Slashdot Mirror


Google Accused of Bypassing Safari's Privacy Controls

DJRumpy points out an article (based on a possibly paywalled WSJ report) describing how Google and other ad networks wrote code that would bypass the privacy settings of Apple's Safari web browser. 'The default settings of Safari block cookies "from third parties and advertisers," a setting that is supposed to only allow sites that the user is directly interacting with to save a cookie (client side data that remote web servers can later access in subsequent visits). ... The report notes that "Google added coding to some of its ads that made Safari think that a person was submitting an invisible form to Google. Safari would then let Google install a cookie on the phone or computer.' Google says this mischaracterizes what the code does, claiming it simply enables 'features for signed-in Google users on Safari who had opted to see personalized ads and other content — such as the ability to “+1” things that interest them.' Google adds that the data transferred between Safari and Google's servers was anonymized. John Battelle writes that the WSJ's story is sensationalist, but that it raises good questions about the practices of ad networks as well as Apple's efforts to stymie industry-standard practices.

24 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I trust Google with way too much as it is. And practices like this only make me even more determined to avoid them as much as reasonably possible. It's bad enough that pretty much every website out there now is feeding them tracking data (seriously, use Firefox with NoScript and just look at all the sites using Google-analytics, it's *everywhere*). I certainly am *not* about to let them takeover my entire browser too.

    They'll have to content themselves with just reading my gmail.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're running DNSmasq just add this line:

      address=/google-analytics.com/127.0.0.1

      and it won't bother you again.

    2. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that's why noscript is so important. Yes, with time, everyone is going to consolidate their scripts under the main domain. But there will be ways to control that as well. And ultimately, that's why Firefox, despite all its problems, is a super-important part of the open web.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by MrKevvy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I support a locked-down corporate image. I'm surprised at the number of people I support that I've found using Chrome.

      Yesterday I talked to someone and asked how she got it and she said that a site prompted her to install it so she did. I just tried this and was able to install it on the locked-down image, including setting it as default, etc. It may have put its settings in the user-writable area of the registry but it's very sneaky to do so whereas other browsers will refuse to install without admin. privileges. Hey, whatever leads to higher market share, right?

      --
      -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
    4. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      with time, everyone is going to consolidate their scripts under the main domain

      No they won't. There simply isn't enough selection pressure to make that happen. noscript users are this tiny insignificant blip concealed in the statistical noise of web traffic.

      Secondly, you're right. All the superficial problems (which I can almost never reproduce anyway) with firefox are nothing compared to having a browser I can trust, from an organization that I'm ideologically aligned with.
      Google building a web browser is a conflict of interests; though I'm still glad they did for browser war / political reasons.

    5. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think Google have done anything wrong there, saving settings to a user section of the registry makes more sense than a browser needing me to give it admin priviliges to write wherever the fuck it wants. It's precisely that sort of behaviour that leads people to click okay each time windows notifies them a program wants admin rights without even stopping to consider why.

      It sounds more like your problem is that your lockdown policy isn't configured as you'd like it to be, yet you blame the software for not obeying how you wanted things setup, rather than how things actually are setup, other than that it sounds like Chrome is following correct and best practice behaviour in this respect whereas how you'd have liked it to respond is bad practice and not preferable.

    6. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by phrostie · · Score: 4, Informative

      another cool trick is to set up a host file.

      http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

    7. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You *can* do a system-wide installation, it's just not obvious.

    8. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Goddamn you. It is not acceptable to mention hosts files on slashdot. If you summon APK, I will find you, and there will be consequences, you bastard.

    9. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Chrome is probably one of the few Google products you shouldn't have any privacy worries about. It doesn't behave differently to any other browser. Chromium is open source if you want some extra assurance.

      As for reducing your Google information footprint, do what I do::

      http://slashdot.org/journal/277383/making-google-keep-to-itself-with-multifox

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "But on a locked down machine, nothing should be able to be installed without the admins knowing about it. Period. Google found a way around that."

      No they didn't, that's precisely the point, the issue isn't that Google found some way around the lock down, it's that the system wasn't locked down properly to facilitate that goal.

      Chrome is not some magical psychic piece of software that can tell what the system admin intended, it can only do what the OS allows it to do and is configured to allow it to do.

      If Chrome is able to do things you did not intend on your systems then you have much more serious problems and your systems are incompetently configured and managed. You can guarantee if Chrome is obtaining admin privileges as a legitimate peice of software then a peice of malware would have a hell of a time enjoying your poorly configured systems. The first step to solving your problem is get rid of the geek squad level of staff, and start hiring some proper admins.

    11. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by GIL_Dude · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you need to block Chrome installs in your locked down environment you can: http://support.google.com/installer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=146164. At one point early in Chrome's life (before the policies existed) we had a desire to block Chrome as it was playing havoc with our authenticated proxy servers (it would just hammer them with failed authentication requests). It plays nice with proxies now, so we don't do anything to either enable or disable Chrome.

    12. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "That is a gigantic security hole just waiting to be exploited."

      Right, so a browser that isolates itself to userspace is a gigantic security hole waiting to be exploited, yet a browser that requires admin privileges to install is not?

      "Further, there's a reason corporate machines are locked down. We don't want people, especially IT people, installing every random piece of software that asks the user to install it."

      So why are you letting people run arbitrary executables in the first place if you need that level of control of your systems?

      "Rule #3 of IT that should never be broken: Never, ever, ever, EVER give a regular user administrative rights on their machine. Ever. Chrome breaks this rule with a wrecking ball."

      Er no, that's exactly what it DOESN'T do.

      "It's bad enough that as an admin I am constantly harassed by Windows 7, "Do you want to allow...?" Yes, I'm a fucking admin, just install the damn thing! Now we have to put up with companies making it so every user can install whatever they want and expect us to figure out what they did."

      Well at least now we know you're really not qualified for your own profession. Really, you have a degree of IT security responsibility yet you complain when an OS alerts you to a request by an application for (or if you're a user, blocks you from providing) admin access, and say you just blindly accept, but then you complain when an application doesn't try and obtain admin access that you previously suggested should never be given to a user?

      You haven't configured your network to limit what people can run and install, you've configured your network to only allow executables to work within the permissions defined for the currently active user account, Chrome is doing exactly that, thus the only problem is that how you've configured your network, isn't how you seem to beleive your network should be configured.

    13. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by icebraining · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it was properly locked down, the Chrome installer wouldn't be able to run at all. And if it able to run, then it doesn't need an exploit.

    14. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by forkfail · · Score: 4, Funny

      Try Lynx.

      --
      Check your premises.
    15. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It makes me despair as it's been some years since I left IT support behind, and I noticed at the time the profession was becoming more and more filled with people who simply have no idea what the fuck they're doing but coast by nonetheless, calling in consultants for a fortune when they don't know how to do something that any half competent IT support person should be able to do, or blaming the software, going off sick, hiding at a different office or whatever else when inevitably things go wrong and they'd otherwise have to face up to their responsibilities.

      It seems now that these numpties have found their way to Slashdot, extolling their blame on software to the world at large, rather than facing up to the fact that they just don't know what in the flying fuck they are actually doing.

      Of course, the worst part is, they then moan when their job gets outsourced to India - is it any fucking wonder why when they show such ineptitude? It's no wonder Chinese hackers are supposedly pillaging Western firms dry of IP when IT security means "blame the software when your incorrectly configured security policy lets the user do something they weren't meant to be able to do".

      This is why IT support has rapidly started to gain the same sort of disrespect as a profession that many manual trades like bricklaying long have, and why support has seen a deterioration in wages to boot - because there's so many IT staff out there who really can't be trusted to show a bit of intelligence and do a good job nowadays, and they drag it down for those who know what they're doing.

      I'm just glad I got the hell out of there seeing as it's only continued to deteriorate as a profession!

    16. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I use Ghostery. Have for years.

      It's beginning to worry me. Who's all the captital behind this effort? I mean, Better Privacy and AdBlock are pretty grass-roots, got a bee-in-a-bonnet based efforts.

      But Ghostery is a small part of a well-funded startup - with well-paid developers. And graphic designers!
      http://www.ghostery.com/

      "© 2011 Ghostery, a service of Evidon, Inc. All rights reserved."

      http://www.evidon.com/faq

      7. Explain your relationship with Ghostery.

      Ghostery is the same service it used to be, only better, because now it has the resources of a substantial company to develop even better capabilities for helping consumers discover and control the entities that track them across the web. Moreover, Evidon is not an advertising company; we're an assurance company built to facilitate compliance with OBA regulations. Ghostery's founder, David Cancel, is a shareholder in, and advisor to, Evidon.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    17. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your 'standard Windows corporate lockdown setup' allows end users to run untrusted code that they downloaded from the Internet. I can think of many reasons for calling Google evil, but in this case they are simply doing something that, since Vista, has been a requirement for the 'Designed for MS Windows' logo and part of the recommended practices: allowing non-admin user to install for their own user. It's only 'a nice little unpublicized exploit' if you don't count the articles on MSDN telling you 'this is what you must do in a UAC world'.

      It's not Google's fault that you think removing write access to C:\Program Files is the same as preventing users from running their code. Windows has fine-grained ACLs. Learn how to use them. Remove the user's ability to run programs that are installed in any location that they have write access to.

      And now I've defended Windows, I need to go and have a shower...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:And people ask me why I don't use Chrome by NotBorg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't buy a car from Exxon Mobil and expect it to be fuel efficient.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
  2. google does a lot more than that by alen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    i have a few browsers on my iphone including a private browser. i've had it for years since before apple put the functionality into iOS. All it does is ride on top of stock safari on the iphone but creates a private browsing session.

    i've noticed that some searches i did in the private browser come up as past searches in stock safari and on my laptop. which means that google is probably reading the UIDID or whatever it's called and using it to correlate users across devices even if they don't log into google

  3. Safari has a long history of cookie problems by MrLint · · Score: 5, Informative

    IIRC the first 3 major versions of Safari on OS X totally ignored the setting for 'don't allow 3rd party cookies'. I had to file a bug that apple.com was setting these cookies w/ safari.

    These assertions are really empty for me personally, since apple's site has partners that set these cookies, and apple's devs couldn't bother to implement this feature right.

    And yes, my bitterness permeates everything:)

  4. Re:haha by crmarvin42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How so?

    My cookie settings were as described "only accept from sites I visit". Google tricks my browser into thinking I've visited a site I did not, in fact, visit. They do this by submitting a form and intentionally making in invisible to me. At what point did I "Opt in" to this behavior??

    I'm not excusing Apple's complete security failure here, but how exactly is Google not also culpable for this violation of my trust?

    --
    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  5. Re:We found your privacy feature inconvenient. by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The retarded part of this whole thing is that Apple's Safari was allowing 3rd party cookies AT ALL when 3rd party cookies are disabled. Remember, Apple sells ads on its platforms too. Now, it's QUITE simple to detect if any action actually came from a user initiated event. This is how most pop-up blockers have worked since 2000, including the ones built into our browsers. The JS that creates a new window/tab is blocked unless the JavaScript is executed as the result of actual user interaction... Point being: Apple knows how to detect if its a user action or not.

    Additionally, when I was testing Safari a few years ago, any cookie that was already set would keep being sent to the server even after you disabled all cookies -- That option just disabled "new" cookies from being created. The old ones were still sent, not sure if this is still the behaviour because I stopped using their systems when their systems lied to -- or, at best, misled -- their users. Their settings have always been specious. Apple doesn't have a good track record when it comes to cookies.

    The fact that Safari assumed that form submittal was a user initiated event is a big problem here too. This "invisible form" submission is how we did "Ajax" like Web2.0 features before XML HTTP Request objects were around. JS populates a form in a hidden iframe, submits, then the JS on the page, or in the iframe from the server, changes the main page without reloading it. If Safari is confusing this with a user action, I'd be calling Apple programmers on the carpet, "Did you do this?!? BAD CodeMonkey! BAD! No Banana, or APPL!" (it's actually difficult for me to believe this isn't Apple's intended design)

    Don't get me wrong, I hate tracking more than the next guy, and instead prefer content based relevancy, but many users have Opted In to the Google Ad network. It's getting harder to opt out of parts of it w/ their new privacy policy. I keep separate accounts for G+, Gmail & Youtube because I don't want an action on one to ban me from the other. Point being, if you're logged in, you've logged in, and you agreed that it's fine for Google to target ads at you. They can't very well give you targeted ads in exchange for your privacy if they can't see if you're logged in or not via cookie...

    I don't blame just Google for finding a way to get opted-in Safari users the content they opted-in to, even if it's ads. I also blame Apple for saying "3rd party cookies are disabled", when in reality, 3rd party cookies ARE SLIGHTLY DISABLED, unless you interact with the Ad, or we think you might have done so... You know, because We (Apple) also want to use those 3rd party cookies.

    Here's an idea: SAFARI SHOULD BLOCK ALL 3RD PARTY COOKIES [PERIOD]! Otherwise, the "Block 3rd party Cookies" option actually doesn't.

    Cookies are the easy-mode tracking channel. Many other methods exist. Hell, Mozilla removed the UI for 3rd party cookie disabling since it was so damn easy to work around. Had to use about:config for a while there, but now Firefox has the 3rd party cookies UI again. At the very base layer your IP address and time stamps are all the ad networks need. Blacklist the sites. Some Ad-block extensions actually make a request before not displaying the content -- Mission Failed.

    Posted to remove a bad mod... figured I'd contribute in the process.

  6. Re:Right or wrong... by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The headline of the article should really be "Safari's privacy controls are weak and ineffective".

    If someone leaves your front door wide open, and a skunk wanders in, do you blame the skunk, or do you blame whoever left the door open?