Slashdot Mirror


Browser Private Modes Not So Private After All

CWmike writes "Browsing in 'private mode" isn't as private as users think, reports Gregg Keizer. 'There are some traces left behind [by all browsers] that could reveal some of the sites that you've been to,' said researcher Collin Jackson. He, along with three colleagues, will present their findings on Tuesday at the Usenix Security Symposium in DC. IE, Firefox and Safari, for instance, leave traces of SSL encryption keys even when run in private mode, while IE and Safari on Windows preserve self-signed SSL certificates in a 'vault' file that could be read by others to track the browser's path. Firefox also retains evidence of some certificates. Private mode has also been billed as a way for users to hide themselves from the prying eyes of sites that try to track habits and histories. Jackson said most users see that as the biggest attraction to private mode. 'Some browsers do a better job of protecting you from other types of scenarios, such as Web site tracking,' Jackson said. 'Safari is very much more willing to reveal you to Web sites than the others.'"

198 comments

  1. Opera by AnonGCB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Opera wasn't included, but I'm very curious as to how good their private mode is.

    --
    http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    1. Re:Opera by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      I am also very interested in this. I've been using Opera as my browser of choice for over 6 months now and can't see myself switching back to anything else. I don't really use private browsing mode, but it would be nice to know how well it functions if I did need it.

    2. Re:Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

    3. Re:Opera by ReederDa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like to know how Chrome is rated with this.

    4. Re:Opera by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Though I can't answer your question, there's something FF lovers can enjoy out of switching, besides the fact that Opera wasn't cheese-holed enough to be "newsworthy" for their piece.

      The Opera Private mode does NOT kill your current tab session like Firefox does. A single tab opens and any newly-linked tabs appear to be protected as well. You can, say, take your lunch and easily copy credit card details from gmail's "public" browsing session into a private tab containing amazon.com's credit card verification.

    5. Re:Opera by morari · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Private mode has also been billed as a way for users to hide themselves from the prying eyes of sites that try to track habits and histories. Jackson said most users see that as the biggest attraction to private mode.

      I thought hiding your porn habits from the wife or employer was the biggest attraction?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    6. Re:Opera by Kesch · · Score: 1

      Definitive scientific testing has been conducted.

      Opera is more private than a potato.

      --
      If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    7. Re:Opera by masmullin · · Score: 1

      Can you do masturbation wrong? I think I do it ok.

    8. Re:Opera by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

      You mean, like online banking, or any other purpose where there are legitimate reasons for not wanting to leave history or cookies behind?

    9. Re:Opera by f3rret · · Score: 1

      I got plenty of stuff to worry about: Nuclear war, conventional war, meteor strike, Gamma Ray Bursts, an assortment of various super bugs, free masons, the inevitable process of aging, over population, North Korea, random crazy people and alien abduction and the subsequent loss of rectal virginity.

      I also not doing anything wrong.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    10. Re:Opera by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      I thought hiding your porn habits from the wife or employer was the biggest attraction?

      THIS is why most people use private browsing. Most people's wives/husbands aren't going to know how to view SSL keys, etc. Most people just look at the history/bookmarks if they're snooping.

      Plus, browsers in private mode still utilize the DNS cache, so a simple /ipconfig displaydns would show where you've been as well.

    11. Re:Opera by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      /ipconfig displaydns

      Whoops. Meant ipconfig /displaydns Or ipconfig /displaydns|more works well too.

    12. Re:Opera by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      'If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.'

      Since I'm not doing anything wrong, no one has any need to snoop.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    13. Re:Opera by elmodog · · Score: 1

      Can you do masturbation wrong?

      Perhaps if you mistake super glue for lubricant.

    14. Re:Opera by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I thought hiding your porn habits from the wife or employer was the biggest attraction?

      Who surfs for porn at work? You can't exactly crack one off at your desk, even if it does seem like a quiet lunchtime.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:Opera by wondershit · · Score: 1

      I think Opera got better. I once opened Google in private mode and was still logged in. Now this isn't the case anymore, even when opening them right after each other. But what is really great is that it also won't save or read Flash cookies in private mode. I recently read that some browsers have or had problems with it but can't remember where. I think they'll all figure it out eventually. (well, it might be useful for those who use Flash... /. seems to be populated only by people who despise it.) Of course this doesn't say if it leaks encryption keys or whatever.

    16. Re:Opera by byisk · · Score: 1

      Some guy at OSnews.pl reported that Opera stores his browsing history in opcache folder. It is very interesting, because he removes browsing history everyday, using Opera's GUI, but the stored history in opcache reaches 2 years back. All files in that folder are gzipped and there's about 10 000 such files. I don't trust web browsers which are not Open Source. And no, Chrome is not Open Source.

      --
      Do not forget to check out my blog.
  2. The problem with first posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You stumble on the page and see (0 Comments) followed by this huge white space. Looking at it, how can you not write something in it? Multiply this mentality across every other visitor who experiences a blank page and it's no wonder you have so many 'first posts' half way down the page.

    1. Re:The problem with first posts by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Funny

      We fight our fear of an empty internet?

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:The problem with first posts by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

      /. abhors a vacuum.

      --
      Reply to That ||
    3. Re:The problem with first posts by Xaemyl · · Score: 1

      frist respnose! Oh wait ...

  3. Safari has extremely lax security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shocker! Say it ain't so!

    How many more of these until Browser jokes around here end with "Safari!" instead of "Internet Explorer!"? At least IE takes security seriously nowadays...

    (You'll never find a vulnerability in my Mosaic! Ha ha! Security through obsolescence!)

    1. Re:Safari has extremely lax security? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      At least IE takes security seriously nowadays...

      Warning, this site is very secure. Yes/No/Retry

      ?

    2. Re:Safari has extremely lax security? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      You know private browsing wasn't exactly design to be a DOD level security feature. It is supposed to keep your browsing habits from the casual observer using the same computer. If you take security seriously you have to have other measures in place.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  4. Flash cookies remain too by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As there is a flash animation on every other site, looking at your flash cash pretty much reveals what you've "anonymously" browsed recently...

    1. Re:Flash cookies remain too by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · · Score: 1

      (meant cache, obviously...)

    2. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Firefox in Privacy mode with Better Privacy extension. Pretty good setup.

    3. Re:Flash cookies remain too by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      No, looking in /dev/null doesn't reveal much of anything.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As there is a flash animation on every other site

      Sounds like your ad-blocker is malfunctioning. You may want to consider getting noscript too but personally I'd sort out whatever's wrong with the ad-blocker first.

    5. Re:Flash cookies remain too by hvm2hvm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I use a virtual machine and I restore the previous snapshot after each browsing session, beat that!

      --
      ics
    6. Re:Flash cookies remain too by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      No, looking in /dev/null doesn't reveal much of anything.

      You think so? I just looked into your /dev/null, and you wouldn't think what I found there! Really hardcore stuff you like to watch!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Flash cookies remain too by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about running a LiveCD distro and then physically rebooting the machine after each browsing session?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    8. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have that extension but use Chrome for my incognito browsing (and firefox for non-private browsing). Usually, after exiting chrome I just open and close Firefox to destroy my flash cookies.

    9. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I run a virtual machine on a live CD, then restore the snapshot, reboot the machine, snap the CD in half, attach a high powered electromagnet to the tower, then burn down the building.

    10. Re:Flash cookies remain too by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Funny

      What? No TrueCrypt?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    11. Re:Flash cookies remain too by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why are you looking at his /dev/null? That is as hard core as it gets.

    12. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to know what you do when the CD's in ISO form...

    13. Re:Flash cookies remain too by al.caughey · · Score: 1

      And just what were you beating while you were on the virtual machine?

    14. Re:Flash cookies remain too by camperslo · · Score: 1

      Even browsers that allow disabling cookies usually still have both Flash cookies (some trail every Flash site) and JAVA cookies. JAVA also may cache images outside the browser cache.

      As memory intensive as modern browsers are, and with them seemly able to go back endlessly with that back button, it should also be assumed that every page you visit it swapped into the virtual memory swap file.

      At this point, Private Browsing mode seems to do little more than hide the browser history from a tech-illiterate spouse.

      Safari does deserve a small amount of credit for the disallow third-party cookies setting being the default.

    15. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chmod -R 000 .adobe
      chmod -R 000 .macromedia

      sudo chown -R root .adobe
      sudo chown -R root .macromedia

      Of course any Flash application that requires the writing of a cookie will no longer work, but you shouldn't have to go to those sites anyways.

      Alternately, you could just make a habit of deleting the .adobe and .macromedia directories when you're done browsing.

    16. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except those of us who are really concerned with privacy run noscript and disable flash cookies by default.

    17. Re:Flash cookies remain too by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      sudo chattr -R +i .adobe
      sudo chattr -R +i .macromedia

    18. Re:Flash cookies remain too by robi2106 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What a rookie..... you left IP address traces on the gateway logs of your ISP. better nuke your ISP from orbit just to be safe.

    19. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Bratmon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You still have logs at the sites you visited. Better get them too, just in case.

    20. Re:Flash cookies remain too by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      I use Lynx.

    21. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Curate · · Score: 1

      What offset are you looking at? If you delve just a bit further into /dev/null, you'll find some very revealing stuff.

    22. Re:Flash cookies remain too by paiute · · Score: 3, Funny

      I use Lynx.

      and a really vivid imagination.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    23. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Idbar · · Score: 2, Informative

      then burn down the building.

      I think that's the building he was talking about... his ISP. It's kind of annoying to burn down your own house every time.

    24. Re:Flash cookies remain too by /dev/zero · · Score: 1

      Pfft. I take off and nuke my apartment from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      --

      He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.
      -- J.R.R. Tolkien
    25. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are forgetting people that may have seen your screen may have also left before you burnt down the building.

    26. Re:Flash cookies remain too by ytpete · · Score: 1

      The current version of Flash respects "Private Browsing" mode in all major browsers, so you shouldn't have to worry about this loophole anymore.

    27. Re:Flash cookies remain too by ytpete · · Score: 1

      Flash now respects the browser's private browsing mode. As for Java, I think it can only set cookies by going through a browser-implemented API... and hopefully each browser has made that API follow the private browsing settings also...

    28. Re:Flash cookies remain too by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's just pathetic and very cavalier attitude towards your privacy and security.

      I run the Universe through a serial wormhole back into the past, so that all states of all atoms/photons/electrons/gravitons, EVERYTHING is restored back to the way it was exactly before.

      Once the Universe passes through the wormhole, I annihilate that, so that there is no residual information left anywhere.

      Oh, and I have already locked the parallel universes in a time loop that is set to happen prior to any of my browsing interests, so no way you can recover the data from statistical analysis of those puppies.

    29. Re:Flash cookies remain too by blai · · Score: 1

      you don't nuke the planet?

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    30. Re:Flash cookies remain too by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Not sure about other browsers, but this was fixed over a month ago with the latest version of Flash if you're running IE8.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    31. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Jason Bourne, is that you?

    32. Re:Flash cookies remain too by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      don't forget the server's ISP and and any routers bounced through on the way. And finally the DNS servers.

    33. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure that's secure enough?

      I think you have to take off and nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

    34. Re:Flash cookies remain too by camperslo · · Score: 1

      So now Flash only stalks users and shares what Flash sites they've visited with other Flash sites the rest of the time? Normal browser cookie controls can't prevent/delete those either. That's still not much respect for privacy. It's nasty behavior most users don't know about.

      Some Firefox users use the BetterPrivacy plugin for dealing with Flash cookies,
      ideally most would also disable Flash by default and enable it only on specific sites.
      (several plugins allow such control)

      Browser settings, including private browsing, zero-size or auto cache delete, and no-cookie or delete-cookie settings DO NOT prevent JAVA content from saving cookies, cached images and other data. (not kept with similar browser files)

      Among other uses, the NoScript plugin can disable Flash, JAVA, and Silverlight on untrusted sites. It can also be set to block clear-GIFs aka web-beacons (stalking via tiny invisible images you can't see loading from third-party servers).

    35. Re:Flash cookies remain too by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Funny

      I telnet into the servers, and type out the headers by hand.

    36. Re:Flash cookies remain too by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      You've confounded /dev/null and /dev/random. The latter is where all the really exciting stuff is (it includes all of pi!)

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    37. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      You've confused /dev/random and /dev/urandom. The latter doesn't block waiting for more entropy.

      --
      $ make available
    38. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no real way to get rid of everything. The best way I've found to deal with this issue is to die and reincarnate as another being.

    39. Re:Flash cookies remain too by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      You've confounded /dev/null and /dev/random. The latter is where all the really exciting stuff is (it includes all of pi!)

      Maybe so, but /dev/null has greater capacity - you can only get one copy of pi into /dev/random.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    40. Re:Flash cookies remain too by flyingkillerrobots · · Score: 1

      In my comparch class: Professor: A little cache can buy you a lot of benefit. Student: That's what she said!

      --
      "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
    41. Re:Flash cookies remain too by camperslo · · Score: 1

      It's kind of annoying to burn down your own house every time.

      Makes ya wonder where the Fire in Firefox came from, doesn't it...

    42. Re:Flash cookies remain too by f3rret · · Score: 1

      It's kind of annoying to burn down your own house every time.

      Makes ya wonder where the Fire in Firefox came from, doesn't it...

      Not really, no.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    43. Re:Flash cookies remain too by hvm2hvm · · Score: 1

      My score on a barbie online game... No one must ever know :-SS

      --
      ics
    44. Re:Flash cookies remain too by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And don't forget that traces of your internet browsing history will have leaked out as electromagnetic signals to the universe as a whole where they could be intercepted by alien races.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:Flash cookies remain too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some VM's will leave the difference file around even if you revert, your hard drive will fill up and someone could mount that file, like if they forgot what site they looked at yesterday (oops, I said too much...)

  5. You need all of your files on a ramdisk by Tangential · · Score: 1

    Seems like setting up a ramdisk and placing all of your cache/bookmarks/saved values files there would be the way to do this. You could use a script that created the ramdisk and copied the bookmarks, etc... to it before starting the browser. Then have it destroy all of that when the browser closed.

    That would certainly be a handy utility to have, especially if it could be configured to make you anonymous (none of your identifying cookies, etc..) as an option.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    1. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by vux984 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When I want to browse in high security / high privacy I use a virtual machine and delete all changes when shutting it down. (ie so the vm is in precisely the same state it was in when i turned it on.) This also gives me some reasonably good protection from viruses/malware/ and other crud, since unless it manages to break out of the VM, it goes away when I shut the VM down.

    2. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Keep your entire browser tree and all of its temp locations on a thumbdrive.

      In fact, just boot from it.

      No thumbdrive = no breadcrumbs.

    3. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

      Until your thumb drive falls out of your pocket at work and some clever co-worker finds it and anonymously posts your "bread crumbs" on the corporate bulletin board. ;)

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
    4. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by Psx29 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Another alternative is to boot off a live cd

    5. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another alternative is to spend more time in the big room with the blue ceiling.

    6. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by justin12345 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah a ram disk or virtual machine is defintely way more secure, as well as using proxies or TOR to disguise your IP address (confusing Geo-location databases), forged browser signatures, and a few other things I can't think of right now. Assuming you are committing acts of international espionage, working undercover for the NSA, or simply know that MLB is after you, you should definitely be taking those precautions.

      The thing is, my understanding is that "privacy mode" is really just for not having your porn links show up in your browser history, should your S/O or Mom not approve of you viewing such material. It also saves you potential embarrassment when you open up a new tab in Safari or Chrome and it gives you a grid of thumbnails of recently viewed sites. I think Gregg Keizer grossly overestimates what people expect when they click the "private" button. They aren't clicking it to view sites that require SSL certificates, they are clicking it to view sites who's title tag is "Slut fucked by guy" or "Sexy trinity anal part1" and shows up in the browser history as such. Most just use the privacy mode so their S/O or Mom doesn't stumble across those links while looking up that article they read yesterday about "How to plan the perfect wedding" or "Is internet addiction destroying your family?".

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    7. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Don't the changes still get written to disk though? Sure it reverts after it's done, but unless that space is securely wiped then it's still recoverable. The ram disk option seems like a better route since you're ensured that those contents are truly gone once they're deleted or the machine looses power. In today's world it's trivial to put an extra 1GB or so towards a ram disk, and most people could web browse from that just fine.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    8. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Don't the changes still get written to disk though?

      Its more or less a like a snapshot, and all 'new' disk writes are written to a separate file to be optionally merged back into the disk image. If you decide to discard them, then the file just gets deleted. I suppose some sort of disk forensics done on the freed space before its overwritten might be able to recover something.

      It depends what you are looking for. When I want private / secure browsing, I just don't want any traces of it in my main browser, I don't want my kids to stumble over it, and I don't want any malware to get through. So a linux VM is covers all my needs.

      I like a VM, because I can continue doing everything else I was doing, alongside without having to worry about it.

      I'm not downloading stuff that I'm overly worried about concealing all traces of my browsing from some sort of competent law enforcement forensics.

      If I -were- doing that, then yeah, I'd take things to another level. I'd probably go with a diskless station booting from a LiveCD or something, with an encrypted usb drive to save anything I wanted to keep.

      The ram disk option seems like a better route since you're ensured that those contents are truly gone once they're deleted or the machine looses power. In today's world it's trivial to put an extra 1GB or so towards a ram disk, and most people could web browse from that just fine.

      I'm concerned about a ramdisk because I don't know enough about them. Can they have portions swapped as part of your operating systems normal memory management? If they can, then there is a possibility of information leaking onto your hard drive in the same way there is with deleted changes from a VM snapshot.

      I'm also concerned because simply copying everything to a ram disk and running it from there means I have to know more about the application than I necessarily do. For example, Firefox saves stuff into my user profile... simply copying the profile and the executable to a ram disk isn't going to change this behaviour, I need to make sure it knows to read and save things to the ram disk profile. And I need to be sure that there is nowhere else that it saves information to that I didn't redirect.

      There is also the issue for 'leakage' if an external program is launch. (Say I click on a Word document link...) and a browser on a ram disk provides no security vs a malware infection.

      A VM gaurds against a lot of this leakage, and the only real risk, is, as you pointed out, that you should run a secure erase on the free space when your done.

      If complete security is your goal (vs my personal lesser goal) than the diskless liveCD option would be the way to go. No matter what happens, when it shuts down there are no traces, because there is no disk to leave them on.

    9. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Where the CCTV camera and satellites can see you.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    10. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Unless your host OS is infected, then all bets are off.

    11. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. Its the best alternative if you need total security. Boot off a live CD from a diskless machine. (or at least set the hard drives as read-only).

      But its a hassle to boot off a live CD.

      My VM method realizes nearly all of the benefits of a live CD with a lot more convenience, since you can run it in antoher window along with everything else you are doing. Its more than secure enough for my purposes (keeps the kids from stumbling into it, and acts as a firewall for malware coming through the browser).

    12. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (keeps the kids from stumbling into it, and acts as a firewall for malware coming through the browser).

      Browsing porn in your VM, eh?

    13. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Or you can use truecrypt and tor.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    14. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      (keeps the kids from stumbling into it, and acts as a firewall for malware coming through the browser).

      Browsing porn in your VM, eh?

      Duh.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    15. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by xorsyst · · Score: 1

      Try Sandboxie

      --
      Get free bitcoins: http://freebitco.in
    16. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally, my sister was at my house and said "I can tell if people have been watching porn" and promptly typed "porn" into the awesome bar of my browser, ever since then I've been practicing hitting [shift][ctrl][p] one handed.

    17. Re:You need all of your files on a ramdisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I want to browse in high security / high privacy I use a virtual machine and delete all changes when shutting it down... This also gives me some reasonably good protection from viruses/malware/ and other crud, since unless it manages to break out of the VM, it goes away when I shut the VM down.

      That's spoken like somebody who doesn't get it.

      The state of the art is injection of malware into vulnerabilities in browsers, which requires a near constant stream of updates to the browser as a countermeasure. Anyone who thinks they're "secure" because they do this is too stupid to realize they'll get reinfected every time their VM reboots. If this is what you do for your "high security" browsing, then all of that important browsing is likely more compromised than just using a normal machine that is configured for least privilege (e.g. NoScript, AdBlock Plus, Better Privacy, etc.) and up-to-the-minute patched.

      The reality of it all is, there's no such thing as "security"-- just myths that people cling to.

  6. Clean on close by alanebro · · Score: 1

    I use Firefox and have it set to clean up all history/cookies every time I close it. I wonder how much is left behind for me.

    1. Re:Clean on close by mlts · · Score: 1, Informative

      Flash shared objects is the main thing. Easy fix -- download and use the BetterPrivacy extension.

      Of course, the absolute sure way to ensure browser privacy is to have a virtual machine dedicated to browsing, and have it roll back to the last snapshot once done. This is easy to do in Windows 7 and XP Mode. This way, some cookies left behind by some third party add-on (Java, Flash, or W/E) are eradicated completely.

    2. Re:Clean on close by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1, Troll

      Y'know, if people just zeroed their HDs and reinstalled from scratch once a year like I do, this, and many other problems, would not be problems.

      Plus, especially for the luser end of the spectrum, it's a great learning experience.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Clean on close by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

      But the FBI/CIA/NSA have ways of reading even zeroed drives! (so I hear) Will we ever be safe??

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
    4. Re:Clean on close by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      But the FBI/CIA/NSA have ways of reading even zeroed drives! (so I hear) Will we ever be safe??

      That's why I one them instead. I've never heard that they can read a oned drive. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Clean on close by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Y'know, if people just zeroed their HDs and reinstalled from scratch once a year like I do, this, and many other problems, would not be problems.

      Those of us not running on Windows systems find that going more than a year between wipe/rebuild is not only possible, but preferable!

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    6. Re:Clean on close by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonononono. The best thing you can do is to two the drive. A twod drive can't be read by anybody.

    7. Re:Clean on close by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Those of us competently running Windows also find going more than a year to be easy and preferable.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    8. Re:Clean on close by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Bender, there's no such thing as 2!

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
  7. Don't forget about flash by DeHackEd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Flash cookies, or even any temp files left behind by video playback. I've heard it happen. See if anything was left in your Temp directory matching "Flash*" and play it back as .flv or .mp4. Very incriminating evidence

    1. Re:Don't forget about flash by drafalski · · Score: 2, Informative

      The flashblock and betterprivacy add-ons for Firefox will help with flash.

    2. Re:Don't forget about flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and by "evidence" he means "p0rn"

    3. Re:Don't forget about flash by kelarius · · Score: 3, Funny

      As a test I went to a couple of sites of ill repute and watched a couple of free videos, then cleared my Firefox cache. Afterwards, I searched my computer for .flv and .mp4 files and couldnt find anything, so to the casual search most of you should be safe with your

      --
      Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
    4. Re:Don't forget about flash by kelarius · · Score: 1

      meant to have (insert silly porn here) on the end

      --
      Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
    5. Re:Don't forget about flash by ytpete · · Score: 5, Informative
    6. Re:Don't forget about flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better: use Adobe's settings manager to check to see if your flash cookies reveal where you've been.

      http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager07.html

      That page opens the Flash Settings Manager and lets you peruse what information is available to Flash through cookies, offline storage, etc. The locations where Flash stores things differ from operating system to operating system, so don't rely on looking in Temp or /var/tmp/ or, as one terribly misinformed person below wrote, in your Firefox cache. Flash is totally separate from your browser (hence that it's a plugin) and stores files where it wants to, not where your browser usually does!

      On OSX, for instance, Flash cookies are stored in randomly named subdirectories somewhere under ~/Library/Preferences/Macromedia

      A good idea: write yourself a bash script (or whatever the Windows equivalent is) like the following (change to suit your operating system's Flash directories:

      #!/bin/sh
      rm -rf ~/Library/Preferences/Macromedia

      Run it often.

    7. Re:Don't forget about flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plugins by default are disabled in the privacy mode. (At least, that is how it is in Chromium.)

    8. Re:Don't forget about flash by geekoid · · Score: 1

      err, you need to search before you clear your cache, and then after.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Don't forget about flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps a cron job every hour should be good for the home? Or half an hour for office environments. Then again, anyone savvy finding your script running in "their Work Property" (TM) would know something is amiss and start checking proxy/firewall logs to blackmail you ;)

      So just remember to always lock your machine and delete the references to the script and cron if you leave the company

    10. Re:Don't forget about flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately, there is no current (10.1) version of the native 64-bit linux flash version ...

    11. Re:Don't forget about flash by somegeekynick · · Score: 1

      The Flash* file is removed as soon as you (I, in any case) close the tab/window containing the video.

  8. Biggest Attraction by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Jackson said most users see that as the biggest attraction to private mode."

    Nonsense. The biggest attraction of private mode is that hotteennymphosexkittens.com doesn't show up in the suggestions when someone borrows your computer to check Hotmail.

    If you want real privacy you shouldn't be trusting a web browser privacy mode.

    1. Re:Biggest Attraction by swanzilla · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Jackson said most users see that as the biggest attraction to private mode."

      Nonsense. The biggest attraction of private mode is that hotteennymphosexkittens.com doesn't show up in the suggestions when someone borrows your computer to check Hotmail.

      If you want real privacy you shouldn't be trusting a web browser privacy mode.

      Youtube might be more relevantly incriminating than Hotmail.

    2. Re:Biggest Attraction by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want real privacy, boot from a liveCD or USB stick

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Biggest Attraction by Surt · · Score: 5, Funny

      I cannot believe how lazy the porn people are. It has been like a whole minute and that site is STILL not up.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Biggest Attraction by jdgeorge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Jackson said most users see that as the biggest attraction to private mode."

      Nonsense. The biggest attraction of private mode is that hotteennymphosexkittens.com doesn't show up in the suggestions when someone borrows your computer to check Hotmail.

      If you want real privacy you shouldn't be trusting a web browser privacy mode.

      Good point, but I thought the attraction was so web sites can't sniff your browsing history.

    5. Re:Biggest Attraction by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Good point. But I'd like the browser makers to think on this a little harder. They could do all sorts of things to make this mode more attractive. Options to turn off flash and Javascript... or delete all their temp files... Also, have an option to automatically switch to a proxy or VPN when switching to private mode. If it really were a lot more secure I could see it coming in handy for people living in countries not so friendly to free speech.

    6. Re:Biggest Attraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want real privacy, go live on the far side of the moon. That way only the probes sent to Mars and beyond can see you.

    7. Re:Biggest Attraction by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      It was. But then the furious masturbating killed the very kittens the site was showing and it went out of business. ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    8. Re:Biggest Attraction by duranaki · · Score: 1

      Thank you for saving me the time to type that exact comment. :)

    9. Re:Biggest Attraction by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Mozilla might be pitching it as privacy protection on the web side, but there's a reason "privacy mode" has been better known as "porn mode" since it's introduction.

    10. Re:Biggest Attraction by broken_chaos · · Score: 1

      That link, while interesting, has no direct relevancy to any of these privacy mode features. It describes Mozilla's planned fix for the CSS :visited information leak, where a website can, fairly quickly and easily, determine which websites (of a preselected list) you have visited. The planned fix has nothing, explicitly, to do with privacy mode, as it will be used in all browsing modes.

    11. Re:Biggest Attraction by ytpete · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's no reason to turn off Flash or Javascript unless they ignore the privacy mode and cache content on disk anyway. The current version of Flash respects this setting, and presumably all browsers with a "private browsing" mode restrict their Javascript engines in the same way...

    12. Re:Biggest Attraction by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they will pass on water nymphs, that would be just cruel to the small kittens, and evident to everybody; in however suggestive positions the kittens would be placed for a given shot.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    13. Re:Biggest Attraction by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      If you trust someone enough to use your personal computer, but don't trust them enough to know you surf porn, then you have serious issues. And yes, this includes your wife. Never understood guys who try to hide the fact they watch porn from their wife. I mean, I don't rub it in her face, but my wife is not a fool, she knows I watch porn.

    14. Re:Biggest Attraction by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I was once at a conference with my masters supervisor. I needed to demo something at one of the sessions so I asked him if I could borrow his notebook. He agreed, and I went to the session. Right before I popped open the notebook to set up the demo. Full screen in dripping sticky colour was the porn he'd been watching the night before.

      There are more reasons for porn mode than hiding it from your wife. One of them is the same reason why you don't leave Hustler on the coffee table when you've got company over.

    15. Re:Biggest Attraction by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Surely you meant Saturn, not the moon.

    16. Re:Biggest Attraction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Far side of the moon means at least you have at least the moon between you and everyone else.

  9. A new approach to privacy by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    Lately I've taken a new approach to privacy. I used to try and keep most everything private unless I wanted to share it, but nowadays I've adopted a bland public persona that I don't mind if the world knows about. Then when I want to do something I don't want public, I just invest time and inconvenience commensurate with the criticality of keeping my activity private to make sure it stays private.

    --
    ...
    1. Re:A new approach to privacy by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      When i want to accomplish something without it being attributed to me, i just don a cape and cowl. You'd be surprised how much privacy you have when people can only see your mouth and chin.

      it doesn't hurt to have a good utility belt and jet car either.

  10. Encrypt It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Maybe I'm paranoid, but this is why I simply use a portable version of Firefox with a profile stored in a TrueCrypt volume.

  11. Well, DUH!! Who you think keeps the lights on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sure ain't you! Pay me now, or pay somebody else a whole lot later !!

  12. It's good enough.. by HerculesMO · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, as long as your wife/girlfriend can't track your porno sites with ease you're fine.

    If your wife/girlfriend is a CS major with cryptology in her repertoire though... might want to find a different 'hobby'.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    1. Re:It's good enough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If your wife/girlfriend is a CS major with cryptology in her repertoire though... might want to find a different 'hobby'.

      If I had a wife/girlfriend with a CS major in cryptology in her repertoire I wouldn't need a hobby.

    2. Re:It's good enough.. by stagg · · Score: 4, Funny

      I mean, as long as your wife/girlfriend can't track your porno sites with ease you're fine.

      If your wife/girlfriend is a CS major with cryptology in her repertoire though... might want to find a different 'hobby'.

      Then it's back to an old suitcase under the work bench in the garage.

    3. Re:It's good enough.. by ciaohound · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your wife is a CS major with cryptology in her repertoire. She just hasn't told you because you'd blow her cover.

      --
      Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
    4. Re:It's good enough.. by HerculesMO · · Score: 2, Funny

      I see you're planning ahead.

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    5. Re:It's good enough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your wife/girlfriend is a CS major with cryptology in her repertoire though...

      She could brute force me any day!

    6. Re:It's good enough.. by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      If your wife/girlfriend is a CS major with cryptology in her repertoire though... might want to find a different 'hobby'.

      If your wife/girlfriend is a CS major with cryptology in her repertoire, something tells me it's more likely she'd be more receptive to these "hobbies", even to the point of participating. ;)

    7. Re:It's good enough.. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Very convenient, as the duct tape and the rope is on the workbench. Just make sure the suitcase is big enough, things never fold as neatly as one might think.

      What? Why is everyone looking at me like that?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:It's good enough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your wife/girlfriend objects to porn, you might want to find another wife/girlfriend.

      Just sayin'.

    9. Re:It's good enough.. by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I just imagined her doing a dns hijack on the porn site of your choice to one of her.

    10. Re:It's good enough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the reverse applies as well. No two people have equal sexual desires. Repressing those feelings is both selfish and unhealthy. A frustrated person who feels guilty for looking at porn is much more likely to cheat on his/her partner.

      And my sexual drive is considerably lower than average. I didn't write this post because it's beneficial to myself; it isn't.

    11. Re:It's good enough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a geek. He has no idea how to blow.

    12. Re:It's good enough.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had a wife/girlfriend...

    13. Re:It's good enough.. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If I had a wife/girlfriend with a CS major in cryptology in her repertoire I wouldn't need a hobby.

      I don't think "cryptology" means what you think it does.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  13. My wife is not a security researcher by DJCouchyCouch · · Score: 2, Funny

    So private mode is good enough for me!

    1. Re:My wife is not a security researcher by blair1q · · Score: 1

      If you're married, and she isn't l33t, are you sure you belong on /.?

    2. Re:My wife is not a security researcher by silverglade00 · · Score: 1

      If you were married and she WAS l33t, would you be on /. or on her?

    3. Re:My wife is not a security researcher by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      If you're married, and she isn't l33t, are you sure you belong on /.?

      Of course, Never marry someone who is more 1337 than you are.

    4. Re:My wife is not a security researcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There must be a 'In Soviet Russia' joke in there, somewhere.

    5. Re:My wife is not a security researcher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she likely has a natural talent for social engineering though, so you're still going to get caught.

  14. it's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just install NoScript and be done with it.

    1. Re:it's easy by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      Just install NoScript and be done with it.

      NoScript is great, but it doesn't prevent CSS-based browser history sniffing, if I understand correctly.

  15. This is going to be an unpopular sentiment but... by stagg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Virtual machines? Flash disks? I never use the same computer twice! But...who are we hiding from? I support efforts to maintain privacy, and I admire it as a thought experiment, but what's the scenario we're defending against here? All of this sounds like extreme overkill if you're hiding porn from your mom. If you're trying to hide from advertisers, governments, etc, then I think that your bigger worry is not your home machine, but everything out there in our marvelously complicated ecosystem of an internet.

  16. Doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve ... by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In private browsing mode, hook fopen, all "w" calls get redirected to a special directory, all fopen "r" calls get checked to confirm they are either referencing that directory or referencing known acceptable files (maybe certain preferences).

    That instantly solves ALL in-process code. Its not something that would share all its code across platforms since the hooking mechanisms are different but it is going to be the only sure fire way to be safe.

    Out-of-process plugins would require a different approach, but since the browser starts them it could hook them as well if the effort was put forth. You hook flash and don't let it write anywhere but where you tell it too, then those retarded flash cookies can't give you away either.

    Clear the directory when leaving private browsing mode.

    I can't think of any real OS that you can't do this on fairly easy. Windows is doable although it takes a little bit of effort, most UNIX clones are trivial to hook. Might be a problem for browser ports to oddball devices (which I'm counting phones in this group since they are radically different, even if common) but its also probably much less of a concern there. I'm not aware of a private mode for Mobile safari so it doesnt' seem that anyone cares anyway, or am I just missing it?

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve ... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      before anyone points out the obvious, replace fopen with open

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve ... by Dalzhim · · Score: 1

      There's no need for this functionality on phones just yet, the monthly bandwidth is insufficient for this kind of purpose.
      Besides, most people don't usually kill time that way in public transports with their smart phones.

    3. Re:Doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called Application Virtualization and generic solutions exist for it (at least on Windows), e.g. http://www.vmware.com/go/thinapp

    4. Re:Doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this is the naive way for running uncontrolled code. It's the same way* that Windows' UAC works. However, totally overkill and insecure for code you maintain; this technique (IAT rewriting) should only be used for plugins. Browsers should prefer to use virtual filesystems (in RAM) for their managed data -- data that doesn't get flushed to disc while in private mode.

      *You left out the need for transparent copying (aka copy-on-write) or more complex file-spanning block indexing for reads.

    5. Re:Doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve ... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Shrug, you're going to have trade offs if you want 'private mode' to be private. You really shouldn't be interacting with much of the 'not private' files on the system anyway.

      If private mode could have all the features of normal browsing and all the privacy of private browsing ... we'd just combine the two and call it a day, but they are two different modes for a reason.

      There should be no copy on write files involved because you're leaking data from one mode to the other and breaking the notion of privacy.

      As far as a ram disk ... fine ... the fopen hook redirects to a ramdisk rather than just a special directory it cleans. Doesn't even need to direct to a real ram disk, if you hook the other IO related functions you can have it read/write to anything anywhere, ram, network, whatever.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  17. Javascript errors still go to syslog... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I noticed that javascript errors still go to syslog in private mode on Safari, at least.

    1. Re:Javascript errors still go to syslog... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Eh? Safari logs Javascript errors to an OS error log?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  18. Safari Setup... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    I use GlimmerBlocker, which is a pretty cool little system extension which has a bunch of built in blocking scripts, but also allows you to create your own.

    I also use ClickToFlash, but not sure if that does anything to protect you against Flash Cookies.

    Then if you really get annoyed at certain sites, you can always edit your host file.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
  19. Re:This is going to be an unpopular sentiment but. by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 3, Funny

    But...who are we hiding from?

    Nice try but you're not going to find out that easily.

    --
    To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
  20. Just use a live CD like Ubuntu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use a CD like Ubuntu, browse to your hearts content, then shutdown. No trace what so ever on the machine!
    Really paranoid? pull out the hard drive before booting on the live CD. Works like a champ!

    1. Re:Just use a live CD like Ubuntu by manicb · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Better make time to set up ndiswrapper too!

  21. Disabling flash most secure by supermariosd · · Score: 1

    Sites can/will track you regardless of any "private mode" if you have flash enabled. Also, does anyone know where the SSL certificates are stored by Safari in OSX? Thanks in advance.

  22. You mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean...I'm not anonymous as Anonymous Coward?


    FUCK!

    1. Re:You mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean...I'm not anonymous as Anonymous Coward?

      FUCK!

      You never were, Dave. And it's quite the dossier that we've compiled on you. Wikileaks gets it tomorrow unless $1,000,000.00 US in cash is deposited to our Nigerian account by 9:00 p.m. CST today.

  23. Re:This is going to be an unpopular sentiment but. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    But...who are we hiding from?

    From THEM, of course.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  24. Isn't SSL certificate valid on per-session? by Johan+Welin · · Score: 1

    Tell me if I'm wrong. I thought SSL certs are valid for one HTTPS session only. Where the temporary certificate bind the endpoints with a [short] revocation period and a negotiable re-establishment opportunity within the certificate lifetime. - Anyone knows about the lifetime expectancy of client-side SSL related data?

  25. Privacy, CLI-style by by+(1706743) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If I ever encounter a link which I'm curious about more from an academic perspective than anything else (e.g., a link from a possibly-legitimate-but-likely-spam email), I'll just wget it and then go through the page source and/or view it with a browser.

    This anecdote is a little off-topic I guess, but as far as privacy goes, I suspect it's a pretty decent way of going about things.

    1. Re:Privacy, CLI-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .bash_history ?

  26. And what are Chrome's flaws you allude to? by Zeek40 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice that the article didn't actually mention any privacy flaws with chrome, even though it says that chrome has them? They cite specific examples for IE, firefox and safari, then just say "oh, chrome has flaws too".

    1. Re:And what are Chrome's flaws you allude to? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I noticed that as well. I wonder if it just didn't meet there forgone conclusions.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:And what are Chrome's flaws you allude to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would not be surprised if it doesn't have any, except for minor opt-ins like site-specific zoom levels. Chrome's Incognito was the first in-depth look into privacy modes. Safari's was basically a bullet-point feature, and IE8 and Firefox copied Chrome (to varied success). I haven't followed any Opera developer blogs/news, so I don't know how detailed their approach is.

  27. Run this afterwards.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Cleans out everything you might want.

    http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    1. Re:Run this afterwards.. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      So does: [flag]+R "cmd"
      cd \
      del *.* /s

      or
      sudo rm -rf /*

    2. Re:Run this afterwards.. by Bratmon · · Score: 1

      sudo rm -rf /*

      bash: sudo: command not found

    3. Re:Run this afterwards.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sorry son, not on Windows, I gave up fighting the OS wars some time ago.

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  28. I didn't even realize. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    I didn't even realize that the point of the private browsing had anything to do with sites you visited. I thought it was clearly being marketed at a way to keep the next person sitting at your computer from seeing that you were visiting porn sites. Having your wife or kids follow behind you on the computer only to have porn sites pop up when they start typing in an address was a pretty big problem for a lot of people. This problem got even worse when the address bar started doing better type ahead by prioritizing heavily visited sites.

    I mean really, as much as IP address change, they don't change that often, so it wouldn't be hard for sites tracking users to just use the IP address. All it would take is for 1 site that you visit logged in to act as an IP update source, and bingo, you are being tracked no matter what software you run on your computer. The only way around that would be to never log in to any sites, or run through some kind of proxy.

    So, it is simple. Don't expect the private browsing to keep you from being tracked by web sites. There is nothing the browser makers can do about that. Use it to keep your 6 year old from accidentally finding out that you have been visiting 'Dirty DORA's anal Dungeon'.

    1. Re:I didn't even realize. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Wiper, no wiping!
      Adios!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  29. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't you just clear your history and other browsing data after you've finished your session. That's what I do in Firefox. Are there any vestiges left over from that?

  30. chrome caches favicons by cekander · · Score: 1

    My internet was down, unbeknownst to me, and as I attempted to load a few websites in incognito mode, I noticed the favicons were being cached. WTF google? And to think I trusted you with my porn addiction.

  31. Re:This is going to be an unpopular sentiment but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a VM for ALL browsing, as a simple security measure. It's a simple matter to vet and selectively copy any data I want to store locally from the wild wild web back to host on my terms rather than trust a browser. I also have a guest VM I can fire up if anyone wants to "borrow" my machine for email checking etc - there's no way in H*LL I'll trust anyone to be safe on the host machine.

    I don't even trust MYSELF, see above ....

  32. All problems have an easy incorrect solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... I click on a open office document on a webpage while in private mode.. OO opens up and I do a bunch of editing, saving a bunch of stuff. Later I close my browser and all my files are gone. Nice job, asshole.

    Yet If you don't hook fopen on all launched apps and plugins you don't solve the problems people are complaining about here. I'd say "try again", but I'd rather you not. You're dangerous. Have you considered a job at Microsoft?

    1. Re:All problems have an easy incorrect solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, user-initiated file downloads are not and should not be redirected. There is also no reason whatsoever to hook the import table of a shell-executed[1] process such as OOo; it's not a child process and should not be treated as such. People aren't complaining about launched apps, but rather plugins masquerading as embedded apps (Flash, WMP, etc). This is a solved problem and solid proposed (half-)solution.

      [1] ShellExecute(Ex) - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb762153(VS.85).aspx

    2. Re:All problems have an easy incorrect solution. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      First off, you could easily add a warning when opening files in private mode, and you'd almost certainly want a warning since its very likely that unless you hook the external app as well, which would be practically impossible since you'd have to know about however app worked ... the external opener would leave traces ... so you popup warning before the launching of the external program ... you know, kind of like already happens.

      Second, code can only do so much to fix what your stupid ass does.

      I'm not dangerous, your ignorance is and no one can fix stupid so you're fucked. No computer will likely ever meet your requirement to prevent you from doing something stupid.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  33. The (Amnesic) Incognito Live System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest using:

    The (Amnesic) Incognito Live System
    https://amnesia.boum.org/

  34. The REAL way to do private mode by Skapare · · Score: 1

    I've been doing this since way back when Firefox 1.0. I have a script that front ends the startup of Firefox. It creates a fake home directory (sets the HOME environment variable). It is populated with an initial set of files Firefox expects or needs and then launches the real Firefox program. It adds about 0.5 seconds to the startup time (was more like 3 seconds way back when I first did this). Another script can scan all these fake homes and figure out which ones are still busy, leaving them alone, and deleting all the rest. As a result of this, each time Firefox is started, it creates a whole new instances. So each are separate processes, too. One added benefit of that is if some bad website messes up Firefox in some way, I can just exit or kill it, and all the others are still running unscathed. Even though there are many Firefox processes running this way, it actually uses less memory because I exit them when I leave a site. Exit is very effective at cleaning up memory leaks and structure fragmentation.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  35. nfl jerseys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just clicked over nfl

    jerseys from another site and figured I should take a look around.

    Like what I see so now I'm following you. Look forward to checking out

    your some of your posts again.

  36. Can anyone explain this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surfing with Chrome in private mode, going through https://xerosurf.com/ secure anonymous proxy, web sites can still pick up my location. How's that possible?

  37. Fast User Switching by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    when someone borrows your computer to check Hotmail.

    When installing a new machine I always take 10 seconds to create a 'demo' user account. I'll sometimes use it for actually doing a demo or presentation, but usually just to FUS to it when somebody wants to borrow the Firefox. XFCE or something similarly light makes it less painful to switch into it.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  38. Not good enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you need Firefox with Better Privacy, NoScript, Ghostery, Ad block Plus, Request Policy and Track Me Not in a private browsing session. Also you need to make sure all are set up too. This will take care of the current session. Of course a outgoing firewall is good too, and a packet sniffer/recorder.

    Then to be extra sure, you need to run Firefox in a VM and restore the previous snapshot to clear out any possible stored traces as mentioned in this article.

    Installing a Hosts file addition blocking hostile sites before cuing the DNS servers is a good thing too. Resolving your most sensitive sites DNS beforehand is also a wise thing, unless you like typing in IP numbers every time.

    Of course comes the problem of your IP, that needs to be masked too and your browser specs, OS version and screen size...

  39. Re:Sandbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run the browser in a sandbox, and on start of the sandbox I clear out all the browser/flash cookies etc. It's about 10000x faster to start the sandbox than to boot into a different OS, and it's a pretty simple setup. To do the sandboxing, I use Sandboxie. On top of that I use VPN to hide my IP. But I know browser headers still leaves a unique trace, if someone really wanted to track me.

  40. there are worse things than porn by h7 · · Score: 1

    I feel the best option is to lock your account and not give the password out for any reason to anyone including the wife. You could also install multiple browsers and prevent an autocomplete disaster. Why people share user accounts with family is impossible for me to understand. You shouldn't even share the same physical computer with anyone else. Sometimes, there are worse things than porn to discover on someones computer.

    1. Re: there are worse things than porn by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I feel the best option is to lock your account and not give the password out for any reason to anyone including the wife. You could also install multiple browsers and prevent an autocomplete disaster. Why people share user accounts with family is impossible for me to understand. You shouldn't even share the same physical computer with anyone else. Sometimes, there are worse things than porn to discover on someones computer.

      And your wife obviously won't mind the fact that she can't use your login name, never mind computer?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re: there are worse things than porn by h7 · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't mind it, especially if there is a separate account or machine for them. If wives want full access to all your stuff, you have other issues.. Just cause you're married doesn't mean you have to give up privacy you're entitled to.

  41. Login as guest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How safe is that?

    I know that on Mac it deletes all files on logout, would that not be the safest and most private way to visit warez and porn sites?