By Michael Kerrisk
October 24, 2012
As even moderately sophisticated users of the web are aware by now, the
great majority of web sites that we visit have a keen interest in tracking
their users. At the simplest end of the scale, visitor tracking takes the
form of web server logs that record the source IP address of an HTTP
request, the HTTP request itself, and the browser's user agent
string. Further along the scale are simple cookie-based systems used to
track the number of unique visitors to a site or to track each user's
navigation around a site. Going further still are the cookie-based systems
and widget-based systems (Facebook's "like" buttons, Google's "+1" buttons,
and the like) that an increasing number of companies are using to track
users' surfing habits across web sites, typically to gather a picture
of our browsing habits in order to target us with more "personalized"
advertising.
Furthermore, many of the free web services to which we provide any kind
of personal information have a keen interest in monetizing that information
as far their stated privacy policies allow. And in some cases those
companies are prepared to be flexible about their policies when it suits
their business goals. To take just one of the most noted examples,
Facebook's constantly morphing range of privacy settings, and their
defaults, appear to be designed more to suit the requirements of Facebook's
paying advertisers rather than its users. As has been pithily observed,
"if you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the
product being sold."
However, even for sophisticated users, preventing tracking and
controlling the privacy of personal data can be challenging. Less
sophisticated users can have trouble to even find which part of a web
service's interface is used to control the privacy settings that determine
how a company uses their data. While many users may be aware of cookies,
probably only a minority actively try to control their use. And few of us
have any idea how much the information that we provide to free web services
might be worth to the companies providing the services.
Privacyfix, a plug-in for the
Firefox and Chrome browsers released earlier this month, aims to educate
users on how they are tracked and how their personal data is used; it also
assists them with the task of locking down the privacy of their personal
data on some web services. And perhaps most eye-catchingly, it attempts to
give the user an estimate of the value of their web surfing habits for a
couple of the web service giants. The plug-in is free as in beer, but while
the web site mentions some collaborations with open source projects,
no mention is made of the plug-in itself as being under a free license; one
assumes that it is not.
Installation of the plug-in is accomplished by clicking a link on the
Privacyfix home page. The actual installation takes just a few seconds, but
is followed by a set-up phase whose duration depends on the speed of the
user's Internet link. During this phase the plug-in is downloading a data
set containing information about a large number of commonly used web
sites. The Privacyfix FAQ emphasizes that the data exchange that is going
on at this point is almost entirely one way. No browser information (such
as cookies, history, or bookmarks) is sent to the Privacyfix site. The only
information that goes to the site is unavoidable technical information such
as the user's IP address, which PrivacyChoice, the company that
produces the plug-in, claims to delete immediately.
Once the download is complete, the plug-in analyzes your browser's cookies and
browser history, and—if you are logged in—your Facebook privacy
settings and Google account settings to give you a picture of just
how tracked your life on the web is. The plug-in then presents its results
in a tabbed browser display of the form shown to the right.
The first two tabs provide information relating to the two web giants,
Facebook and Google. In the lower right portion of each tab, the plug-in
gives an indication of the extent to which your browsing is tracked or
analyzed, and, based on the last 60 days of browser activity, estimates the
annual monetary value of your browsing habits to the service. Based on the
database of web sites that Privacyfix checks, the plug-in provides an
indication of just how pervasive Facebook tracking is: an astonishing 83%
of the sites that I visited are tracked by Facebook. In addition, I was
informed that Facebook makes just a few US cents per year at my level of
activity. Although my usage of Facebook is so low as to almost put me in
the non-user category, this does seem like an underestimate, especially
given the fact that Privacyfix tells me that Facebook tracks so many of the
sites I visit. The developers note
that these monetary estimates are based on the work of TREFIS, a company that estimates the
monetization of users' interaction with major web services; the estimates
shown by Privacyfix are necessarily imprecise.
The right-hand side of the browser display is more practically
interesting. A series of horizontal bands provides visual feedback on how
locked down your Facebook privacy settings are; hovering the mouse over
each indicator provides further explanation about the setting. In this
display, a green band indicates that Privacyfix considers your current
setting to be good from a privacy point of view. An orange band indicates a
setting that needs attention; the display shown above indicates what one
unsophisticated Facebook user in this editor's household sees when using
the "Facebook" tab. (And yes, there will be a talk at home tonight about
Facebook privacy settings.)
Simply reading the pop-up explanation on each privacy indicator is
informative; I didn't previously know that Facebook may automatically share
my profile information when I visit certain web sites. One of the nice
features of the plug-in is that each of the indicators can be clicked to
change the privacy setting, typically by navigating the user to the
appropriate part of the Facebook web interface that controls the
setting—a boon to those who have, like your editor, struggled to
navigate around Facebook's privacy settings. Once the settings have been
changed (in any way), Privacyfix sets the corresponding indicator green.
Privacyfix takes a policy-neutral approach to your privacy settings. It
will indicate privacy settings that may need attention, but won't
automatically change any settings for you. The rationale for that approach
is that you may have some quite practical reasons for surrendering some
level of privacy; for example, disabling Facebook's "like" button may
interfere with the rendering of some web pages. Similarly, disabling
Google's recording of your web search
history means that future searches may lead to less personalized
results. Privacyfix leaves the user to make those choices.
The display in the "Google" tab is similar to the Facebook tab. The
lower right portion tells me that Google collects data on 60% of the pages
I visited in the last 60 days. The big surprise here is the monetary value
of my browsing habits for Google: Privacyfix estimates these at US$1179 per
year. Although I spend a lot of the day on the web, this number does seem
implausibly high, especially when compared to the Facebook
number. However, the point is made: our browsing habits are worth a lot of
money to Google. Again, a set of clickable indicators on the right-hand
side of the display provides a basic education on how Google uses data
about the user and allows privacy settings to be changed.
The "Websites" tab displays the favicons of web sites that the user has
visited that Privacyfix has rated as having some privacy issues, based on
the sites' privacy policies. Sites that share data outside the parent
company and its affiliates are placed in a special section at the top of
the display. (I was surprised to find that the Deutsche Bahn, the German
railway company, reserves the right to share the personal data that I've
given to them with third parties.) A "fix" button in this part of the
display allows you to automatically generate an email requesting removal of
personal data on these sites; of course, in many cases there is no
guarantee that such a request will be honored. Clicking each favicon drills
down to a page displaying further information about the corresponding web
site's policies and which other companies track your visits to the site and
what their tracking policies are.
Privacyfix's "Tracking" tab provides a visual overview of which companies are
currently using tracking cookies to monitor user visits. This sort of
visual display provides an impressive reminder of just how tracked we are:
most frequent web users are likely to see that they are tracked by at least
a couple of hundred web sites. Again, each icon is clickable, leading to
further information about the site's tracking policies, and there are "fix"
buttons to disable tracking cookies and ad tracking.
The final tab, "Healthbar", places a "privacy health" button at the far
right of the browser address bar. While browsing the web, you can click
this button to obtain a pop-up privacy assessment of the site, if it is one
of those in the Privacyfix database. To the right is Privacyfix's health
display for Google.com. Again, this sort of display is an effective tool
for educating users about web privacy. Most of the web sites that I visited
that Privacyfix knows about showed at least some orange indicators to
indicate potential privacy issues; notably, Wikipedia had a clean green
bill of health.
When it comes to understanding and controlling how our private data is
used on the web, Privacyfix seems a useful tool on many dimensions. First
and foremost among these is its use as an educational tool for web users
of all levels of sophistication to gain a better understanding of how they
are tracked on the web and to learn about the privacy policies of the companies
who are tracking them. Increasing user understanding in this area can only
be a good thing, inasmuch as it may lead to greater public pressure on
companies to act according to more ethical privacy and tracking policies.
Comments (5 posted)
Brief items
Because of their proprietary nature and narrowly-specified license and
approval guidelines, medical devices are actually more at risk of catching
computer viruses because they are often outdated, unprotected, and unable
to be modified or upgraded.
--
NaturalNews
learns that not just the
patients in a hospital have viruses
Criminals no longer need to stake out a home or a business to monitor the
inhabitants' comings and goings. Now they can simply pick up wireless
signals broadcast by the building's utility meters… Because energy usage often drops to near zero when a house is empty, the readings could be used to identify which owners are at work or on holiday.
--
New
Scientist
We demonstrate that SSL certificate validation is completely broken in many security-critical applications and libraries. Vulnerable software includes Amazon's EC2 Java library and all cloud clients based on it; Amazon's and PayPal's merchant SDKs responsible for transmitting payment details from e-commerce sites to payment gateways; integrated shopping carts such as osCommerce, ZenCart, Ubercart, and PrestaShop; AdMob code used by mobile websites; Chase mobile banking and several other Android apps and libraries; Java Web-services middleware - including Apache Axis, Axis 2, Codehaus XFire, and Pusher library for Android - and all applications employing this middleware. Any SSL connection from any of these programs is insecure against a man-in-the-middle attack.
-- From a paper by
M. Georgiev, S. Iyengar, S. Jana, R. Anubhai, D. Boneh, and V. Shmatikov
Comments (16 posted)
New vulnerabilities
chromium: multiple vulnerabilities
Comments (none posted)
claws-mail: denial of service
| Package(s): | claws-mail |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-4507
|
| Created: | October 22, 2012 |
Updated: | November 6, 2012 |
| Description: |
From the CVE entry:
The strchr function in procmime.c in Claws Mail (aka claws-mail) 3.8.1
and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (NULL
pointer dereference and crash) via a crafted email. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
cups-pk-helper: privilege escalation
| Package(s): | cups-pk-helper |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-4510
|
| Created: | October 24, 2012 |
Updated: | April 9, 2013 |
| Description: |
From the Debian advisory:
cups-pk-helper, a PolicyKit helper to configure cups with fine-grained
privileges, wraps CUPS function calls in an insecure way. This could
lead to uploading sensitive data to a cups resource, or overwriting
specific files with the content of a cups resource. The user would have
to explicitly approve the action. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
gitolite: directory traversal vulnerability
| Package(s): | gitolite3 |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-4506
|
| Created: | October 24, 2012 |
Updated: | October 24, 2012 |
| Description: |
From the CVE:
Directory traversal vulnerability in gitolite 3.x before 3.1, when wild card repositories and a pattern matching "../" are enabled, allows remote authenticated users to create arbitrary repositories and possibly perform other actions via a .. (dot dot) in a repository name. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
haproxy: code execution
| Package(s): | haproxy |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-2942
|
| Created: | October 23, 2012 |
Updated: | January 9, 2013 |
| Description: |
From the CVE entry:
Buffer overflow in the trash buffer in the header capture functionality in HAProxy before 1.4.21, when global.tune.bufsize is set to a value greater than the default and header rewriting is enabled, allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
java-1.7.0-oracle: multiple unspecified vulnerabilities
| Package(s): | java-1.7.0-oracle |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-1531
CVE-2012-1532
CVE-2012-1533
CVE-2012-3143
CVE-2012-3159
CVE-2012-5067
CVE-2012-5083
|
| Created: | October 19, 2012 |
Updated: | December 3, 2012 |
| Description: |
From the Red Hat advisory:
Unspecified vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
component in Oracle Java SE 7 Update 7 and earlier, 6 Update 35 and
earlier, 5.0 Update 36 and earlier, and 1.4.2_38 and earlier; and
JavaFX 2.2 and earlier; allows remote attackers to affect
confidentiality, integrity, and availability via unknown vectors
related to 2D. (CVE-2012-1531)
Unspecified vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
component in Oracle Java SE 7 Update 7 and earlier and 6 Update 35 and
earlier allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality, integrity,
and availability via unknown vectors related to Deployment. (CVE-2012-1532)
Unspecified vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
component in Oracle Java SE 7 Update 7 and earlier, and 6 Update 35
and earlier, allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality,
integrity, and availability via unknown vectors related to Deployment. (CVE-2012-1533)
Unspecified vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
component in Oracle Java SE 7 Update 7 and earlier, 6 Update 35 and
earlier, and 5.0 Update 36 and earlier allows remote attackers to
affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability, related to JMX. (CVE-2012-3143)
Unspecified vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
component in Oracle Java SE 7 Update 7 and earlier, and 6 Update 35
and earlier, allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality,
integrity, and availability via unknown vectors related to Deployment. (CVE-2012-3159)
Unspecified vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
component in Oracle Java SE 7 Update 7 and earlier allows remote
attackers to affect confidentiality via unknown vectors related to
Deployment. (CVE-2012-3167)
Unspecified vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment (JRE)
component in Oracle Java SE 7 Update 7 and earlier, 6 Update 35 and
earlier, 5.0 Update 36 and earlier, 1.4.2_38 and earlier, and JavaFX
2.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality,
integrity, and availability via unknown vectors related to 2D. (CVE-2012-3183) |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
libproxy: code execution
| Package(s): | libproxy |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-4504
CVE-2012-4505
|
| Created: | October 22, 2012 |
Updated: | March 11, 2013 |
| Description: |
From the Ubuntu advisory:
Tomas Mraz discovered that libproxy incorrectly handled certain PAC files.
A remote attacker could use this issue to cause libproxy to crash, or to
possibly execute arbitrary code. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
mom: denial of service
| Package(s): | mom |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-4480
|
| Created: | October 18, 2012 |
Updated: | October 24, 2012 |
| Description: |
From the Fedora advisory:
Florian Weimer of the Red Hat Product Security Team found [1] that mom created PID files in /var/run as world-writable. This could allow a malicious local attacker to edit the PID file and on mom shutdown or restart, to kill some other process than the mom process, that they would not normally have access to terminate.
This is fixed upstream [2].
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863178
[2] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/8366/ |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
ruby: unintended file creation
| Package(s): | ruby |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-4522
|
| Created: | October 22, 2012 |
Updated: | January 17, 2013 |
| Description: |
From the Red Hat bugzilla:
An upstream Ruby security notice indicated that ruby suffered from a flaw where unintended files could be created if they contained a NUL characer in the file path or name. Certain methods like IO#open did not check the filename passed to them, and just passed those strings to lower layer routines, which could lead to unintentional files being created |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
tiff: code execution
| Package(s): | tiff |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-4447
|
| Created: | October 22, 2012 |
Updated: | December 31, 2012 |
| Description: |
From the Debian advisory:
It was discovered that a buffer overflow in libtiff's parsing of files
using PixarLog compression could lead to the execution of arbitrary
code. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
tinyproxy: denial of service
| Package(s): | tinyproxy |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-3505
|
| Created: | October 24, 2012 |
Updated: | November 7, 2012 |
| Description: |
From the Debian advisory:
gpernot discovered that Tinyproxy, a HTTP proxy, is vulnerable to a
denial of service by remote attackers by sending crafted request
headers. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
viewvc: cross-site scripting
| Package(s): | viewvc |
CVE #(s): | CVE-2012-4533
|
| Created: | October 24, 2012 |
Updated: | November 6, 2012 |
| Description: |
From the Debian advisory:
"function name" lines returned by diff are not properly
escaped, allowing attackers with commit access to perform cross site
scripting. |
| Alerts: |
|
Comments (none posted)
Page editor: Jake Edge
Next page: Kernel development>>