Hmm-Signatures Setting Tracing Cookies

mickeyboymel

Never noticed this before but now it seems certain signatures/images in posts try to set tracing cookies on your PC when you are simply browsing Boards.ie

regi

Aye its true. Its an issue we've brought up before, but most users are quite adamant about their wishes to host their sig images offsite, so we've left it as is.

Boston

Regi, while this issue doesn't really effect moi since I block those annoying sigs, isn't having a sig a privalage? so Why should users be dictating where they host the image? every user has free web space here, what would the effect of hosting it elsewhere be on the sig, other then it taking longer to load. In my opinion there shouldn't be a choice about this.

regi

As mickeyboymel pointed out, sig images that are hosted offsite can introduce cookies that potentially track other users.

ZENER

I raised the issue of sig security a while back and was shot down for over reacting about it. The data protection act has a section that deals on the placement of cookies on a persons computer without them being made aware of it.

Theoretically boards.ie could be illegally placing cookies on your machine ! I'm not talking of the cookies you EXPECT from boards to verify you etc. rather the cookies placed by someones sig.

ZENER

Boston

Originally posted by Regi
As mickeyboymel pointed out, sig images that are hosted offsite can introduce cookies that potentially track other users.

You missed my point. My point is why the hell are sigs allowed to be host off site in the first place.

amp

Originally posted by ZENER
I raised the issue of sig security a while back and was shot down for over reacting about it. The data protection act has a section that deals on the placement of cookies on a persons computer without them being made aware of it.

Theoretically boards.ie could be illegally placing cookies on your machine ! I'm not talking of the cookies you EXPECT from boards to verify you etc. rather the cookies placed by someones sig.

Turn off signatures. Problem solved.

DeVore

Which signature is doing this?

If we force sigs to be hosted here, what next? Any image has to be hosted here? No external links cos they could lead to tracing cookies?
If you are concerned there are a couple of actions you can take before demanding we host the entire internet on our servers... turn off sigs, turn off images or turn off cookie acceptance.

Zener dont be a moron, we dont serve the cookie, the image host does. I'd like to see you prove any responsibility on our behalf. Sorry, this is just part of how the fncked up "security" of the internet works... pull on that thread and it all unravels as we tie ourselves up with more and more restrictive practises being scared by our own shadow.

My 2c.

DeV.

regi

Or we could only allow sig images to be served from our free members webspace. If people don't want to view sigs, we do provide skins that do that.

uberwolf

Originally posted by Regi
Or we could only allow sig images to be served from our free members webspace. If people don't want to view sigs, we do provide skins that do that.

on the basis of what I've read here so far that would seem the best. Whats the argument against restricting where people host their signatures?

regi

It is a hard call to make. There's good arguments for and against. I guess the current attitude is somewhat laissez faire, but we did spot someone deliberately and maliciously tracking users with web-bugs, we wouldn't regard that behaviour kindly.

I'm still weighing up my opinion it anyway.

ecksor

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116918

DeVore

OFFTOPIC: Regi, thats the most disturbing tagline and avatar combo I've *ever* seen on Boards. Euw!

DeV.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Boston
what would the effect of hosting it elsewhere be on the sig, other then it taking longer to load.

How did you come to that conclusion..?

amp

Forcing sig images to be hosted by boards would put extra load on the servers. Dunno how much but I imagine it wouldn't be a problem right now. But I think it would grow with boards growth and could be a problem in the future in terms of bandwith.

As usual on these type of things I'm not in favour of tarring all boards users with the same brush. The vast majority of signatures do not track users but the very small minority that do should be removed and their owners banned completely imo.

ecksor

How did you come to that conclusion..?

If a page is taking a long time to load on boards, then very often it is due to an image in a post or signature hosted on a slow or unresponsive server. However, that doesn't mean that the converse is true which is what I think Boston is saying ...

Boston

Originally posted by ecksor
If a page is taking a long time to load on boards, then very often it is due to an image in a post or signature hosted on a slow or unresponsive server. However, that doesn't mean that the converse is true which is what I think Boston is saying ...

Yes that is what I'm saying, why wouldn't the converse be also true?

ecksor

Because other servers may serve the image/data to you as fast or even faster.

Boston

On the whole, that isn't true. Besides, (this may be a work of fiction) isn't the boards sever hosted in the middle of a telephone exchange or the equvalent in dublin city somewhere.

SheroN

Please stop boston, please.

Asok

The Fruit ****er Pwns You All

DeVore

Yes, its hosted in the middle of a telelphone exchange. Teams of women connect you to your requested page, often using phono-jacks and long pieces of cable.

DeV.

Asok

<PhoneClerk> One Moment sir connecting to "xxxxxxxx lotlita teens rar omg hotttt"

Boston

Originally posted by DeVore
Yes, its hosted in the middle of a telelphone exchange. Teams of women connect you to your requested page, often using phono-jacks and long pieces of cable.

DeV.

I ****ing knew it. I knew I had telephone exchange wrong, but its it hosted at a fibre node or something, one of those big sever parks by nevada or somebody? Maybe it was all a dream or a drunken conversation, I'm not sure anymore.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by ecksor
If a page is taking a long time to load on boards, then very often it is due to an image in a post or signature hosted on a slow or unresponsive server. However, that doesn't mean that the converse is true which is what I think Boston is saying ...

Agreed. It was his declaration that this was always the case I was questioning.

Originally posted by Boston
On the whole, that isn't true.

And again, this is because..?

(Because you don’t actually know what you’re talking about does not count as a valid answer, BTW)

Besides, (this may be a work of fiction) isn't the boards sever hosted in the middle of a telephone exchange or the equvalent in dublin city somewhere.

You should not be encouraged to breed.

amp

I just finished reading the thread url that ecksor posted and a solution had been reached that made almost everybody happy:

by DeVore in that other thread summarising a compromise by ecksor.
1. If you dont want this option on (and it would be off by default) you will see and use Boards EXACTLY AS YOU DO NOW. Linking to external images (hosted wherever) would be the same and what you see in threads would be the same. No change

2. If, on the other hand, you DO turn this option on you will see no images from foreign servers and you will be all safe from the boogeyman.

This is the answer. Everybodies a winner. Case closed. QED.

Boston

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You should not be encouraged to breed.

Excuse moi?

amp

Well you might pass what ever you have to an innocent child.

Boston

Originally posted by The Corinthian
And again, this is because..?

right I'll explain it to you, if you're in Ireland right you need to like put a prefix to get access to sites hosted in other countries right and this costs more because its long distance surfing as apposed to short distance sufting which is only like 1.27 cent a minute. Therefore if sigs are hosted on foreign sites they cost me more money and i don't like that and it takes longer to download due to the lag as a result of long distance surfing

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Boston
right I'll explain it to you, if you're in Ireland right you need to like put a prefix to get access to sites hosted in other countries right and this costs more because its long distance surfing as apposed to short distance sufting which is only like 1.27 cent a minute. Therefore if sigs are hosted on foreign sites they cost me more money and i don't like that and it takes longer to download due to the lag as a result of long distance surfing

Fair enough bubbles...

jank

Originally posted by Boston
right I'll explain it to you, if you're in Ireland right you need to like put a prefix to get access to sites hosted in other countries right and this costs more because its long distance surfing as apposed to short distance sufting which is only like 1.27 cent a minute. Therefore if sigs are hosted on foreign sites they cost me more money and i don't like that and it takes longer to download due to the lag as a result of long distance surfing

??are u serious

Boston

Originally posted by jank
??are u serious

Deadly serious bud... An italian bloke in a pub told me it one.

ecksor

Originally posted by Boston
On the whole, that isn't true.

...

Besides, (this may be a work of fiction) isn't the boards sever hosted in the middle of a telephone exchange or the equvalent in dublin city somewhere.

News to me.

Boston

Originally posted by ecksor
News to me.

in fairness I did say "this may be a work of fiction" might have been a give away.:rolleyes:

amp

Writing quite a lot of fiction lately Boston? Too bad it's not very good fiction.

Boston

Originally posted by amp
Writing quite a lot of fiction lately Boston? Too bad it's not very good fiction.

Hey, I know where you live.

mr_angry

Seems pretty simple to me. If you think a sig contains malware, report it. Otherwise, ignore it in whatever way you think suits you best.

Occidental

Originally posted by Boston
I ****ing knew it. I knew I had telephone exchange wrong, but its it hosted at a fibre node or something, one of those big sever parks by nevada or somebody? Maybe it was all a dream or a drunken conversation, I'm not sure anymore.

It’s a fibre cave under Stephen’s Green that Dev bought on the cheap when Batman went into receivership. The cable ladies are all a front for the sex/gambling den that finances boards, though it’ll all close down soon and reopen as a late night novelty Tesco’s. In truth Dev’s no better than Tony O’Reilly.

amp

Originally posted by Boston
Hey, I know where you live.

And that's relevant how?

Boston

Originally posted by Occidental
It’s a fibre cave under Stephen’s Green that Dev bought on the cheap when Batman went into receivership. The cable ladies are all a front for the sex/gambling den that finances boards, though it’ll all close down soon and reopen as a late night novelty Tesco’s. In truth Dev’s no better than Tony O’Reilly.

You see thats where your story goes wrong, Dev can't have bought anything as all his money goes on his crippling tree addiction.

amp

Originally posted by Boston
You see thats where your story goes wrong, Dev can't have bought anything as all his money goes on his crippling tree addiction.

Is there any point to this thread other than showcasing Bostons lack of any higher brain functions?

ecksor

No more off-topic posts.

jank

boston if your that parinoid why are you on the net in the first place

also u saying surfing a site in OZ will cost more than surfing a local site

ZENER

right I'll explain it to you, if you're in Ireland right you need to like put a prefix to get access to sites hosted in other countries right and this costs more because its long distance surfing as apposed to short distance sufting which is only like 1.27 cent a minute. Therefore if sigs are hosted on foreign sites they cost me more money and i don't like that and it takes longer to download due to the lag as a result of long distance surfing

He's kiddin' . . right ?

Zener dont be a moron, we dont serve the cookie, the image host does.

I liked it better when I didn't know who you were, then I could let fly at being called a moron.

ZENER

DeVore

I requested you NOT be one. That implies a capacity to not be one. That at least imparts hope neh?

Back on topic, I still havent seen a link to this Al Qaeda like threat to our security.

DeV.

ecksor

Originally posted by DeVore
Back on topic, I still havent seen a link to this Al Qaeda like threat to our security.

Depends upon what you mean by "our security". The threat is to users.

DeVore

I'm a user too.... (and a human, with feelings *sob*)

DeV.

mickeyboymel

Originally posted by DeVore
I requested you NOT be one. That implies a capacity to not be one. That at least imparts hope neh?

Back on topic, I still havent seen a link to this Al Qaeda like threat to our security.

DeV.

Jesus, I seem to have opened a right can of worms here. I was simply woundering where several cookies had come from relating to sites I never visit.

I Blocked all third party cookies and monitered what was being rejected and a few posts here threw up some .

I will link to two here for your benefit, but as I am on dialup, I do not intend to search for any more. I just thought people should be made fully aware of the fact that your site permits this practice .


EVERTON FOOTBALL CLUB
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1559930#post1559930

CHINA ONLINE
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=894499#post894499

monument

There is a sig which show what mp3 the person is playing or something to that effect. I think it was the one I found which tracked cookies.

I don’t really care about it, but if you Admins think it's an issue I can report it next time I see it. Do you?

Anyway, maybe just to protect Boards' interests you could add, and possible enforce, a rule to only allow code which has a sole aim to displace images, or at least no code which directly or indirectly enables (non-Boards) cookies, or which tracks other personal information, just to comply with the Data Protection laws.

ecksor

Originally posted by monument
I don’t really care about it, but if you Admins think it's an issue I can report it next time I see it. Do you?

If you like. It's not breaking any specific rules, but no harm in knowing

Anyway, maybe just to protect Boards' interests you could add, and possible enforce, a rule to only allow code which has a sole aim to displace images, or at least no code which directly or indirectly enables (non-Boards) cookies, or which tracks other personal information, just to comply with the Data Protection laws.

Cookies and those images that display what ISP you're using make this stuff obvious, but any off-site image essentially does the same thing whether in a post or a signature.

I don't know if the data protection laws apply here. Boards' interests aren't in direct danger as far as I know ...

monument

Originally posted by ecksor
I don't know if the data protection laws apply here. Boards' interests aren't in direct danger as far as I know ...

I think they do, if you allow other people to obtain personal information with out letting users know about it first and/or without knowing how they keep the information (ie if they comply with the Data Protection laws on storage of such info).

Just to stressed - this is just if you want to be careful. That is if even if they apply.