The article makes it sound a bit like the big companies are doing something very evil to the users data just because they are evil and greedy. I encountered this problem in my development work, and in reality it's much more complicated, while some companies might well be evil and greedy, the real problem is that the means available in the browser for doing cross-domain integration of web services while controlling pr…
Google could display a message in page, like they do when first party cookies are disabled or when firebug is running. Instead, they chose to "jailbreak" themselves and not even tell the user what they are doing. Google makes a tickertape parade of yellow see sticky notes every time they change the shade of grey in a form button, it is quite telling that they are ashamed of admitting "
Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
41–50 of 63 posts
Re: Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's broken to begin with, it's not really "breaking the users security settings". Specifically if it can be broken just by saying "break it", then it's broken from the start.
In that sense NO ENTRY signs are also broken. And so is the robots.txt protocol.
Re: Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
#43The article makes it sound a bit like the big companies are doing something very evil to the users data just because they are evil and greedy. I encountered this problem in my development work, and in reality it's much more complicated, while some companies might well be evil and greedy, the real problem is that the means available in the browser for doing cross-domain integration of web services while controlling pr…
Google could display a message in page, like they do when first party cookies are disabled or when firebug is running. Instead, they chose to "jailbreak" themselves and not even tell the user what they are doing. Google makes a tickertape parade of yellow see sticky notes every time they change the shade of grey in a form button, it is quite telling that they are ashamed of admitting "
Re: Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
#44As I see it, there are seven relevant facts:
1. The intent of P3P is to make it so that you are personally, legally bound to enforce particular privacy guarantees.
2. The attempt to make a P3P standard has been abandoned for half a decade, and only one browser maker supports it, largely for historical reasons. Documentation and tooling for P3P is by-and-large about a decade old, and advocacy seems to have dwindled down to a few people at CMU.
3. Unless you send a P3P header with the right string of (potentially legally binding) guarantees, it is not possible to use third party cookies with Internet Explorer.
4. P3P was intended for exactly the case of tracking cookies.
5. Using a third party tracking cookie is often the best design decision for a particular problem, even though other mechanisms could completely avoid the need to handle P3P.
6. Almost no one has actually changed their P3P settings from the default set by their browser vendor.
7. Users only care if functionality they want exists, whether or not there is some esoteric "standards" reason why it does not exist.
So let's say you've got a new compelling piece of functionality you want to offer. You're a startup or small project. You want to make it as easy as possible for people to include your functionality with a single javascript include. (Maybe you're Disqus? Maybe you're a new advertising platform? Maybe you're a +1 button?)
Do you ask all of your users to include a piece of PHP code on their site so that you can send data while having it appear to be first-party? Do you put up a P3P policy that matches your intentions for the data? What are your intentions for the data? If your intentions change, do you change your data model to include what P3P policy the data was captured under? What is personally identifiable information? Isn't pretty much everything personally identifiable once you have enough experience with the user? If you even have lawyers, do they have any experience with P3P, or do they just want you to point to their extremely precisely written English document instead?
So I guess the six options are:
A. Implement your functionality in a way that is inconvenient for your users, but completely avoids P3P. For example, ask them to install a PHP script where you set first-party cookies for them.
B. Use third-party cookies and set a bogus P3P policy in your headers. Maybe you copy it from the Internet.
C. Use third-party cookies and set an intentionally, obviously broken P3P policy (just a link, as Google and Facebook do) pretending that you don't understand P3P or linking to your real, English language policy.
D. Do the same as C, but actually include privacy controls on your site for users who are willing to state them and log in.
E. Have an engineer spend a day guessing what P3P policy is most similar to what you want to do at the moment and in the future, and then write the P3P policy header files and XML and forget about it.
F. Get a lawyer and engineer to team up to implement P3P throughout your site. Determine what each of the P3P options legally means in your context, figure out which ones apply, and then ensure that every part of your infrastructure handles the policy correctly.
Re: Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
#45What is the preferred way to handle P3P for a young startup or a small (possibly academic) project? As I see it, there are seven relevant facts: 1. The intent of P3P is to make it so that you are personally, legally bound to enforce particular privacy guarantees. 2. The attempt to make a P3P standard has been abandoned for half a decade, and only one browser maker supports it, largely for historical reasons. Document…
Re: Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
#46Re: Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
#47Does anybody here know when Firefox (and other major browsers besides IE) dropped the P3P standard? I certainly recall having to deal with this on most (all?) popular browsers ~6 years ago. I'm curious if they silently dropped it (because it does make the internet more useful, but more dangerous), or if they actually gave rationale for discontinuing its use.
Re: Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
#48What is the preferred way to handle P3P for a young startup or a small (possibly academic) project? As I see it, there are seven relevant facts: 1. The intent of P3P is to make it so that you are personally, legally bound to enforce particular privacy guarantees. 2. The attempt to make a P3P standard has been abandoned for half a decade, and only one browser maker supports it, largely for historical reasons. Document…
Re: Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
#49What is the preferred way to handle P3P for a young startup or a small (possibly academic) project? As I see it, there are seven relevant facts: 1. The intent of P3P is to make it so that you are personally, legally bound to enforce particular privacy guarantees. 2. The attempt to make a P3P standard has been abandoned for half a decade, and only one browser maker supports it, largely for historical reasons. Document…
1. If your P3P policy is not restrictive enough IE will still refuse to accept cookies. Just having any P3P policy is not enough, so in E and F you have no way to implement the functionality.
2. If there would be a reasonable and easy to invent way to avoid the technical problems with the P3P policy, I'm pretty sure Google and Facebook would use it. The problem is that there are integration patterns where there is really hard to come up with a strategy that avoids the P3P problem completely. If you want some third-party page appear as part of your page, the natural way is to use an iframe, but then your session-id cookie will be ignored in the iframe in IE unless you have the appropriate P3P policy set, so the iframe will have no possiblity to redirect you back to a logged-in section of your page. I cannot think of a way of circumventing this without crippling functionality.
Re: Facebook and many other sites also bypass Internet Explorer privacy controls
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
They played by nonsensical rules and got grief for it. It's kind of fair, actually. Yet, I refrain from criticizing them - P3P is a broken standard, but Microsoft followed it. I'm criticizing them for singling out Google when, in fact, ignoring P3P or actively disabling it is widespread practice. I'm surprised live.com doesn't do it.
I think live.com does (or did) do it. See page 8, second column of the CMU paper in this reddit comment: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/py9h5/now_google...
Re: Live doing it too. No, that is not what the paper says. From page 8:
"Only one of these websites, microsoft.com, displayed a full P3P policy."
"Websites under the msn:com domain exhibited a CP that includes the invalid CUSo token. Two other Microsoft owned sites, microsoft:com and windows:com use the same CP. These websites display the TRUSTe EU Safe Harbor Privacy seal. We believe that these websites are likely attempting to comply with P3P; however, they are not using P3P properly."
"The live.com CP does not include any ACCESS tokens. This CP suggests collection of PII, but does not provide any information about whether users can access their personal information."
Microsoft does not always fully comply with the letter of the law, but based on everything that I have read in that paper, they sure seem to be trying to comply with the spirit. It's ridiculous to claim that sending a deliberately misleading P3P header is the same as sending a P3P header that suggests PII is used but does not provide the access policy. One is designed to exploit a weakness in P3P and avoid blatantly lying to browsers in order to track users. The other indicates that PII is used, but does not fully specify how this is used. It seems fairly clear that one company is at least trying to support P3P, even if they are unable to completely reflect their privacy policy with these tokens. To claim these situations is analogous is fairly dishonest IMO.
(NOTE: Page numbers are based on the PDF document for quick access. Subtract 1 for the number printed on the bottom of the page.)