Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Edge's Private Browsing Mode Isn't Actually Private (betanews.com)
JustAnotherOldGuy writes: The forensic examination of most web browsers has proven that they don't have a provision for storing the details of privately browsed web sessions. However, in the case of Microsoft Edge, the private browsing isn't as private as it seems. Previous investigations of the browser have resulted in revealing that websites visited in private mode are also stored in the browser's WebCache file. The Container_n table stores web history, and a field named 'Flag' with a value of '8' shows that website was visited in private mode. An investigator can easily spot the difference and use this evidence against a person. The not-so-private browsing featured by Edge makes its very purpose seem to fail, and you can't help but ask how such a fundamental aspect of private browsing could be so fantastically borked. It beggars belief.
Wrong. I don't know about Google, but I do know about Safari. When it's in private mode, all of the data that is normally saved to disk for any purpose is stored in encrypted memory, so within a private session, you get the benefit of caching, go forward/back, etc. But once you close the private window, all that encrypted memory is erased and released. Apps using the NSURLSession APIs can do exactly the same thing.
So grammar nazi, you think you know ?. Well, you have no idea.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
flammable
flamb()l/
adjective: flammable
easily set on fire.
"the use of highly flammable materials"
As for Flamma, its latin and is a verb there. Go ask them.
Why Do Flammable and Inflammable Mean the Same Thing?
There is a fairly clear reason for why both these words carry the same meaning: the prefix in- does not always function as a negative prefix.
Sometimes (and this is one of those times) it serves as an intensifier. It’s fairly obvious how this could lead to problems.
Surprisingly, both flammable and inflammable coexisted peacefully in English for hundreds of years before anyone decided to do something about it. Inflammable is the older of the two, with recorded use as far back as 1574. Flammable begins to appear in 1655, when Margaret Cavendish described oil as being “hot burning and flammable” in her Philosophical and Physical Opinions. One of the reasons there was little confusion about these words is that flammable was used much less often than inflammable.
But in the 1920s the self appointed, eagle-eyed language nazis of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) realized that many people were viewing the in- in inflammable as a negative prefix, and were at risk of consequently incinerating themselves at a much higher rate than was desirable. The NFPA advocated to have flammable used exclusively for warning labels (such as are found on mattresses, oil cans, and other things that will catch on fire if you put a match to them), and managed to slightly nudge our language toward a more sensible path. Though in the recent past flammable is used more often than inflammable, this pair still incites controversy—and clueless fools would want to look ignorant.
Even so, if you put the safety on on your gun, that doesn't make the weapon truly and completely safe and nobody is suggesting it does.
But can you imagine if putting the safety on merely lowered the muzzle velocity by 5%?
Or a door lock that simply turned a red LED on some dashboard somewhere labelled locked, and nothing else.
There is not, and never will be, a truly "private" browsing experience, regardless of browser.
But some browsers actually do a little more than next to NOTHING to remove the session history from the local PC.
Hey man, I was a Microsoft sympathizer for the longest time (and a *BSD fanboy, but that's beside the point). However, I installed Windows 10 last week, and it impressed me so much that I downgraded back to Windows 7 after a couple of days, never to return. After using the UI that's worse than GNOME's wildest hallucinations and having to edit group policy and stop services to get the system where I want it to be, I had enough.
Honestly, compared to Win7, Win10 feels like Windows 3.11 with a factory-provided backdoor.
Considering how much spying is baked into Windows 10 frankly the thought that anything done in that OS is "private" is beyond belief.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Chrome's Incognito mode does have a separate set of cookies - which is empty when you open the first Incognito window and are deleted when the last window is closed.
This means that web sites can't use cookies to track you between sessions. They could track you by your IP address, but the IP addresses are at a lower level than HTTP/HTTPS. If you are really paranoid then you would use something like Tor anyway.
However, there is one big flaw: All incognito windows are in the same session. If you forget to close the last window then the session will linger: when you open a new link "In Incognito Window" then the new link will be attached to the old Incognito session instead of a new one.
This could be remedied by supporting multiple Incognito sessions at once. I think that a straightforward model for the user would be to let each Incognito Window represent a separate session.
Myself, I use Incognito mode primarily to be able to use gmail and Youtube with separate accounts. Commenting on cat videos requires much less security than my private emails.
It is also convenient to log out just by closing the window.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley