranoid to use cache. Plus yes most things are logged at isp, search, and site levels.

    2. Re:no web-activity is private! by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      I think its more so you can have a "clean" laptop when browsing around wardriving looking up questionable content. Of course none of that app seems to address the fact that you'll have dirty data in your swapfile for potentially long amounts of time. Or the fact that its using IE which is rumored to keep a hidden history file (I won't go into this as I don't have enough facts, but enough googling will point it out. its supposedly a file thats hidden to most of windows that has some browsing history in it)

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  30. A simple front end for IE by dreemernj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It just a simple front end for IE. There are already plug ins to do this in Windows with other browsers and at least then you wouldn't be browsing with IE so the pages would look nicer. This seems like a bit of a waste/ploy/piece of junk.

    --
    1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
  31. Firefox Too! by ryanduff · · Score: 1

    Tools > Clear Private Data

    Alternatively you can go Preferences > Security and assign the Clear Private Data function a keyboard shortcut or set it to clear when you close Firefox.

    Even better still, you can go to Preferences > Security and go through the 6 tabs and tell it no history, no form info, no passwords, no download history, no cookies, no disk cache... That way if someone mugs you while you're on your computer, the worst they can do is go back a few pages... but with no cache and cookies, it shouldn't keep you logged into any secure sites.

    Why is this story news? Most browsers feature a history clearing features?

    Oh, and the included search engine partnerships to generate money... If they're making money, they're logging something... c'mon people, that's common sense!

    1. Re:Firefox Too! by babbling · · Score: 1

      Presumably the search engine built in makes money in the same way Google does... targetted advertising. One would hope that (being a privacy-oriented browser) they don't store search data, but you never know, I guess.

      Good points otherwise, though - this is nothing new, and not really worthy of attention. We already have an excellent Free Software browser. I'm satisfied enough with Firefox that I wouldn't really want to bother trying other browsers, just as I'm satisfied enough with Google that I wouldn't bother trying other search engines.

    2. Re:Firefox Too! by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I haven't had history turned on in years. You can never find what you want in there anyway, unless you only visit 5 web pages a day, and in that case, you're probably better off using book marks. Does anybody else think we need to increase the usefulness of the history feature now that broadband exists, and it's easy to browse hundreds of pages in a day?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Firefox Too! by dark_knight_ita · · Score: 1

      Usually the command is Control+Shift+Del ;)

    4. Re:Firefox Too! by robosmurf · · Score: 1, Redundant

      That really isn't the same thing at all.

      The Firefox Clear Private Data will destroy data from all your browsing, and thus lose useful things such as your history.

      Safari's Private Browsing mode stops it collecting data in the first place, and crucially, only while it is active.

    5. Re:Firefox Too! by dark_knight_ita · · Score: 1
      The Firefox Clear Private Data will destroy data from all your browsing, and thus lose useful things such as your history.
      In FF, when clearing data, you can choose which data erase and which not. Just de-select "history" and it will safely remain in place ;)
    6. Re:Firefox Too! by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 1

      Firefox works the same way with the Stealther extension.

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
  32. Wow... by ilzogoiby · · Score: 1

    Why not create an extension for an existing browser (Firefox?), instead of making a whole new software product? I mean... when I read the title, I thought about any new miraculous anonymity mechanism... People love to "sell" existing things as if they were new concepts... And... what's this article doing here?

    1. Re:Wow... by MooUK · · Score: 2, Informative

      Relatively simple to answer. What they have created, in essence, is just an extension for IE. And an IE extension has a much larger likely userbase than an FF one.

      Unfortunately.

    2. Re:Wow... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Relatively simple to answer. What they have created, in essence, is just an extension for IE. And an IE extension has a much larger likely userbase than an FF one.

      But I imagine the userbase who'd download and install browser plug-ins is overlapping quite well with those who'd download and install another browser.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Wow... by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      There's already one for Firefox. It's called "Tools --> Clear Private Data"... or Ctrl-Shift-Del for the lazy. You can even set the options to do it when the browser closes, with or without user confirmation.

    4. Re:Wow... by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Yeah, probably; I thought of that while I was writing that post.

    5. Re:Wow... by ilzogoiby · · Score: 1
      There's already one for Firefox. It's called "Tools --> Clear Private Data"... or Ctrl-Shift-Del for the lazy. You can even set the options to do it when the browser closes, with or without user confirmation.
      So... what's the big deal bout this new "browser"? Bullshit...
  33. You had me until by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    "We tried to get people to buy a Knoppix LiveCD from us... "

    Good for a laugh first thing in the morning. Thanks!

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:You had me until by epsalon · · Score: 1

      Yes, we did sell it for about $2 to cover the cost of the media, as a conveinece. We of course told people they can download it if they prefer.

    2. Re:You had me until by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I figured but it still made me chuckle. Actually if you consider the time it takes, especially on a slow DSL connection (heaven for bit you are on dialup), $2 is a bargain.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:You had me until by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      Why not print your company's name on the disc and use it as giveaway promotional material. Djeez, if you make keychains or simple pens with your name on it it'll cost you more. Furthermore knoppix is likely to make a good impression on anyone who uses it, so you'll be remembered for showing this to them, and they are also likely to spread it around (whereas a pen most likely is to break before it ran out of ink, I had a pen like that from a plastic factory once, not a good sign, even though they didn't make the pen themselves)

      Anyway, think outside the box man! ;)

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    4. Re:You had me until by epsalon · · Score: 1

      We're not a company. We're a nonprofit with a very slim budget. For a giveaway would have to make a lot more CDs, and we didn't have the budget for that.

  34. I have 2 words for you by Aethedor · · Score: 1

    Forensic Investigation

    --
    It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
  35. Automatically Deletes. by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    I guess that explains the "automatically deletes Internet caches, histories, cookies and auto-complete forms" bit.
    If you made a browser from scratch you could just not implement those features...

  36. Yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tiny .EXE that uses "already-installed-on-all-windows-boxes" IE engine... Suggest you better get some real browser.

  37. Been checking up ..... by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..... and I can't find a link to download the source code.

    So-called "security" software without source code is worse than useless -- and would be outlawed if we had a sensible Minister for Information Technology. The information it's claiming to be hiding could be valuable, so there's a clear motive to lie about what it's doing -- and hiding the source code provides an obvious means. I, for one, wouldn't give it the opportunity.

    I have set Firefox to ask me every time about cookies. As soon as I see a "__utma" or a "h2" cookie, I know at once the owners of that site have absolutely no concern for my privacy, and simply block all cookies from that site. Otherwise I usually accept cookies for the session only.

    I also keep my day-to-day login password as secret as any of my root passwords, and always set up a brand new user account if anyone ever wants to use one of my computers for anything.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  38. Merely deleting is not enough... by applix7 · · Score: 1

    They need to overwrite the contents of the file with zeros.

    1. Re:Merely deleting is not enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet just not create them in the first place.

    2. Re:Merely deleting is not enough... by jolyonr · · Score: 1

      No, you overwrite files with random bytes, not zeros. Ideally several times.

      --


      Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    3. Re:Merely deleting is not enough... by kj_in_ottawa · · Score: 1

      Actually a single overwrite is insufficient, if you have a great need for privacy. A single overwrite of zero's or one's would still leave the underlying content decipherable.

      What the US DoD recomeneds is a 7 time overwrite. This should be done with a pattern then the compliment of the pattern, a different pattern and it's complement and I can't remember what the other 3 are.

      The theory behind this is that magnetic media has a nasty habit of what is on the media affects the next write. So if you had a pattern of 01010101 and overwrote it with 11111111 you would end up with a pattern of 1 1+remenant 1 1+remenant 1 1+ remenant 1 1+ remenant. If the overwrite was all 0's, you would end up with o0o0o0o0 =] .

      This is based on the fact that you are trying to counter a serious threat to privacy here. For most guys trying to overwrite cookies from Playboy.com or AshleyMadison.com a double overwrite or so would probably work. Cheers

    4. Re:Merely deleting is not enough... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      One overwrite is plenty. If there was any way to recover reliably what used to have been written on magnetic media, then it would have been done by now ..... computers have been using various memory devices based on magnetic phenomena since forever, and a method for increasing storage density by using remanent "past" data would be extremely useful if it existed. The conspicuous absence of a storage device natively using this technology, let alone a software program for applying it to an existing HDD {even a closed-source program which only pretends to implement time-domain multiplexed storage but really just does simple on-the-fly compression -- the only way anyone will find out is if they violate the EULA}, suggests that your O-level physics teacher was right all along and it doesn't exist.

      Quick method for removing sensitive data from an old PC: (1) Create many useless but innocuous files to fill the entire drive with junk, do not stop till there is no room to save anymore. (2) Delete the sensitive files. (3) Create more junk files. Since you filled up the drive at stage (1), the only place these files can possibly go is over the top of what you deleted at stage (2). (4) Delete all the junk files.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    5. Re:Merely deleting is not enough... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      One overwrite is plenty. If there was any way to recover reliably what used to have been written on magnetic media, then it would have been done by now...

      Computer forensics experts have been able to recreate some data from overwritten files. It is not a big concern, since it takes a lot of work, unless the NSA is coming after you. The DoD standard calls for a number of random overwrites of each bit.

      Quick method for removing sensitive data from an old PC...

      I just select Finder->Secure Empty Trash. Hopefully Vista will have this and pull Windows to the level of functionality the rest of the computing world has had for years.

    6. Re:Merely deleting is not enough... by ajs318 · · Score: 1
      Computer forensics experts have been able to recreate some data from overwritten files.
      References? And with dates, please. Modern HDDs use much higher data densities than were common around the time of the discredited Gutmann paper. Also, it's been known for old versions of files to hang around after a newer version was saved -- there's no guarantee that a file will be saved on the same sectors. In fact, if it has grown, it might well be moved by the OS to avoid fragmentation. Such files might be recoverable but they haven't, strictly speaking, been overwritten.
      It is not a big concern, since it takes a lot of work, unless the NSA is coming after you.
      It almost certainly takes more work than obtaining the information by alternative means ..... but claiming that it was obtained from a disk drive is more politically expedient than admitting to use those methods, if you get what I mean.
      The DoD standard calls for a number of random overwrites of each bit.
      That's pure psyops, designed to make an enemy think that the USA has better abilities for recovering overwritten data than is really the case.

      Since we're dealing with hysteresis loops, three passes such as 1 - 0 - 1 will ensure that every bit has done both changes. But we're also going so far into saturation that there's no way of knowing which side of the loop we arrived from. And it's definitely more expedient to do a single overwrite over the whole disk, then another and another than to do multiple overwrites on each bit in turn -- the first way is more secure against interruptions.
      I just select Finder->Secure Empty Trash. Hopefully Vista will have this and pull Windows to the level of functionality the rest of the computing world has had for years.
      Nice, subtle Mac advert :)
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    7. Re:Merely deleting is not enough... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      References? And with dates, please.

      I read something by John Cross in 2003 or 2004 I think, but Google did not turn it up right away.

      It almost certainly takes more work than obtaining the information by alternative means...

      In most cases this is true, but I'm not ready to discount MFM or whatever as being a possible threat. I don't have any proof that it has been productized or even that it works if it has, but I doubt many people outside the community would know if it had been.

      That's pure psyops, designed to make an enemy think that the USA has better abilities for recovering overwritten data than is really the case.

      Or your comments are psyops trying to make people believe the USA has lesser capabilities :)

      Since we're dealing with hysteresis loops, three passes such as 1 - 0 - 1 will ensure that every bit has done both changes. But we're also going so far into saturation that there's no way of knowing which side of the loop we arrived from. And it's definitely more expedient to do a single overwrite over the whole disk, then another and another than to do multiple overwrites on each bit in turn -- the first way is more secure against interruptions.

      Truthfully, I don't have any problem doing multiple, random overwrites. Why not take a cautious approach when the solution is so easy?

      Nice, subtle Mac advert :)

      Thanks, but several Linux distros and OpenBSD do this as well. It was really more of a Windows anti-advert.

  39. but I already have one... by pointbeing · · Score: 4, Informative

    I already have a browser that leaves no footprints - Firefox Portable. Loaded on my 1GB Swiss Army knife the only thing it leaves on the host machine is a pluginreg.dat - which contains nothing about my internet use.

    --
    we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
    -- anais nin
  40. Great! by Kawahee · · Score: 1

    Great! Now I don't have to worry about the huge threat cookies have to my machine (approximately 0%), and can inconvenience myself by having to type in my password every time I want to post as me on Slashdot or any other internet community. I also don't have to worry about finding that Google search I made a few days ago that had the exact wording that yielded some pretty useful results, because I don't have history! Thank you "auto-privacy"!

    Then again, in IE7 I can just go Tools -> Delete Browsing History and have it clear itself out when I actually do need to get rid of something and not everything. But that's insecure, right?

    --
    I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
    1. Re:Great! by base3 · · Score: 1

      If you believe that IE7 isn't storing obfuscated and difficult to remove tracks for forensic use (q.v. INDEX.DAT) at the request of large corporate customers and law enforcement, you're much more trusting of them than I am.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  41. Given that it uses the IE engine . . . by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 2, Insightful

    . . . does it still leave the difficult to blow away INDEX.DAT files?

    --
    I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  42. Be nice to your friends... by svunt · · Score: 1

    So many people are posting the same comment..."every browser can clear this data". Sure. However, if I were to, say, surf pr0n on my mother's PC, I think she might be a little unhappy to find her passwords, auto-completes, history etc wiped so I could hide my shame. This sucker fits on a thumb drive, or is a 1 second download from anywhere. I think mum might prefer me to use this rather than take a magnet to her web-life.

    1. Re:Be nice to your friends... by PrayingWolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Use Browzar - the choice of 30 year old men who live with their mothers.

    2. Re:Be nice to your friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could create a new profile under Firefox (firefox -profilemanager) and browse using that, and then delete the profile when you're done?

    3. Re:Be nice to your friends... by svunt · · Score: 1

      See, I don't actually live with my mother, I was making a point about using someone else's computer. Feel free to replace my examples with any that help you get it.

  43. Strange privacy protection by foggy · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Enter IE, go google.com, logoff if necessary, close IE
    2. open browzar, go google.com, autheticate with your gmail account
    3. close browzer
    4. open IE, go google.com.... still authenticated!!!

    perhaps it needs some more debugging.

    hth

    1. Re:Strange privacy protection by Memetic · · Score: 1

      Er, no.



      It's working as it should.



      You are being authenticated by the EXISTING cookies stored in IE.



      If Browzar destroyed existing cookies, it would cause problems for sites you want to automatically authenticate for in IE and would also point rather obvioulsy to the fact that you had been clearing up.



      Browzar just gets rid off all tracks left for sessions browsed through it.


    2. Re:Strange privacy protection by foggy · · Score: 1

      Yes it reuse the EXISTING coookie. But unfortunatly it update that cookie, so the session established in browzar remains persistent also after exiting browzar. So a session established in browzar is inherited in IE, that IMHO is not so good.

      cheers

    3. Re:Strange privacy protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot step 1a:

      Re-open IE and verify that you are no longer authenticated

    4. Re:Strange privacy protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Enter IE, go google.com, logoff if necessary, close IE
      2. open browzar, go google.com, autheticate with your gmail account
      3. close browzer
      4. open IE, go google.com.... still authenticated!!!

      perhaps it needs some more debugging.

      hth

      I noticed the same thing.

      As well, this could be used as a terrible tool. It doesn't create a Registry Entry, as it is too small of an install. I could walk around with this on my USB Flash Drive, and view everyone's cookies in IE, without leaving a single trace that i did anything.

      Their "security" in this browser is worthless, and it doesn't protect anything

    5. Re:Strange privacy protection by blonddog · · Score: 1

      So, I guess the MacOS and Linux versions will require VMWare?!! ;)

    6. Re:Strange privacy protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does this guy get a Score:5, Informative when the post below it states the truth and only gets a score 1?

    7. Re:Strange privacy protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't modify the cookie stored on your hard drive. Google's cookie simply contains a unique identification number. When you log in to gmail with Browzar, Google says "User with cookie number X is logged in".

      Your local state remains unchanged.

    8. Re:Strange privacy protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, Memetic.

      You posted anonymously, but we can see it's you.

      You have been identified by your EXISTING tendancy to karma-whore. No one else would care if a post didn't get modded up, except the poster.

      ---
      Don't put advice in your sig.

    9. Re:Strange privacy protection by Memetic · · Score: 1

      Hi AC,

      >You posted anonymously, but we can see it's you.

      Really? :-)

      Perhaps we need a thread on the breakdown of security on /.

      Thanks for taking the trouble to read all my past posts to confrim my "Karma Whore tendancy" i'll watch out for that before it develops into a full blown Karma Whore status.

      >No one else would care if a post didn't get modded up, except the poster.

      You know, strangley people do care, maybe because caring about modding up and down is the basis for the whole moderation system ;-) and as a result those with no mod points, but who do care, post, moaning about moderation that they don't agree with.

      Have a good weekend.

      Memetic.

  44. No-go on WINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick check with process explorer shows that it uses mshtml.dll as well as MFC.

    Probably why it crashes when run on WINE. It does say "The last time you ran Browzar the software experienced an error and your last session closed unexpectedly", and gives you the option reload or not reload your last session, which is nice. Sadly, that is all I could see on my system.

    1. Re:No-go on WINE by Teppic_52 · · Score: 1

      Works with cxoffice, though apart from being able to say 'it works' I don't really see the point. It does nothing I can't setup some other browsers to do. Maybe Windows users feel differently.

  45. 264kb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems like it's using the internet explorer
    render engine then ... weeeeh.

    oh, im using firefox with no cache (all on teh server),
    with history set to ZERO, all cockies delete on close
    via squid that strips "VIA", "FORWARD" and "browser-agent" headers.

    some websites complain bigtime if they get no "browser-agent".
    serves them right.

  46. 'What happens if Browzar crashes?' by bluebox_rob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the FAQ says
    Each time you run Browzar it places a simple text file on your computer which contains a date and time stamp of the precise moment your Browzar session began. Normally this file is deleted automatically when you close Browzar, but in the event of a crash this file remains on the computer. All you need to do is run Browzar again immediately after the crash and Browzar will clean up anything left over from the crash by checking the time and date stamp and removing everything after that that point.

    The fact that this process is necessary, and that something would be 'left over' in the event of a crash suggests that it does write stuff to disk and then deletes it again later, rather than just not hitting the disk to start with. Not that secure then really, and if it is based on IE I wonder if it shares the same temp-files folder, cookies folders, and uses index.dat? Plenty of scope for browsing traces to 'leak' into IE if this thing crashes and you don't remember to re-run it to clean up after itself.

  47. privacy and closed source don't mix by oohshiny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you wanted to catch people doing unethical things, the best thing to do would be to create software or services that promise to hide information and then collect information about the users. To get around that, the source needs to be audited by someone, and for this kind of product, that means that the application needs to be open source.

  48. It's based on IE!!! by TristanGrimaux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It uses the engine of IE to render pages, that's why it's so small. This kind of project would take a good programmer a week or so. This buddy knows how to get good press for nothing. No footprint? All right, but this guy does not talk about security in his site. Linux? Mac? Sure! if enough people insists and he's got enough money he will think about it! Sure Send email!

    Crap!

  49. In Linux you have Dillo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's even better, because the only thing stored to disk are your bookmarks, so no need to remove a thing
    (well, maybe to the swap partition, but this is unavoidable).

    1. Re:In Linux you have Dillo by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      But better make sure nobody's shoulder-surfing while your are entering Dillo's download URL into your existing browser...

  50. The browser isn't usually the problem. by ThatDamnMurphyGuy · · Score: 1

    Ditching your browser history stuffs is easy. The real problems are the shit IE/WMP throws in the users profiles index.dat file, and the shit WMP throws around when playing movies inline/downloaded. So, unless this browser also gets WMP to stop that, you're still going to get busted.

    That said, it is a nice little exe to toss on the USB thumbdrive.

    1. Re:The browser isn't usually the problem. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      The main concern is not users purposefully rooting through your computer to find incriminating stuff on you. No, it's user's stumbling on it by change (such, as entering a URL, and then see "interesting" autocompletions...).

      And for that, browzar is more than enough.

      Now, the real bummer is that you don't actually need browsar for that. Just check "Browsing History" and "Clear private data when closing Firefox" in Edit->Preferences->Privacy->Settings, and no tell-tale will survive across sessions.

    2. Re:The browser isn't usually the problem. by bogie · · Score: 1

      Unless your stuck with a 32MB thumb drive I just don't see why you wouldn't use Firefox portable instead. The whole point of a USB based browser is that you don't interact with or effect the main browser on the machine your working on. Using a brower that simple acts as a shell for the machines existing browser is a pretty bad idea in that case. Think about IE being infected and you thinking this browser which hooks into it will somehow be safe to use?

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  51. Mac version? by BenjyD · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone want a Mac version? I can just about see users not knowing how to delete their IE cache, but "Private Browsing" in Safari takes three mouse clicks to enable.

    1. Re:Mac version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i gotta agree there - a mac version definatley wont sell - it already exists on mac in apples own safari as the menu option 'private browsing' - i wouldnt be surprised if thats where they got the idea for the product - good luck to them though - i guess windows world is different and i am certain we wont see microsoft add a privat browsing option to their own menu's... btw - i like the new 'safe surfing filter' on google that advises wen you are about to visit a sight knowen for popups and malware.... wooohoo - which kinda helps in preventing some visits to the it dept for silly browsing...

  52. Session cookies by Roy+van+Rijn · · Score: 1

    I sure hope this browser doesn't just disable cookies, but just doesn't store them. For a lot of websites you need to have session-cookies!

    1. Re:Session cookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, depending on the sites you surf, cookies and cache-data can be very useful, so just not creating them would perhaps be something only a true porn-browser would do.
      But why don't just encrypt it? I don't want to read my own session-cookies and cache anyway... I know where I've been ;)
      And the history should just be stored for the current domain, so one could still use the back-button there.

      Oh, and there is always the option to just password-protect stuff...

  53. This is NOT a Web browser by KimmoA · · Score: 0

    This is not a Web browser -- it's one of the thousands of MSIE wrappers, created for the sole purpose of generating cash to this guy. (Actually, the file size is HUGE when you consider what it needs to do!)

    Go get Opera and run it in "kiosk" mode or something instead. This "browser" is useless.

  54. Just try a CTRL+F ... by oringe · · Score: 1

    Nice icon that in the dialog box - remind anyone of any well-know browser?

    1. Re:Just try a CTRL+F ... by oringe · · Score: 1

      or if you prefer to read - try CTRL+C ...

  55. Re:Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplet by mcai8rw2 · · Score: 1

    ooo Ouch!

    Nice tale!

    You see! thats why you should always internet access at home, so that you can look at that kind of thing there! Hehe.

    --
    >>>Scanning for I.D.I.O.T.S. >>>
    >>>I.D.I.O.T.S. FOUND! >>>
  56. Remembering my email...?! by Roy+van+Rijn · · Score: 1

    My first impressions of this browser aren't very good.. I've noticed something very strange.
    I pushed 'Run' and got a nice looking black browser with their own search-engine.

    But I usually use Google, so I typed in 'www.google.com'. And the first thing I notice in the top corner:
    'myemail@google.com | Personal Homepage | etc'

    Google sees that I'm surfing to their website..! And they can't be locating me by my IP because I'm behind a firewall inside my company's network. (right?) So it probably just uses IE in the background or something (?!)

    Or is there another explanation?

    1. Re:Remembering my email...?! by oringe · · Score: 1

      Yep - same for me - strange that I have IE open too - it's picking up the same cookies as IE but it's not storing them so I guess it's OK and does exactly what it says on the tin. I love the attention to detail on the dialog boxes though - nice removal of all reference to IE throughout ... ;-)

  57. and if anybody wonders how that worked by goldcd · · Score: 1

    they used 0845 dialling codes - non-geographic number, billed as a local call that gave a very small (fractions of a penny) kickback per minute to calls made to them on it.

    1. Re:and if anybody wonders how that worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0845 isn't really "local rate" though, that's just marketing bullshit to hide the fact it's a revenue sharing number - that is, the recipient of the call gets a cut of the revenue. 0870 and 0871 "national rate" are similar, but with a higher revenue IIRC.

      These things have spread like the plague. At least with actual premium rate numbers 09xxx it has to be very clearly stated that you're effectively paying the callee to take your call, also the price of the call is also stated. It is little known that 0845, 0870 etc are revenue earners for the callee. See www.saynoto0870.com

      The whole Freeserve thing was quite revolutionary at the time though, all other providers charged a monthly fee *and* call charges (usually through local access points). This predates home broadband availability in the UK remember. So it wasn't a bad deal getting "almost" free internet back then. Of course it was a matter of months before every man and his dog realised there was money to be made from 0845 revenue by providing internet access, hundreds of "free" ISPs appeared within about a year!

    2. Re:and if anybody wonders how that worked by joe+user+jr · · Score: 1
      0845 isn't local rate *now* - but it exactly was, back then.

      Oh, and Freeserve wasn't even the first 0845 ISP. That distinction, AFAIK, belongs to ConnectFree, who beat them by about a month, though they never had the advertising campaign that Freeserve did, leaving a lot of people with the impression that Freeserve were first.

      --
      .sigs: Just Say No!
  58. browser by AndriusZz · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It just cant be perfect, wait for few months and it will be full of holes wich hackers will be using. It's just fresh stuff at the moment. Soon it will be forgotten :D

  59. 5.5" DSDD Floppy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >If the text is to be believed, it does 1 thing firefox doesn't.

    >Fit on a 5.5" DSDD Floppy.

    You may find it difficult sticking that 5.5" square in the 5.25" hole.

  60. The simple way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tar czf moz.tgz .mozilla/
    # browse "special interest sites, then quit firefox
    find .mozilla/ -exec shred -u {} \;
    sudo tar zxf .mozilla/
    # voila!

    # Maybe even
    swapoff $swap_var
    shred $swap_var
    mkswap $swap_var
    swapon $swap_var

    # Good enough for me.

  61. Make a firefox profile, get the same benefit... by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 1

    I have a "safe" profile on my Firefox browser at home that I use for this sort of thing. That profile has its preferences set to not cache, keep cookies for session only and delete them at the end, has no bookmarks, doesn't run javascript, and so forth. "Browzar" would be better if it actually avoided writing to the disk at all, but apparently it writes and then deletes.
    Isn't that the same?

    --
    2*3*3*3*3*11*251
  62. "leaves no footprints" ... by oringe · · Score: 1

    apart from the big muddy ones stomped all over it here! Too many flaws to mention Too much negative comment to read further It's an IE skin which does nothing new and there's bound to be some monetization scheme eventually - are there Google adverts in hidden IFrames lurking under that header bar I wonder!?!

    1. Re:"leaves no footprints" ... by KimmoA · · Score: 0

      Um... hello? The search field?

    2. Re:"leaves no footprints" ... by oringe · · Score: 1

      Umm na-hah! - those are provided by Yahoo! Overture at the moment

    3. Re:"leaves no footprints" ... by KimmoA · · Score: 0

      Hmm... I didn't check too carefully, but it seemed to be like a typical "custom partner deal". Dunno for sure, though.

  63. __utma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which includes slashdot and loads of other sites Apperently, it's down to Google Analytics http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/27574

    1. Re:__utma by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      What about the "h2=o" cookie I keep seeing? Anyone know what that's used for?

      What I think I really want is name-based, as well as host-based, cookie filtering. I know PHPSESSID is usually fairly innocuous, as are bb_lastactivity and friends.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    2. Re:__utma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      searching around on google, it looks like h2=o is related to anti-popup blocker scripts

      http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3 06956

      If so, then blocking cookies based on cookie name might become necessary

  64. Re:Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplet by DataCannibal · · Score: 1

    Funny +5 ?

    I don't find it funny at all, but then, I am over 18 :-)

    --
    No but, yeah but, no but...
  65. Using Tor in a virtual machine by Lknight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And for anyone who wants to try a preconfigured Tor-based Firefox VMware appliance (making your surfing not only anonymous, but segmented from the host machine) you can find a torrent at http://www.mininova.org/tor/408257.

  66. If you are that paranoid ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

    Browse from within a virtual machine. Then don't save its state when you exit. BTW, this is also a nice way to avoid catching viruses or other malware.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
  67. IE dependent? Huh?? by MirrororriM · · Score: 1
    From the download page:

    You will need a PC running a minimum of Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), with a minimum of Explorer (IE) 5.5.

    Is this application dependent on IE? What's that all about?

    --
    Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
  68. Re: Business Models by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    All companies from the dawn of time until right about now, have used the protected-property model to try their shot at making a living.

    In the world of physical products, examine a calculator. Perfect commodity, now.
    Suppose someone adds a particular variety of limited-email so you can email calculation results.

    For some quantity of limited time, they have a Feature. (Regardless of how sloppy it might be.)

    Then when it comes time to make the building lease payment, they have to sell their calculator as "the only one with the Feature." To be the sole owner of the Feature long enough to make a month's lease payment, Company keeps it closed source.

    The following month, someone has had time to replicate the Feature, then it becomes a race to see whether the sweatshop is cheaper in China or Argentina.

    Though flawed, the RIAA is the poster citizen of this problem. "If the content is digital, and everyone has it, how do *I* make my rent *now*?

    No one has thundered through with the Perfect Answer. The first companies to do so within each category will make a killing. Until then, we are debating "which flaw is the lesser of 4 evils".

    --TaoPhoenix

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  69. Re:Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, did you score?

  70. For the slightly more paranoid... by Lknight · · Score: 1

    You can also try using a vmware based Tor browsing appliance if you're really paranoid (segmented from host machine, routes traffice through Tor, doesn't save anything on the virtual disk when shutdown), like the one I'm seeding http://www.mininova.org/tor/408257.

    1. Re:For the slightly more paranoid... by pointbeing · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Except that /.banned my home IP address for running a tor server. We got it resolved, though ;-)

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
  71. Add anonymous Tor browsing... by Lknight · · Score: 1

    Firefox on Ubuntu and you have a vmware appliance you can get from http://www.mininova.org/tor/408257.

  72. sorry for the lameness, but... by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    wouldn't it be cool if he adopted the name "Ajax Amen"? i mean, it's like he'd be truly faithful to Web2.0...

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  73. Pointless on Linux by dskoll · · Score: 1

    Just mount your .mozilla (or indeed your entire home directory) using something like EncFS.
    That way, you can keep all your cookies and history, but no-one else can get at them. (Well,
    unless you pick a weak passphrase... but you don't do that, right?)

  74. Finally!! by PaulModz · · Score: 1

    A browser I can use on my laptop when Jesus is carrying me across the beach.

  75. Use lynx via SSH by david_g17 · · Score: 5, Funny

    SSH into your own box, and surf p0rn sites with lynx. what? you don't go there just to read the articles?

    1. Re:Use lynx via SSH by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      ssh -L $pickaport:localhost:3128 you@your.home.server.running.squid

      And then use any browser of choice via SSH by using $pickaport as the local proxy.

    2. Re:Use lynx via SSH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      SSH into your own box
      nice euphemism.
    3. Re:Use lynx via SSH by commanderfoxtrot · · Score: 1

      But then your DNS requests would still be picked up...

      That's also a failure of "standard" tor client setups.

      --
      http://blog.grcm.net/
    4. Re:Use lynx via SSH by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      Ok, then tunnel ppp over ssh with the default route pointing to the other PPP endpoint, and then use your own private resolver as well. Just don't forget to add a static route for the remote endpoint first...oops :)

    5. Re:Use lynx via SSH by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      Um, what's SSH? What's Lynx? I don't see it under All Programs - Accessories - Communications

      Can I get to that under My Computer / My Pictures?

    6. Re:Use lynx via SSH by rifter · · Score: 1

      Why not just use

      ssh -X ...

      and run an x server (like what comes for free with cygwin, or be a man and install linux) so you can just use the graphical browser on your home machine (like firefox)? That's basically what I usually do.

  76. Re:Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplet by haydenth · · Score: 1

    Yeah, really not funny. I feel bad for the girl.

    --
    - tom -
  77. Re:Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now THAT'S funny.

  78. Off By One by DigiShaman · · Score: 1
    Am I the only one here that knows about Off By One? It's 1.2MB in size and contains just the EXE file. No install needed. Just google for it.

    From the website.

    The Off By One Web Browser may be the world's smallest and fastest web browser with full HTML 3.2 support. It is a completely self-contained, stand-alone 1.2 MB application with no dependencies on any other browser or browser component. For Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  79. Not the first UK ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freeserve was *not* the first UK ISP. They started about 10 years after Pipex & Demon got going.

  80. Avant Browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm surprised no one has mentioned Avant Browser (http://www.avantbrowser.com/). It sounds like it works exactly the same as this program (uses IE's renderer API and allows you to block images/flash and cleanup cookies/etc when you close the program). It is a little bit larger than this browzar claims to be, but I remember when it used to be under a MB (getting close to 2 MB now as they add features like tabbed browsing and mouse gestures).

  81. BROWZAR IS SPYWARE!!!! by nicospoul · · Score: 1

    Dont use browzar. It is spyware!!
    As you already know "Browzar" is actually an IE extension , so do the following trick to expose the spying :
    1. Open an Internet Explorer (NOT BROWZAR!!) window and go to Tools -> Internet Options -> Security -> Custom Settings...
    2. Select "Prompt" in the "Allow Paste operations via script" option
    (Btw This options disables the "feature" that IE has to remote-copy your cliboard contents (more on this here)
    3. Save and close IE
    4.Now open the Browzar browser and go to ANY wabepage you like. ANY WEB PAGE!! Select a text and try to copy it (ctrl+c or right-click copy)
    5. Be very afraid

  82. Totally redundant idea by NekoXP · · Score: 1

    You could ship a 20k script that sets up Firefox or IE (via group policy) to do exactly the same thing.

    A whole new browser? Give me a fucking break. I remember how shitty Freeserve was and still is, okay?

  83. Ajaz Ahmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The 264kb application is the brainchild of Ajaz Ahmen[...]
    Who wants to bet the number one use of this will be by terrorism groups in the middle east?
  84. Privacy of search engine data by massysett · · Score: 1

    So it's going to delete cookies...so what? Article says they're forming a partnership with Yahoo to share search engine revenue. Even without cookies Yahoo can still use IP addresses and build a search history. As the recent AOL gaffe shows, that data can be quite revealing. If the makers of this new browser really cared about privacy they wouldn't be looking to grab search engine revenue.

  85. Safari by alittlespice · · Score: 1

    Safari for Mac OS X has a 'Private Browsing' option that does exactly that. Doesn't cache, store cookies, or remember anything about what you've done once you've done it. And it's already available for Mac!

    Of course, Internet Explorer does this sometimes, but it's more of a random thing, deletes everything, history, favourites, cookies etc. Happens every once in a while, I thought it was a bug, but maybe it's a 'feature'.

  86. wtf links? you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lynx. effin illiterate

  87. Mac users already have this.. by Divx · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you're on a mac, using safari, you just click on the 'Safari' menu item, then click on 'Reset Safari'. Viola, all of that stuff is erased for you. There are also a dozen utility programs that do this for you too.

  88. NO U IDIOT! by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

    No, there's another web browser called 'links' =P

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
  89. Usual Bad Editing.... by stiggle · · Score: 1

    It would help if the article was quoted properly.

    Freeserve was the UKs first FREE ISP (only pay the call costs).
    It was not the first ISP in the UK.

  90. Use Torpark instead by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

    Torpark ( http://torpark.nfshost.com/ ) runs portably, clears all cached data (which is minimal in the first place) on close, and unlike the browser from TFA, it sets up a Tor circuit, giving you at least some chance of keeping the browsing you'd like to be private out of anyone's IP logs (and request/response logs if they're really anal).

    Also, when Torpark is running, you can use the virtual proxy it sets up via Socks - e.g., you can set IE to use Torpark as its proxy server, as long as there's a gateway straight out of your LAN.

    Torpark leaves your FF and IE history intact; the only inconvenience is that since Torpark *is* built on top of portable Firefox, you'll have to close your other FF instance when firing it up.

    More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpark.

  91. Macs have had this since Tiger by mmeister · · Score: 1

    Mac folks already have this with Safari in OS X 10.4 (Tiger).

    No new browser needed.

    Just Enable Safari -> Private Browsing.

  92. Give me a browser that hides my MAC address. by neo · · Score: 1

    You want true anonymity? Give me a browser that hides my IP and MAC address. Then that's going to really hide my identity from websites. It's only a matter of time before people start tracking you by MAC address.

    1. Re:Give me a browser that hides my MAC address. by Builder · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that remote sites see your MAC address? I can't see why this would be transmitted beyond your router.

      As for hiding your IP address, just use TOR.

    2. Re:Give me a browser that hides my MAC address. by neo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I thought that MAC address was sent so that the router knew which computer to send an HTML file on port 80 to, for example. Otherwise how does the router know which computer to send the TCP/IP packet?

    3. Re:Give me a browser that hides my MAC address. by tuffy · · Score: 1

      MAC addresses don't get sent over IPv4 and vanish from packets as soon as they leave the subnet. A web server gets a connection to {its IP}:80 from {your IP}:{client port} By sending HTTP packets back to that port, NAT will forward the HTTP data along to your machine inside the subnet.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    4. Re:Give me a browser that hides my MAC address. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      MAC addresses don't get sent over IPv4
      You've obviously never heard of ARP. It is a well established protocol still used today. In fact it is very easy to use.
    5. Re:Give me a browser that hides my MAC address. by tuffy · · Score: 1
      You've obviously never heard of ARP. It is a well established protocol still used today. In fact it is very easy to use.

      You appear to be confused. ARP is part of the ethernet/IP bridge. Your computer works with ARP to get its packets through your router and back again, but that translation is meaningless to the rest of the internet.

      A web server only handles TCP/IP connections from web browsers and IPv4 packets do not contain a MAC address of any kind.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  93. Correction to article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to correct a point of fact in the article: Freeserve was not the first ISP in the UK. It may have been the first 'free' ISP, although I'm not even certain about that.

    Slashdot has got it wrong here. The original article was more accurate, though it wasn't very well worded.

    (* by 'free', they meant not having a subscription charge. They still made plenty of money from call charges)

  94. Already irrelevant! by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

    Firefox 2, beta 2 now natively has the option to "Always clear my private data when I close Firefox".

    Personally, I'd sooner use an established open-source browser (despite it currently being in the beta stage) than something IE based.

    Get FF beta 2 @ http://ftp-mozilla.netscape.com/pub/mozilla.org/fi refox/releases/2.0b2/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2 02.0%20Beta%202.exe
    just in case you're interested. I'd imagine an official notice will follow shortly, but there's none currently.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
  95. It sucks by GmAz · · Score: 1

    Well, for starters, its not 100% compatible with Slashdot and there is no right click for it. Useless if you ask me, but great for where I work. In my school district, this would save us so much time from teachers downloading crap they weren't supposed to, espically images. They have gigs and gigs of downloaded .gif images from the web stored on our servers.

    --
    Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
  96. "NO" footprint(s) by raalynthslair · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if they keep the browser from advertising things like the software and OS used to surf the hosting servers and/or IP/MAC address of the packets... Does it do an anon. proxy thing? There are much more subtle footprints than cache and history - those are only the "desktop end" of the footprint and are by far the "least important" in terms of following the tracks of someone from the admin/investigative end. Of course, it must be nice for parents to know that their kids can download this tiny app and stash it somewhere where Mom and Dad will never find it and surf all the porn they want when they're not home and there's next to no way (aside from keyloggers and/or "filter" software) to know where they went and what they did...

    --
    -- "You must be the change you desire to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi --
  97. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1

    Didn't fdisk.com have a java browser (that looked exactly like Netscape) Did that save anything?

  98. No cookies my ass.... by d3bruts1d · · Score: 1

    "No browsing history, stored files, or cookies"

    I call BS on the no cookie comment. I downloaded Browzar just to see what it looked like, sent it to my site only to find that I was logged in. So, I logged out of my site in Opera (my default browser) and refreshed the page in Browzar and found I was still logged in. So I opened up IE (which I use for testing) and see that I was logged in with it. Hit the log out button, refreshed Browzar and found that I had been logged out.

    I decided to completely delete my cookies... Opera, IE, Firefox... opened up my site with Browzar and logged in (which I knew would try and set a cookie). What do you know... a cookie was created in C:\Documents and Settings\\Cookies. Closed Browzar and opened it back up and navigated to my site to find that I was still logged in.

    Went to Google, and guess what. Another cookie was set. Surprise, surprise.

  99. Re:Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trick: start all searches with something like "-zkdivjsdidf whatever else"

  100. Re:Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplet by hackstraw · · Score: 1

    As soon as I typed the first 'S', up pops good old google autocomplete:

    "STD clinic london"


    I turn off all of that autocomplete crap, but does anyone really find the lack of privacy, potential for embarrassment, and the frequency of auto completing the wrong thing better than having Google say "Did you mean ___?" or just typing a few words?

    I've simply never found any of this autocomplete stuff a feature. I search for so much stuff (99.999% of it in a Google search bar accessible via Apple-L, TAB, type hit return) that I just don't see how it could be any quicker any other way.

    Now, the fun of seeing "STD clinic london" merely enough for everyone to not have this feature. For all we know this was for her cousin or something or for a book she is writing, but its still embarrassing and unnecessary to have such info flying back at you all the time.

  101. root on work PCs by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    ...If you got root at your pc at work, I suggest creating an additional account for you "personal recreation"...

    And if you don't have root at work, are running Windows, and there's no BIOS password and/or CD Boot is enabled, you can always make an NT Password Reset disk. No relation to the creator - just a happy customer. And, yes, I've always used the thing for white-hat purposes.

    -b.

    1. Re:root on work PCs by rikkards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um..
      If you are listing the above situations and you go run a tool to reset the password, you should really make sure your resume is up to date as that is a huge fireable offense (in some situations possibly criminal). If you don't normally have access there is a reason for it.

    2. Re:root on work PCs by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      If you are listing the above situations and you go run a tool to reset the password, you should really make sure your resume is up to date as that is a huge fireable offense (in some situations possibly criminal). If you don't normally have access there is a reason for it.

      Right. Nothing wrong with dissiminating info on how to fix problems. It's up to the people who read it to decide what to do with it. Me, I'm self-employed, so I'd never need to do anything like that :D

      -b.

    3. Re:root on work PCs by Mooga · · Score: 1

      If you can boot to a CD then why not just use one of the million secure live linux boot CDs?

      --
      ~ Mooga
  102. Re: And to clarify.... by d3bruts1d · · Score: 1

    Oh... and no it doesn't go in and delete the cookies when you close it. I opened Browzar back up to find myself still logged into my site.

    I've tested this on various sites, without using any other browser. The cookies are indeed there.

  103. Re: Deletes Cookies After by d3bruts1d · · Score: 1

    My mistake on the above reply. It does delete the cookies after you close, provided that you don't have IE open...

  104. Search=No Anonymity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RTFS people as it says the company will use the search results to generate income.

    My question is this: What information is going to be included in the search info sent to their servers?

    Viral Marketing
    That's exactly what in hell this product appears to be. Simply put, it's a virus/trojan that appears to be a privacy browser (remember the pribrowser trojan?).

  105. been there done that by Intangion · · Score: 1

    firefox already can do this with just a couple settings

  106. Re:Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplet by jrumney · · Score: 1

    I'm probably not a typical user, since I do development on web applications so I'm constantly typing the same URL - the login page for the application I'm currently working on. I find it very convenient to be able to type two letters then hit the down arrow and return, but if the feature wasn't there, I guess I could just bookmark the page. As it is, I don't find the need for bookmarks because autocompletion does the job. Autocompletions for the search box on the other hand, I;ve never really found a use for. Most times when I search, its for something new - things I want all the time I tend to know the URL for, which is one step less than searching and clicking - especially since some search terms I need to go to the second page to get past the search optimization spam.

  107. Windows only? Well, that's ok... by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    It's Windows only, eh? That's not a problem because those poor bastards need it more badly than the Mac/*Nix crowd anyways...

    Of course, you can always just fire up your botnet and leave someone else's footprints...that's what all the kids are doing.

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  108. Re:Obligitary funny story about Google Autocomplet by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    "STD clinic london" I typed as fast as I could and hoped she didn't notice! Turned out her PC had a virus too.

    Actually, a lot of people looking for an STD clinic might just be looking for a free place to get testing. I know I go get a spot check every year or so as a "just in case" measure. I'm a lot more comfortable with the prospect of being intimate with someone who I know is concerned about this sort of thing. A lot of people contract STDs from others, because those other people don't bother to find out if they have anything. It's the same thing with condoms. If a girl does not seem interested in using them, who else has she slept with that she wasn't interested in using them with? It is sad that someone who may just be being a responsible person is automatically subjected to this type of stigma.

  109. uh, did I miss something? Or is this April Fool's in August? I thought Firefox, Opera, and Safari already have the ability to delete your private web browsing data. And those three browsers are the only important ones. Anyone who uses Internet Exploder deserves to have their private data posted all over the Internet.

  110. My Computer by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    I'd like an Ubuntu image on a thumbdrive that reboots the host PC and uses only the thumbdrive for storage. That way I could use any PC with my own software, ensuring no tracks were left on the host PC because my software is controlling everything, and take the private stuff with me when I go. Without losing my history. I could keep personal info for filling forms and completing transactions on the thumbdrive.

    If the Ubuntu image rebooted in seconds as a suspended RAMdisk or hibernate image, it would be convenient enough to do this on demand without slowing down my work.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  111. not so secure by juanhf · · Score: 1

    just downloaded the windows version of the browser and ran filemon to watch what it was doing.

    it DOES use internet explorer's rendering engine... how can you tell?

    because it SAVES all your browsing history to internet explorer's temporary internet files folder... DUH!

    this reminds me of my programing windows course back in college (project #1 develop browser based on IE's api).

  112. Instead of deleting cache.. by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    why not just keep it encrypted? even a moderately strong password would take too much time for most people to get at.

    if you're just deleting the data, someone could undelete it. what if the system is turned off in the middle of using it, before the program has a chance to delete the information? (like someone steals your laptop from you while you're using it and runs with it?)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  113. Firefox and other Browsers already do this? by KnightMB · · Score: 1

    Other than IE, most every other browser has the option to "delete everything" when you exit the program, I'm not sure how this one will be any different. Maybe it has lower memory footprint that may appeal to those with resource taxed systems.

  114. Just maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should get on with some work during the day instead of worrying about who can see what you're up to?! It's the usual story, if you're doing nothing wrong, what have you got to hide?

    Now get on with some work, you lazy bastards.

  115. Come on This is just IE in a skinned window by SverrirF · · Score: 1

    Come on This is just IE in a skinned window. So I wonder how he will make the MacOS X and linux version.

  116. Not anonymous unless IP is blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would be nice is if this browser used the Mozilla engine, and had Tor-network support built in, so it would automatically anonymize all traffic through the "Browzar" without affecting any of your other installed apps.

  117. Why not Firefox by SloWave · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Why can't a special version of Firefox do this? After what I've seen lately, I trust commercial SW products about as much as I trust Microsoft.

  118. One crap idea leads to another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just goes to show that anybody can get publicity for any old crap these days. Tell you what, i've written several browsers that do exactly the same - i've also written a self-contained e-mail client that doesn't store crap everywhere! Big deal!!

    Why are people even entertaining this idea? This guy is such a big shot yet he registers his domains through 1&1??? It just goes to show that because you have one crap idea you shouldn't stop there.... keep going with more crap ideas and maybe one day you'll be hailed a genius.

  119. In OS X run srm in a cron job nightly for this by Tangential · · Score: 1

    Secure remove (srm) will securely delete the files. Just set up a shellscript with the files and/or directories you want cleaned out and schedule it in cron.

    Seems to me that a browser that would spool its files in a ramdisk (with user input as to what you want to hang onto) and automatic use of anonymizers is the real solution.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  120. Distrust by apharmdq · · Score: 2, Informative

    Firefox already has an extension for this called "Distrust." When it's off, you browse normally, gathering cookies and the usual thang. When it's on, it enters "distrust mode" and takes note of all the cookies added, cache changes, etc. These changes are all deleted when distrust is turned off, or when Firefox exits.
    I can't say for certain whether Opera has something like this, and I'm pretty certain IE doesn't, but in any case, what's the point of having yet another browser which touts a "feature" that's already available in a more popular browser?
    It seems to me we've been getting a lot of these specialized browsers implemented lately (Flock being another), so I'm rather suspicious about the intent of the developers. (Though maybe it's just paranoia.)

  121. errr by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    I think you're concerned about uploads.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  122. Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this EXACTLY like 'Private Browsing' mode in Safari or am I hallucinating again?

  123. Firefox can do this, its just a setting by sottitron · · Score: 1

    Hit Ctrl+Shift+Del (Windows) and choose to make everything private data and check the box to clear it all when you close Firefox.

  124. Based on IE - confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It sure is based on IE. I ran sysinternal's filemon on browzar - browzar loads IE

    12:26:09 PM BrowzarBlackWin:2804 OPEN C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\IEXPLORE.EXE SUCCESS Options: Open Access: 00100080

  125. This isn't the privacy risk I really worry about by DrVomact · · Score: 1

    I couldn't care less if the IT department sees what's on my work machine--I never do anything I'd be ashamed of at work (except read Slashdot, of course). I'm much more bothered by the fact that Google keeps records of the searches I do at home that could potentially be connected to me.

    I know a lot of you think the fact I'm worried about this must put me in the tinfoil hat class (actually, I am usually eveloped in my special invisible home-made Faraday cage). But I think there are sound reasons to be concerned about this. I used to blithely post my...er...somewhat unconventional political opinions (well, opinions on everything, actually) on the Interned under my true name. This was back in the late 80s, and the consequences of that indiscretion--plus other life experiences--have taught me the following:

    • If you make public any information, or even give it to a second party, do not depend on it disappearing. Ever. (Of course, you must consider Vomact's Exception to this principle--if you really need some old information, they won't be able to find the back-up.)
    • Information carelessly left around can be used against you.
    • Good intentions by the possessor of the information are of no value in protecting you (even if they have sworn to Do No Evil). If the information exists, a third party can acquire it methods ranging from by court order to simple theft.
    • Perhaps you're wondering why I would be worried that the government might go after me for my pr0n searches. Well, I'm not. I am concerned that some data mining might turn up some of my other interests, e.g., politics, explosives, and firearms. Of course, the latter two are merely theoretical in nature. Mostly.

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  126. firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox has a similar feature. Under tools it has a clear private data feature. You can set it so it clears data every time you exit firefox.

  127. User Agent string by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; Media Center PC 2.8; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)

  128. Opera? by sarcasticfrench · · Score: 0

    I can already do all this using Opera. Just set it to store 0 pages in the history, a 0 mb cache, etc. and you don't even NEED this thing. Also, I know this has already been said, but Browzar seems to be based on IE, so it can't be anywhere near as secure as Opera. Browzer seems to have trouble with maximizing on my computer, and the close, minimize, and maximize buttons end up hidden under my start menu (my start menu is on the top.) Opera also has a hide to taskbar shortcut (ctrl-h).
    The only real use I can see for this is if you're at someone else's computer, and need a quick and easy way to browse the 'net without them knowing about it.
    Needless to say, Opera also has all these other nice features (such as tabbed browsing, integrated bittorent client, etc.) which are sadly lacking in Browzar.

    --
    This is not a sig. This is a llama-duck. Quack.
  129. USB Key by xo0m · · Score: 1

    Tried it and it functions well enough for plopping on a usb key for browsing @ work...small size too!

  130. Your ISP is logging everything anyway by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Who cares about the browser when your ISP is logging every URL you visit anyway?

  131. Works surprisingly well by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    I am wondering if this browser is a layer on top of another browser. I mean, I launched the program, it properly rendered webpages, and properly used flash 9 without it having to be installed. It is surprisingly fast. While I have not stressed tested the brower yet, so far it has properly displayed everything I have thrown at it. This surprised me, as it is only 264 kb

  132. For home, not work (was Re:Best idea I've heard... by bourne · · Score: 1
    I fail to see the benefit of using a supposedly secure browser. Any reasonably competent IT guy will see right trough it.

    You aren't married, are you?

    I can't find it now, but there was an article on /. a while back about a girl who dumped her boyfriend after loading Firefox onto her machine and it picked up the password database from his previous installation, which he had deleted to hide his dating site trolling. IIRC, the kicker was that the password database recorded that he didn't want to save a password for those sites, which kind of revealed exactly what he wanted hidden.

    Anyways, my point is, something like this is aimed at home/family users with a shared PC environment (read: hubby surfs porn after wifey logs out of her blog-surfing for the night). That isn't to say many stupid people will try to avoid der IT ubermenschen with it, but they'll get what they deserve.

  133. What I want to see... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    If I had the time, I would do it myself - alas, I have way to many other projects going on to do this. However, I don't see why someone else couldn't "pick up the torch" based on this blurb...


    I want to see a LiveCD which you can pop into a machine with two NICs, and it runs giving you:


    • An iptables NAT firewall/router (hell, maybe even make it a real firewall)
    • SQUID proxy server
    • Dynamic TOR router with "whitelist" config
    • Custom P2P search engine spider


    You would set up your browser to proxy through the SQUID. The whitelist for the TOR router would only route requests and such through TOR for certain IPs/domains you have configured. The P2P search engine would use a spidering approach to check its cache of found sites and return them for searches, but if not found, it would queue up a search to look for it to populate the cache while also sending out the request to others in the grid of users of the system (via TOR or otherwise - the P2P app needs to be at least as secure as FreeNet). Every month your spider would "dance" and re-spider the sites and any others found (maybe it could use google as a seed) to update your cache. It would only be specific to your tastes - the P2P aspect would handle the rest (that is, if you search your personal search using something not in your spidered cache of stuff, it would use the P2P engine to find the results hopefully on the grid - if it doesn't find it, it would use TOR and google to seed itself and cache it).


    Your "homepage" would point to this P2P search page (residing on the server - cache is stored on hard drive, possibly encrypted), and when you click on a result, if not already defined, it would "block" it, saying you are going to an "unknown" site - use regular proxy or TOR proxy - to let you set up a filter system whereby for sites you want to remain anonymous about, it TORs you to them.


    All of this would also have a web-based configuration system - hell, if they could fit all of this into a WRT54G (is that right) Linux wifi router box, that would be perfect - but such a system may be too heavy for it (dunno).


    I figure this would be the minimum thing needed to keep the bastards from seeing what we do and what we search - we need our own private and free search system, even if it isn't as fast or complete as google. TOR and P2P takes care of the rest. Now, I am sure I am missing something, but I think this kind of a system would be a good start. Does anybody else have some suggestions?
    The TOR router would be used only b

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  134. Extensions by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 1

    Steather works very similar to "Private Browsing" in Safari.

    --
    "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
  135. Can't delete data from a HDD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not possible to delete a file from a HDD, especially when you are using a modern journaled file system, such as Ext3, ReiserFS or NTFS.

    So, to be effective at deleting stuff, you need to encrypt your HDD and change the password and if you do that, then you can just as well use any old browser.

  136. haha ripped by TransVador · · Score: 1

    http://www.browzar.com/stories/index.html do a search from a block of text in some of the stories and most of them return results from b3ta.com http://b3ta.com/questions/googleruinedmylife/post4 8612/

  137. proxies are better by talledega500 · · Score: 1

    All browsers can do the same thing. Its called a secure proxy. get one. http://www.mysecureisp.com/

  138. This does what that Firefox doesn't do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox:
    Shift+Control+Delete .. Poof!

  139. Yeah sure... by PastaLover · · Score: 1

    1. Break cookies/cache/autocompleting forms
    2. Sell it as a "privacy enhancement"
    3. ???
    4. Profit!