<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google adds a (dangerous) Firefox tune-up</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=602</link>
	<description>Helping PC users make sense of Microsoft software since 1991</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:54:09 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: James Grimmelmann</title>
		<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=602&#038;cpage=1#comment-1277</link>
		<dc:creator>James Grimmelmann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=602#comment-1277</guid>
		<description>I agree with you that this combination is dangerous and that it should probably not be on by default for users. But I think the mistake is the browser&#039;s, not Google&#039;s.

I have good connectivity and no snoops (that I know of) watching my browsing. (And if I did, then I might want prefetching as a form of plausible deniability.) I love prefetching. I wouldn&#039;t want Google to turn it off for me and deny me the option of having prefetching. But I wouldn&#039;t mind having Firefox turn it off, since that&#039;s a default that I could override by opting-in with a preference.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you that this combination is dangerous and that it should probably not be on by default for users. But I think the mistake is the browser&#8217;s, not Google&#8217;s.</p>
<p>I have good connectivity and no snoops (that I know of) watching my browsing. (And if I did, then I might want prefetching as a form of plausible deniability.) I love prefetching. I wouldn&#8217;t want Google to turn it off for me and deny me the option of having prefetching. But I wouldn&#8217;t mind having Firefox turn it off, since that&#8217;s a default that I could override by opting-in with a preference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=602&#038;cpage=1#comment-1278</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=602#comment-1278</guid>
		<description>The blame, if any, appears to be more Firefox&#039;s than Google&#039;s.  

Google just enabled their service to use a new proprietary Firefox feature, outlined on Mozilla.org &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/Link_Prefetching_FAQ.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The blame, if any, appears to be more Firefox&#8217;s than Google&#8217;s.  </p>
<p>Google just enabled their service to use a new proprietary Firefox feature, outlined on Mozilla.org <a href="http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/Link_Prefetching_FAQ.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Bott</title>
		<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=602&#038;cpage=1#comment-1279</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Bott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=602#comment-1279</guid>
		<description>Rob, you must have posted your comment as I was updating the item.

I agree with both of you that the browser is the primary culprit here, but Google is taking it one dangerous step further by allowing a completely random page to be prefetched. At least with the default implementation I have to first click on a page before its links get fetched.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rob, you must have posted your comment as I was updating the item.</p>
<p>I agree with both of you that the browser is the primary culprit here, but Google is taking it one dangerous step further by allowing a completely random page to be prefetched. At least with the default implementation I have to first click on a page before its links get fetched.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Grimmelmann</title>
		<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=602&#038;cpage=1#comment-1280</link>
		<dc:creator>James Grimmelmann</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=602#comment-1280</guid>
		<description>The more I think about it, the more it makes me uneasy. I can&#039;t quite articulate a scenario in which prefetching would bite me, but just reading your updates has convinced me that I don&#039;t understand its implications well enough to say that it definitely won&#039;t bite me.

Despite my preference for speed-demon surfing, I&#039;ve disabled prefetching for now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The more I think about it, the more it makes me uneasy. I can&#8217;t quite articulate a scenario in which prefetching would bite me, but just reading your updates has convinced me that I don&#8217;t understand its implications well enough to say that it definitely won&#8217;t bite me.</p>
<p>Despite my preference for speed-demon surfing, I&#8217;ve disabled prefetching for now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Halderman</title>
		<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=602&#038;cpage=1#comment-1281</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Halderman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=602#comment-1281</guid>
		<description>James, I think you might have it the wrong way around.  Any substantial new privacy issues related to prefetching are the site&#039;s fault, not the browser&#039;s.

There are lots of ways a site can cause your browser to load a page from another site without your knowledge: JavaScript tricks, hidden frames, etc.  For legitimate uses, prefetching is preferable to these other methods, since the browser can be smart about only prefetching during idle periods.  Disabling the prefetch feature will preclude these benefits without actually preventing malicious sites from loading remote pages.

On the other hand, well intentioned sites like Google need to be careful about what prefetching they cause for precisely the reasons Ed cites.  Google&#039;s users trust it not to place embarrassing content in their caches or to connect their browsers to disreputable sites.  Google says only certain sites are prefetched, and I&#039;ll bet these concerns enter into their selection algorithm.

Prefetching is also unlikely to exacerbate a vulnerability that &quot;allows code to be executed automatically from a page that triggers a buffer overflow or exploits an unpatched scripting exploit.&quot; The prefetched page is not rendered and any scripts it contains are not interpreted until the user actually follows a link to it.  Only the HTTP and caching code is exposed to the prefetched data, and these relatively simple modules are less likely to contain exploitable holes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James, I think you might have it the wrong way around.  Any substantial new privacy issues related to prefetching are the site&#8217;s fault, not the browser&#8217;s.</p>
<p>There are lots of ways a site can cause your browser to load a page from another site without your knowledge: JavaScript tricks, hidden frames, etc.  For legitimate uses, prefetching is preferable to these other methods, since the browser can be smart about only prefetching during idle periods.  Disabling the prefetch feature will preclude these benefits without actually preventing malicious sites from loading remote pages.</p>
<p>On the other hand, well intentioned sites like Google need to be careful about what prefetching they cause for precisely the reasons Ed cites.  Google&#8217;s users trust it not to place embarrassing content in their caches or to connect their browsers to disreputable sites.  Google says only certain sites are prefetched, and I&#8217;ll bet these concerns enter into their selection algorithm.</p>
<p>Prefetching is also unlikely to exacerbate a vulnerability that &#8220;allows code to be executed automatically from a page that triggers a buffer overflow or exploits an unpatched scripting exploit.&#8221; The prefetched page is not rendered and any scripts it contains are not interpreted until the user actually follows a link to it.  Only the HTTP and caching code is exposed to the prefetched data, and these relatively simple modules are less likely to contain exploitable holes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zaine Ridling</title>
		<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=602&#038;cpage=1#comment-1282</link>
		<dc:creator>Zaine Ridling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=602#comment-1282</guid>
		<description>Could prefetching be the reason why I see a number of cookies on my system to sites I&#039;ve never visited at the end of each day?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Could prefetching be the reason why I see a number of cookies on my system to sites I&#8217;ve never visited at the end of each day?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Bott</title>
		<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=602&#038;cpage=1#comment-1283</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Bott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=602#comment-1283</guid>
		<description>Possibly. But it&#039;s equally likely, if not more so, that those are simply third-party cookies from sites that contain elements (such as ads) loaded from a different site.

Try blocking third-party cookies to see if that reduces the number of &quot;mystery&quot; cookies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Possibly. But it&#8217;s equally likely, if not more so, that those are simply third-party cookies from sites that contain elements (such as ads) loaded from a different site.</p>
<p>Try blocking third-party cookies to see if that reduces the number of &#8220;mystery&#8221; cookies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thinking About Technology</title>
		<link>http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=602&#038;cpage=1#comment-1284</link>
		<dc:creator>Thinking About Technology</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.edbott.com/wordpress/?p=602#comment-1284</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Google adds a (dangerous) Firefox tune-up&lt;/strong&gt;

Google has announced advanced searching with Firefox,  But Ed Bott (via Ed Felton) shows how pre-loading (and caching) content on my machine can be dangerous
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Google adds a (dangerous) Firefox tune-up</strong></p>
<p>Google has announced advanced searching with Firefox,  But Ed Bott (via Ed Felton) shows how pre-loading (and caching) content on my machine can be dangerous</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
