I've noticed that a lot of sites don't bother anymore with work-arounds so users who have turned their cookies off can still get the same experience on the site. Has that problem just gone away in modern web development? Have we gotten to a point where nobody does it, so we don't need to bother?
I think I put this in the same category as JavaScript. Most people will have cookies enabled, but there will be a few people who have them turned off. There isn't the scare like there was in the mid 90s about evil corporations tracking you all over the net etc. People have become more accepting about how the web works and what is required to have the convenience of web sites remembering who you are etc.
Some people still turn off cookies every once in a while. Usually because they wanted to test something and then forget to leave them off. Nowadays most web apps require cookies on so I think it's perfectly acceptable that instead of complex workarounds to provide the same user experience with or without cookies you can live with just a simple check and a message stating that without cookies the user won't be able to use the site.
There are lots of major websites that behave this way.
My 2c: cookies are good by default and Javascript is evil by default.
As to what general user sentiment is... I'd do cookie detection still so that you can display a meaningful error rather than simply not working if your users are blocking cookies for whatever reason. Don't bother trying to work around it though.
I'm going to guess that it'd be worthwhile running a test to see specifically if your visitors have cookies turned off, because different groups would have different issues. (if it's paranoia, security restrictions, etc.) A website catering to government employees might see higher percentages of cookie non-acceptance than other sites.
As some browsers (or plugins) allow customizing your acceptance of cookies by server or domain, it's possible that even two sites with identical user populations might have different levels of 'trust', if the users believe that one site seems shady.
Related
I use Safari and Firefox. Since Safari doesn't offer the cookie handling I prefer, I frequently invoke a separate tool to clear out most of the cookies. Neither Kayak nor Google are on my exceptions list. A couple of times recently, I cleaned out cache, local storage, flash, etc. to get rid of the so-called zombie cookies (while no webkit clients were running). I was in USA when I did this.
In spite of this, every time I access a Google site, it redirects to google.es and every time I access Kayak.com, it redirects to kayak.uk
I understand about browser fingerprint, but I have occasionally changed a few things that affect that. And even if that weren't enough, there is nothin to hint that they have identified me specifically. I would expect that in the absence of any completely unique identifier, they would assume the country of the IP address(es), which for over four weeks have been Comcast and ATT. (And various public WiFi sites.)
It's not log in—I don't have a login for Kayak and I never log in to Google unless absolutely necessary.
With kayak, I changed it (menu lower right corner of search page) to USA/dollars, but as soon as I go to another site without deleting cookies, when I come back, it's on UK/pounds again.
What might be the cause of this? There are a few other sites behaving similarly.
I think I understand it now. Someone correct me if I missed something.
It was not cookies or tracking or HTML redirect.
It was the browser "remembering" that I had visited kayak.co.uk and google.es while over there and "fixing" the URL for me.
We have been working on a gaming website. Recently while making note of the major traffic sources I noticed a website that I found to be a carbon-copy of our website. It uses our logo,everything same as ours but a different domain name. It cannot be, that domain name is pointing to our domain name. This is because at several places links are like ccwebsite/our-links. That website even has links to some images as ccwebsite/our-images.
What has happened ? How could have they done that ? What can I do to stop this ?
There are a number of things they might have done to copy your site, including but not limited to:
Using a tool to scrape a complete copy of your site and place it on their server
Use their DNS name to point to your site
Manually re-create your site as their own
Respond to requests to their site by scraping yours real-time and returning that as the response
etc.
What can I do to stop this?
Not a whole lot. You can try to prevent direct linking to your content by requiring referrer headers for your images and other resources so that requests need to come from pages you serve, but 1) those can be faked and 2) not all browsers will send those so you'd break a small percentage of legitimate users. This also won't stop anybody from copying content, just from "deep linking" to it.
Ultimately, by having a website you are exposing that information to the internet. On a technical level anybody can get that information. If some information should be private you can secure that information behind a login or other authorization measures. But if the information is publicly available then anybody can copy it.
"Stopping this" is more of a legal/jurisdictional/interpersonal concern than a technical one I'm afraid. And Stack Overflow isn't in a position to offer that sort of advice.
You could run your site with some lightweight authentication. Just issue a cookie passively when they pull a page, and require the cookie to get access to resources. If a user visits your site and then the parallel site, they'll still be able to get in, but if a user only knows about the parallel site and has never visited the real site, they will just see a crap ton of broken links and images. This could be enough to discourage your doppelganger from keeping his site up.
Another (similar but more complex) option is to implement a CSRF mitigation. Even though this isn't a CSRF situation, the same mitigation will work. Essentially you'd issue a cookie as described above, but in addition insert the cookie value in the URLs for everything and require them to match. This requires a bit more work (you'll need a filter or module inserted into the pipeline) but will keep out everybody except your own users.
Less or more I am building my site heavly on sessions(especially for redirecting users etc), I am curious if this a dangerous practice. What would be the rough percentage of users who have disabled their cookie saving with their browsers ? I am open to any suggestions :)
Thanks
The main issue with sessions is not the disabled cookies. The main argument against sessions is that they make your app stateful. Stateless services have some advantages.
The related argument is performance: sessions are often the bottleneck for sites under high load, they make it harder to use caching and imply reading or writing to storage for each request.
It is fine to use sessions when they are needed but it is better to avoid them if you can.
I would venture that the percentage of users with disabled cookies is 0%. The vast majority of the general internet public don't fiddle with settings.
Even if they did: try turning off your cookies and visiting any popular site. You will be quickly and continually encouraged to turn your cookies back on :P
I'm not sure whether this belongs on StackOverflow or on ServerFault, so I've picked SO for as first go.
A number of years ago, there was a highly visible discussion about mis-use of HTTP cookies, leading to various cookie filtering proxys and eventually to active cookie filtering in browsers like Firefox and Opera. Even now, Google will admit that currently about 7% of end-users will reject their tracking cookies, which is quite a lot, actually.
I still vett all cookies that get set in my browser. I have for years. I personally do not know anyone else who does this, but it has given me a few interesting insights into web tracking. For instance, there are many many more sites using Google Analytics than there were even two years ago. And there are still sites (extremely few, fortunately) which malfunction hideously if you don't let them set cookies. But advertisers in particular are still setting cookies to track your way across the web.
So is there much of an anti-cookie movement anymore? Has anyone tried to take Google to task for setting so many with Analytics? Is anyone trying to vilify sites like Ebay and PayPal who use a dodgy cross-site cookie to let you login?
Or am I making too much of a stupidly small problem?
Nowadays, there are other ways to block these annoyances. Rick752's EasyList has the EasyPrivacy list, which blocks most of them with no work at all other than adding the subscription once to Adblock Plus. NoScript can (with a little configuration, mostly removing some misguided entries on the default whitelist) easily block the ones which depend on JavaScript.
That said, I set up my browser to empty all the cookies on logout. Then they can track you only for the duration of a session, which will be short unless you tend to keep your browser open for a long time (or use the session save/restore all the time).
If you use Flash, know that it also has a kind of cookies, and the interface to manage them is most probably poorer than your browser's.
There's always people who misunsderstand cookies - on both sides. Ultimatey, it's up to the browsers to properly identify the sites for cookies. As long as the site's being set properly and the browser's respecting that, it's just not much of a problem. I think thta, with the increased use of web toolkits that take care of the programmatic details (and better, slightly more security-conscious browsers), it's not much of an issue now for end-users.
Beyond that, the proliferation of DHTML and XML-based partial-page-loading mechanisms (as well as database-backends and similar), the need to track session between stateless pages is reduced now. Your web app can very easily keep state without the need for cookies, and that may well have partially been driven by the number of [generally misinformed] end-users who blocked cookies all together.
In shorter words: "IMHO, no".
I gave up both as user and developer.
As a user the convenience of staying logged into sites is just too tempting, the pain of some sites not working too annoying. And I'm not that sensitive about my privacy, so I stopped caring and let all cookies through.
As a developer I always try to be as RESTful as possible, but I don't know any decent way of handling authentication without cookies. HTTP Basic Auth is just too broken, I can't assume HTTPS all the time and mangling URLs is painful and inelegant. What's left is form-based authentication with cookies. So my applications have one auth cookie -- I don't need any more than that, but that by itself requires the user to have cookies on if they want to authenticate themselves. Maybe OpenID and other federated identity services might fix that one day, but at the moment I can't rely on any of these yet.
My biggest annoyance with cookies is that I want to block Analytics cookies but at the same time I need to login to analytics to manage some customer sites. As far as I can tell they are the same cookie (in fact it may be the same cookie across all google services).
I really don't trust the Google cookie. They were apparently one of the first large companies to set cookie expiration to 2038 (the maximum) and their business model is almost entirely advertising based (targeted advertising at that). I suspect they know more about the day-to-day online activities and interests of people than any other government or organisation on the planet.
That's not to say it's all evil or anything but that really is a lot of trust to be given one entity. They may claim it's all anonymised but I'm pretty sure that claim would be hard to verify. At any rate there is no guarantee that this data won't be stolen, legally acquired or otherwise misused at some future point for other purposes.
It isn't impossible that one day this kind of profiling could be used to target people for more serious things than ads. How hard would it be for some future Hitler to establish the IP addresses, bank accounts, schools, employers, club memberships etc of some arbitary class of person for incarceration or worse?
So my answer is that this is not a small problem and history has already taught us many times over what can happen when you start classifying and tracking people. Cookies are not the only means but they are certainly a part of the problem and I recommend blocking them and clearing at every convenient opportunity.
I am also one of the hold-outs who doesn't automatically accept cookies. I do appreciate sites that need fewer, and I am more likely to return to those sites and allow cookies from them in the future.
That said, I do think that being vigilant about cookies is not (rationally) worth the effort. (In other words, I expect I will keep doing what I'm doing because it makes me feel better, even though I don't have evidence of commensurate tangible benefit.)
Every now and again I clear all my cookies. It's a pain as I then have to login to sites again (or set preferences) but this is also a good test as to whether either me or my browser can remember the login details..
Why don't people use CFLOGIN? I remember having problem with it with CF7 some months ago, but I couldn't remember what was wrong with it.
I use cflogin all the time and it works great. It can be a little tricky to get working the way you like, but the benefits are huge. Being able to fine tune your application with user roles takes care of the bulk of my rights based customization. There used to be some issues with session management that made it difficult to work with. Turning on j2ee sessions seems to make most of those issues go away.
Some of the popular frameworks are not compatible with cflogin, so that might be one reason you don't see a lot of it. They tend to have their own approach to securing application features.
I think a lot of people get frustrated with it because it is a little quirky and they give up on it. Others have more complicated security needs that aren't addressed completely by cflogin, so they wind up writing their own system. Specifically, there isn't an easy way to deal with rights by content asset.
The only issue I've had is with roles in CF8. It's brilliantly implemented, and a little cruel that it doesn't work as it quite should. Maybe in CF9.
In any event, building your own roles based system (assign the user a session variable with a comma separated list of access levels that the system can check against) isn't too hard to do and I got over it.
The one nice thing about cfLogin that is probably still worth using is how it ties into the Server monitor to see how many people are logged in, etc.
The point above about using the jsession is true, it's worth doing in all cf apps. One of the best things I dragged myself through to get working how I wanted it.
CFLogin is not used for 3 reasons.
First, it's a little touchy, a little strange, and doesn't work how many would think. You put some code here, and if a user isn't logged in it runs it... that's just odd, you know? It didn't help that there were some bugs early on, either.
Second, while it has the basic required security features for a web application, it doesn't go any further. You can't really extend it easily. Who's to say that's how everybody wants it?
Third, and most realistically, it's because people have already solved that problem. The problem area of securing an application, authentication and authorization has been thought out in the community long enough and most people know how to just do it. CFLogin is reinventing the door. It is too little, too late.
Now, that's not to say that no one uses it. I personally have used it a few times with basic success, but no reason to ring a bell. For most of my applications, it makes more sense to not use CFLogin. The problem domains are this way or that, and CFLogin doesn't always solve it in the most intelligent way.
Do keep in mind that CFLOGIN has a catch with Basic HTTP Auth where it can continue to send its UserID and Password even after you have called CFLOGOUT.
I know this has driven some advanced users away from it.
Here is an excerpt from LiveDocs
Caution: If you use web server-based
authentication or any form
authentication that uses a Basic HTTP
Authorization header, the browser
continues to send the authentication
information to your application until
the user closes the browser, or in
some cases, all open browser windows.
As a result, after the user logs out
and your application uses the cflogout
tag, until the browser closes, the
cflogin structure in the cflogin tag
will contain the logged-out user's
UserID and password. If a user logs
out and does not close the browser,
another user might access pages with
the first user's login.
In my case (suppose for some other people too) the main reason is moving from other platform, say PHP. I mean that I've already got some knowledge and habits in ACL development and started using them in CF.
I know how to make it handy for user, flexible for developer and secure and don't really need to switch to cflogin.
Sometimes the same happens with other stuff, say in most cases I prefer to implement client-side validation using own JS instead of using cfform/cfinput.
Because it (still!) has serious bugs, like this one:
http://www.raymondcamden.com/index.cfm/2009/8/7/Watch-out-for-this-CFLOGIN-Bug