<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_13_2125211</id>
	<title>Sniffing Browser History Without Javascript</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244896320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:deepsixomega@gmai\%5B\%5Dom\%5B'l.c'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">Ergasiophobia</a> alerts us to a somewhat alarming technology demonstration, in which a Web site you visit <a href="http://www.making-the-web.com/misc/sites-you-visit/nojs/">generates a pretty good list of sites you have visited</a> &mdash; without requiring JavaScript. NoScript will not protect you here. The only obvious drawbacks to this method are that it puts a load on your browser, and that it requires a list of Web sites to check against. <i>"It actually works pretty simply &mdash; it is simpler than the JavaScript implementation. All it does is load a page (in a hidden iframe) which contains lots of links. If a link is visited, a background (which isn't really a background) is loaded as defined in the CSS. The 'background' image will log the information, and then store it (and, in this case, it is displayed to you)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ergasiophobia alerts us to a somewhat alarming technology demonstration , in which a Web site you visit generates a pretty good list of sites you have visited    without requiring JavaScript .
NoScript will not protect you here .
The only obvious drawbacks to this method are that it puts a load on your browser , and that it requires a list of Web sites to check against .
" It actually works pretty simply    it is simpler than the JavaScript implementation .
All it does is load a page ( in a hidden iframe ) which contains lots of links .
If a link is visited , a background ( which is n't really a background ) is loaded as defined in the CSS .
The 'background ' image will log the information , and then store it ( and , in this case , it is displayed to you ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ergasiophobia alerts us to a somewhat alarming technology demonstration, in which a Web site you visit generates a pretty good list of sites you have visited — without requiring JavaScript.
NoScript will not protect you here.
The only obvious drawbacks to this method are that it puts a load on your browser, and that it requires a list of Web sites to check against.
"It actually works pretty simply — it is simpler than the JavaScript implementation.
All it does is load a page (in a hidden iframe) which contains lots of links.
If a link is visited, a background (which isn't really a background) is loaded as defined in the CSS.
The 'background' image will log the information, and then store it (and, in this case, it is displayed to you).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28351811</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>FuzzyBad-Mofo</author>
	<datestamp>1245182700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a former NoScript user and have found a decent replacement in YesScript -- although I hardly ever need to use the blacklist functionality.</p><p> <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4922" title="mozilla.org">https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4922</a> [mozilla.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a former NoScript user and have found a decent replacement in YesScript -- although I hardly ever need to use the blacklist functionality .
https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4922 [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a former NoScript user and have found a decent replacement in YesScript -- although I hardly ever need to use the blacklist functionality.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4922 [mozilla.org] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28327407</id>
	<title>Just replace history with bookmarks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245003600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of using browser history, bookmark everything moderately interesting in your history and then disable it. You still get URL auto-completion, but there's no history so the standard history attacks won't work.</p><p>Of course, if there's a bookmark hack then you're hosed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of using browser history , bookmark everything moderately interesting in your history and then disable it .
You still get URL auto-completion , but there 's no history so the standard history attacks wo n't work.Of course , if there 's a bookmark hack then you 're hosed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of using browser history, bookmark everything moderately interesting in your history and then disable it.
You still get URL auto-completion, but there's no history so the standard history attacks won't work.Of course, if there's a bookmark hack then you're hosed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324481</id>
	<title>Re:For the Masses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244912220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not DEAD-SIMPLE.  I'd imagine the only real way is to kill "visited" functionality all together.  Blocking images will just block that one exploit.  JS isn't needed for this exploit, but it could be used to create other ones.</p><p>If a page has the rule: a:visited { color: red; }</p><p>And I have a link element with id="myElement".  I can just do something like: if($('myElement').style.color === '#f00') alert('scream real loud (with ajax, or load an image.. or something)');</p><p>I just thought of that one off hand.  Someone may be able to come up with something trickier that requires no js.</p><p>The point here is, the solution is not dead simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not DEAD-SIMPLE .
I 'd imagine the only real way is to kill " visited " functionality all together .
Blocking images will just block that one exploit .
JS is n't needed for this exploit , but it could be used to create other ones.If a page has the rule : a : visited { color : red ; } And I have a link element with id = " myElement " .
I can just do something like : if ( $ ( 'myElement ' ) .style.color = = = ' # f00 ' ) alert ( 'scream real loud ( with ajax , or load an image.. or something ) ' ) ; I just thought of that one off hand .
Someone may be able to come up with something trickier that requires no js.The point here is , the solution is not dead simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not DEAD-SIMPLE.
I'd imagine the only real way is to kill "visited" functionality all together.
Blocking images will just block that one exploit.
JS isn't needed for this exploit, but it could be used to create other ones.If a page has the rule: a:visited { color: red; }And I have a link element with id="myElement".
I can just do something like: if($('myElement').style.color === '#f00') alert('scream real loud (with ajax, or load an image.. or something)');I just thought of that one off hand.
Someone may be able to come up with something trickier that requires no js.The point here is, the solution is not dead simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28327623</id>
	<title>Simple...</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1245005520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, the simplest solution is to adopt a policy I took up in the late '90s when it first occurred to be that my history might be sniffed:<br> <br>Delete it.<br> <br>That's right. It's perfectly possible to live a fulfilled life without browser history, or cookies for that matter. In fact, I still have my cookies file symlinked to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null, though I am aware that current browsers offer an option to clear it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the simplest solution is to adopt a policy I took up in the late '90s when it first occurred to be that my history might be sniffed : Delete it .
That 's right .
It 's perfectly possible to live a fulfilled life without browser history , or cookies for that matter .
In fact , I still have my cookies file symlinked to /dev/null , though I am aware that current browsers offer an option to clear it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the simplest solution is to adopt a policy I took up in the late '90s when it first occurred to be that my history might be sniffed: Delete it.
That's right.
It's perfectly possible to live a fulfilled life without browser history, or cookies for that matter.
In fact, I still have my cookies file symlinked to /dev/null, though I am aware that current browsers offer an option to clear it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323667</id>
	<title>Well, we fixed it...</title>
	<author>slarrg</author>
	<datestamp>1244900160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't tell what sites I've been to if it's Slashdotted!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't tell what sites I 've been to if it 's Slashdotted !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't tell what sites I've been to if it's Slashdotted!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323799</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244901780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not a troll. I wouldn't go so far as saying NoScript is malware, but the author is unscrupulous. For what the addon does, it sure gets updated a lot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a troll .
I would n't go so far as saying NoScript is malware , but the author is unscrupulous .
For what the addon does , it sure gets updated a lot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a troll.
I wouldn't go so far as saying NoScript is malware, but the author is unscrupulous.
For what the addon does, it sure gets updated a lot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329165</id>
	<title>Firefox extension fixes this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244973420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1502 seems to protect against this</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1502 seems to protect against this</tokentext>
<sentencetext>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1502 seems to protect against this</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325791</id>
	<title>Re:For the Masses</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1244983980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone has unlimited bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324089</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244905620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He was trying to work around a problem with easylist and handled it badly but easylist is as much to blame for targeting him.</p><p>He answers his emails if you care to ask but easylist has ignored me so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He was trying to work around a problem with easylist and handled it badly but easylist is as much to blame for targeting him.He answers his emails if you care to ask but easylist has ignored me so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was trying to work around a problem with easylist and handled it badly but easylist is as much to blame for targeting him.He answers his emails if you care to ask but easylist has ignored me so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323901</id>
	<title>Clever and evil</title>
	<author>dandart</author>
	<datestamp>1244903160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Evil</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Evil</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Evil</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324303</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia, web sites visit you</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1244909640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Canadian zip code humor: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/V4G1N4" title="tinyurl.com">http://tinyurl.com/V4G1N4</a> [tinyurl.com]</p></div> </blockquote><p>That would be a lot funnier if Canada actually used zip codes.  Or "humor".  But at least you spelled the first word right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Canadian zip code humor : http : //tinyurl.com/V4G1N4 [ tinyurl.com ] That would be a lot funnier if Canada actually used zip codes .
Or " humor " .
But at least you spelled the first word right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canadian zip code humor: http://tinyurl.com/V4G1N4 [tinyurl.com] That would be a lot funnier if Canada actually used zip codes.
Or "humor".
But at least you spelled the first word right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326423</id>
	<title>Extremely old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244993040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has been known for years.</p><p>It was also used in our group for one of those Myspace trackers until they got around to disallowing parameter-based images being set as a source. (and this was at least 4 years ago, if not that, then 5)<br>Not been bothered to figure ways around it since then really, group broke, rest is history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been known for years.It was also used in our group for one of those Myspace trackers until they got around to disallowing parameter-based images being set as a source .
( and this was at least 4 years ago , if not that , then 5 ) Not been bothered to figure ways around it since then really , group broke , rest is history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been known for years.It was also used in our group for one of those Myspace trackers until they got around to disallowing parameter-based images being set as a source.
(and this was at least 4 years ago, if not that, then 5)Not been bothered to figure ways around it since then really, group broke, rest is history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323895</id>
	<title>Re:Old stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244903040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it appears to me that your 'Old stuff' link requires JavaScript (I turned off JavaScript, it begs me to turn it on). I can't check the current story's link due to slashdot effect, but if TFS is to be believed, no JavaScript is required on the link it contains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it appears to me that your 'Old stuff ' link requires JavaScript ( I turned off JavaScript , it begs me to turn it on ) .
I ca n't check the current story 's link due to slashdot effect , but if TFS is to be believed , no JavaScript is required on the link it contains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it appears to me that your 'Old stuff' link requires JavaScript (I turned off JavaScript, it begs me to turn it on).
I can't check the current story's link due to slashdot effect, but if TFS is to be believed, no JavaScript is required on the link it contains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329203</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia, web sites visit you</title>
	<author>Bryan\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1244973720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And for those of you who are wanting to tell me "but Firefox just joins all startups into the same process and only gives you a new window". Well, I defeated that by dynamically creating a new home directory on the fly for each startup, populating it with a template set of files Firefox expects, setting the HOME environment variable to that path, and starting the Firefox process. So the scanning of my browser is limited to just what this one I use for Slashdot has visited recently.</p></div></blockquote><p>
If you didn't want to go through all of that hassle, you could have just done: <br>

env MOZ\_NO\_REMOTE=1 firefox --ProfileManager
<br>
It starts a new firefox instance and gives you the option of creating a new profile for a site. Comes in handy for me.<br>
Also check out <a href="http://prism.mozilla.com/" title="mozilla.com" rel="nofollow">prism</a> [mozilla.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for those of you who are wanting to tell me " but Firefox just joins all startups into the same process and only gives you a new window " .
Well , I defeated that by dynamically creating a new home directory on the fly for each startup , populating it with a template set of files Firefox expects , setting the HOME environment variable to that path , and starting the Firefox process .
So the scanning of my browser is limited to just what this one I use for Slashdot has visited recently .
If you did n't want to go through all of that hassle , you could have just done : env MOZ \ _NO \ _REMOTE = 1 firefox --ProfileManager It starts a new firefox instance and gives you the option of creating a new profile for a site .
Comes in handy for me .
Also check out prism [ mozilla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for those of you who are wanting to tell me "but Firefox just joins all startups into the same process and only gives you a new window".
Well, I defeated that by dynamically creating a new home directory on the fly for each startup, populating it with a template set of files Firefox expects, setting the HOME environment variable to that path, and starting the Firefox process.
So the scanning of my browser is limited to just what this one I use for Slashdot has visited recently.
If you didn't want to go through all of that hassle, you could have just done: 

env MOZ\_NO\_REMOTE=1 firefox --ProfileManager

It starts a new firefox instance and gives you the option of creating a new profile for a site.
Comes in handy for me.
Also check out prism [mozilla.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28335421</id>
	<title>Re:simple block</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245082080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Confirmed....</p><p>This works.  Adding the A:visited { background-image: none ! important; },<br>prevents this technique from pulling any history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Confirmed....This works .
Adding the A : visited { background-image : none !
important ; } ,prevents this technique from pulling any history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Confirmed....This works.
Adding the A:visited { background-image: none !
important; },prevents this technique from pulling any history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324767</id>
	<title>Re:Old stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244916480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The simplest partial solution is to make CSS visited links expire after 1 hour to minimize it's effects. Yet still retain the history in your browser for 2 months, so that you can still search it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The simplest partial solution is to make CSS visited links expire after 1 hour to minimize it 's effects .
Yet still retain the history in your browser for 2 months , so that you can still search it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simplest partial solution is to make CSS visited links expire after 1 hour to minimize it's effects.
Yet still retain the history in your browser for 2 months, so that you can still search it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325179</id>
	<title>Re:Old stuff</title>
	<author>Keeper Of Keys</author>
	<datestamp>1245011820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one would be quite happy if browsers disabled the ability to use the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:visited pseudoclass in your own CSS, which would kill this one stone dead. It's hard enough getting designers to specify<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:hover states for links, and practically impossible to get<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:active states out of them - if they're even needed, which is debatable. Who bothers with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:visited states? In anything other than body text, users are unlikely to understand why a certain link looks different anyway. It is occasionally useful to spot that a link embedded in text is one you've already followed, but invariably this is the browser's default styling showing through. Perhaps values of 'inherit' should be allowed, so you can turn off the browser default, but otherwise... pfff! get rid of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one would be quite happy if browsers disabled the ability to use the : visited pseudoclass in your own CSS , which would kill this one stone dead .
It 's hard enough getting designers to specify : hover states for links , and practically impossible to get : active states out of them - if they 're even needed , which is debatable .
Who bothers with : visited states ?
In anything other than body text , users are unlikely to understand why a certain link looks different anyway .
It is occasionally useful to spot that a link embedded in text is one you 've already followed , but invariably this is the browser 's default styling showing through .
Perhaps values of 'inherit ' should be allowed , so you can turn off the browser default , but otherwise... pfff ! get rid of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one would be quite happy if browsers disabled the ability to use the :visited pseudoclass in your own CSS, which would kill this one stone dead.
It's hard enough getting designers to specify :hover states for links, and practically impossible to get :active states out of them - if they're even needed, which is debatable.
Who bothers with :visited states?
In anything other than body text, users are unlikely to understand why a certain link looks different anyway.
It is occasionally useful to spot that a link embedded in text is one you've already followed, but invariably this is the browser's default styling showing through.
Perhaps values of 'inherit' should be allowed, so you can turn off the browser default, but otherwise... pfff! get rid of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323885</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244902980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like <a href="http://noscript.net/?ver=1.9.2.6" title="noscript.net">it's been fixed</a> [noscript.net].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like it 's been fixed [ noscript.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like it's been fixed [noscript.net].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323861</id>
	<title>Web Bug Blockers</title>
	<author>furbearntrout</author>
	<datestamp>1244902680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eg. IMG like opera..<br>
You should only load remote images on demand.<br>
Sounds like a no-brainer to me.<br> <br>
Yeah , I know must be new here..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eg .
IMG like opera. . You should only load remote images on demand .
Sounds like a no-brainer to me .
Yeah , I know must be new here. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eg.
IMG like opera..
You should only load remote images on demand.
Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Yeah , I know must be new here..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323947</id>
	<title>Re:Old stuff</title>
	<author>zmooc</author>
	<datestamp>1244903580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bug 57351 - css on a:visited can load an image and/or reveal if visitor been to a site<br>Reported: 2000-10-19 16:57 PDT by  Jesse Ruderman</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bug 57351 - css on a : visited can load an image and/or reveal if visitor been to a siteReported : 2000-10-19 16 : 57 PDT by Jesse Ruderman</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bug 57351 - css on a:visited can load an image and/or reveal if visitor been to a siteReported: 2000-10-19 16:57 PDT by  Jesse Ruderman</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323689</id>
	<title>Will it..</title>
	<author>NervousNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1244900400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will it know if I've gone on Goatse?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will it know if I 've gone on Goatse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will it know if I've gone on Goatse?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973</id>
	<title>Re:For the Masses</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1244904120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most people will never understand and basic exploits like this will always work against them.</p></div><p>So what, we shouldn't fix it then? The fix is dead-simple: the browser should load all "a:visited" images, regardless of whether or not it will display them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people will never understand and basic exploits like this will always work against them.So what , we should n't fix it then ?
The fix is dead-simple : the browser should load all " a : visited " images , regardless of whether or not it will display them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people will never understand and basic exploits like this will always work against them.So what, we shouldn't fix it then?
The fix is dead-simple: the browser should load all "a:visited" images, regardless of whether or not it will display them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323887</id>
	<title>It requires an iframe, so noscript will help you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244902980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>since noscript blocks iframes, if you configure it properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>since noscript blocks iframes , if you configure it properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>since noscript blocks iframes, if you configure it properly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324511</id>
	<title>No more "cool" stuff, please.</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1244912580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can disable JavaScript, Java, cookies, and password memorization.  That's great.  Now, please let me disable the most useless feature of all:  iframes.</p><p>Oh, wait... then web developers will inject 3rd party web code directly into the main document with AJAX, which is even worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can disable JavaScript , Java , cookies , and password memorization .
That 's great .
Now , please let me disable the most useless feature of all : iframes.Oh , wait... then web developers will inject 3rd party web code directly into the main document with AJAX , which is even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can disable JavaScript, Java, cookies, and password memorization.
That's great.
Now, please let me disable the most useless feature of all:  iframes.Oh, wait... then web developers will inject 3rd party web code directly into the main document with AJAX, which is even worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28338125</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>thexile</author>
	<datestamp>1245093840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/4922" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">YesScript</a> [mozilla.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try YesScript [ mozilla.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try YesScript [mozilla.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325173</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Heytunk</author>
	<datestamp>1245011700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats a interesting trick.<br> <br>
Doesnt actually require iframes, and can be used by advertisers to pin down your 'preferences' over several pages as they track you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats a interesting trick .
Doesnt actually require iframes , and can be used by advertisers to pin down your 'preferences ' over several pages as they track you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats a interesting trick.
Doesnt actually require iframes, and can be used by advertisers to pin down your 'preferences' over several pages as they track you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324441</id>
	<title>Besides visited sites...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244911680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For site that allowed user to post CSS content, and that's there is interest to steal the cookie, it could be done in the same way.<br>For example, xanga.com (cookie to steal your login info), or Forum/BBS site that allows poisting CSS.</p><p>The cookies will be sent along with the CSS background request.</p><p>Blogger/Blogspot is a good example how this should be handled...just put it in two different domains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For site that allowed user to post CSS content , and that 's there is interest to steal the cookie , it could be done in the same way.For example , xanga.com ( cookie to steal your login info ) , or Forum/BBS site that allows poisting CSS.The cookies will be sent along with the CSS background request.Blogger/Blogspot is a good example how this should be handled...just put it in two different domains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For site that allowed user to post CSS content, and that's there is interest to steal the cookie, it could be done in the same way.For example, xanga.com (cookie to steal your login info), or Forum/BBS site that allows poisting CSS.The cookies will be sent along with the CSS background request.Blogger/Blogspot is a good example how this should be handled...just put it in two different domains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28328183</id>
	<title>Minefield stops it</title>
	<author>programmer780</author>
	<datestamp>1245010080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since I'm using minefield (nightly Firefox build), it has a "private browsing mode" which, as expected, doesn't let the site do this. I find it very useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I 'm using minefield ( nightly Firefox build ) , it has a " private browsing mode " which , as expected , does n't let the site do this .
I find it very useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I'm using minefield (nightly Firefox build), it has a "private browsing mode" which, as expected, doesn't let the site do this.
I find it very useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324015</id>
	<title>Alarming?</title>
	<author>actionbastard</author>
	<datestamp>1244904600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From an exploit standpoint, no. From an editorial standpoint, yes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From an exploit standpoint , no .
From an editorial standpoint , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From an exploit standpoint, no.
From an editorial standpoint, yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28328313</id>
	<title>Re:For the Masses</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1245011160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That doesn't work with the Javascript-using version, though. Just this particular non-JS version.</p><p>Since Javascript can still query for the computed style, it knows whether the browser determined that it should have the ":visited" background-- in fact the Javascript version doesn't require images at all, you can simply pick a unique color, or some other CSS property. (There are hundreds to choose from.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't work with the Javascript-using version , though .
Just this particular non-JS version.Since Javascript can still query for the computed style , it knows whether the browser determined that it should have the " : visited " background-- in fact the Javascript version does n't require images at all , you can simply pick a unique color , or some other CSS property .
( There are hundreds to choose from .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't work with the Javascript-using version, though.
Just this particular non-JS version.Since Javascript can still query for the computed style, it knows whether the browser determined that it should have the ":visited" background-- in fact the Javascript version doesn't require images at all, you can simply pick a unique color, or some other CSS property.
(There are hundreds to choose from.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329405</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia, web sites visit you</title>
	<author>hunteke</author>
	<datestamp>1244975340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, I run separate browser instances all the time.  I do it mainly to keep different projects separated, but there's no special script necessary.  It's a commandline option to Firefox, which I've updated in my launch icon:</p><p> <tt>$ firefox -ProfileManager -no-remote</tt> </p><p>This tells the new instance of firefox to not use an already existing firefox instance (-no-remote), and allows you to select or create a different profile.  The histories are completely separate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , I run separate browser instances all the time .
I do it mainly to keep different projects separated , but there 's no special script necessary .
It 's a commandline option to Firefox , which I 've updated in my launch icon : $ firefox -ProfileManager -no-remote This tells the new instance of firefox to not use an already existing firefox instance ( -no-remote ) , and allows you to select or create a different profile .
The histories are completely separate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, I run separate browser instances all the time.
I do it mainly to keep different projects separated, but there's no special script necessary.
It's a commandline option to Firefox, which I've updated in my launch icon: $ firefox -ProfileManager -no-remote This tells the new instance of firefox to not use an already existing firefox instance (-no-remote), and allows you to select or create a different profile.
The histories are completely separate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326715</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1244997000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Can you perhaps explain the non-Javascript version in simpler terms than what's on the story's webpage? The explanation on the page is either very vague, or over my head. (Or both.)I fully understand how you can use Javascript to grab the computed style of the A tag and figure out if it matches the ":visited" style you have defined, but what I don't get is how he's grabbing the style using only server-side technologies. Since when is it possible for a web server to tell the computed style of an element?</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you perhaps explain the non-Javascript version in simpler terms than what 's on the story 's webpage ?
The explanation on the page is either very vague , or over my head .
( Or both .
) I fully understand how you can use Javascript to grab the computed style of the A tag and figure out if it matches the " : visited " style you have defined , but what I do n't get is how he 's grabbing the style using only server-side technologies .
Since when is it possible for a web server to tell the computed style of an element ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you perhaps explain the non-Javascript version in simpler terms than what's on the story's webpage?
The explanation on the page is either very vague, or over my head.
(Or both.
)I fully understand how you can use Javascript to grab the computed style of the A tag and figure out if it matches the ":visited" style you have defined, but what I don't get is how he's grabbing the style using only server-side technologies.
Since when is it possible for a web server to tell the computed style of an element?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324071</id>
	<title>How To Fix Without Breaking CSS</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1244905440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally the browser won't load a CSS-defined external resource if it's not required, but in this case, for links it should load resources under<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:visited for any link, visited or not.  This way this PoC would return visited for any random site, they really wouldn't get any useful data.  However 1) it uses a bit more bandwidth fetching images that may not be used, although they are precached in the event the links do end up being clicked and 2) false positives on sites which use this for targeted ads etc might trigger said ads.</p><p>My idea for a fix for the JS version of the exploit (IIRC it's where you fetch the style information for a link, say, it's color, and have visited links colored differently from unvisited) would be to have any JS queries against CSS on links return the styling of the link if it WASN'T visited... regardless of whether it actually is or not.  Shouldn't break any web apps unless someone uses it like a HTTP referer to see if you came from their site to the current page or something...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally the browser wo n't load a CSS-defined external resource if it 's not required , but in this case , for links it should load resources under : visited for any link , visited or not .
This way this PoC would return visited for any random site , they really would n't get any useful data .
However 1 ) it uses a bit more bandwidth fetching images that may not be used , although they are precached in the event the links do end up being clicked and 2 ) false positives on sites which use this for targeted ads etc might trigger said ads.My idea for a fix for the JS version of the exploit ( IIRC it 's where you fetch the style information for a link , say , it 's color , and have visited links colored differently from unvisited ) would be to have any JS queries against CSS on links return the styling of the link if it WAS N'T visited... regardless of whether it actually is or not .
Should n't break any web apps unless someone uses it like a HTTP referer to see if you came from their site to the current page or something.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally the browser won't load a CSS-defined external resource if it's not required, but in this case, for links it should load resources under :visited for any link, visited or not.
This way this PoC would return visited for any random site, they really wouldn't get any useful data.
However 1) it uses a bit more bandwidth fetching images that may not be used, although they are precached in the event the links do end up being clicked and 2) false positives on sites which use this for targeted ads etc might trigger said ads.My idea for a fix for the JS version of the exploit (IIRC it's where you fetch the style information for a link, say, it's color, and have visited links colored differently from unvisited) would be to have any JS queries against CSS on links return the styling of the link if it WASN'T visited... regardless of whether it actually is or not.
Shouldn't break any web apps unless someone uses it like a HTTP referer to see if you came from their site to the current page or something...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325329</id>
	<title>since years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244972340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have written bug reports which got no attention at all.  For years I was laughed at in forums for describing this problem.</p><p>There are some tools, which don't get updated anymore, safecache and safehistory.  Here are papers from 2006:</p><p><a href="http://crypto.stanford.edu/sameorigin/" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">http://crypto.stanford.edu/sameorigin/</a> [stanford.edu]</p><p>cb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have written bug reports which got no attention at all .
For years I was laughed at in forums for describing this problem.There are some tools , which do n't get updated anymore , safecache and safehistory .
Here are papers from 2006 : http : //crypto.stanford.edu/sameorigin/ [ stanford.edu ] cb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have written bug reports which got no attention at all.
For years I was laughed at in forums for describing this problem.There are some tools, which don't get updated anymore, safecache and safehistory.
Here are papers from 2006:http://crypto.stanford.edu/sameorigin/ [stanford.edu]cb</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326593</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1244995380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been happy with <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9727/" title="mozilla.org">RequestPolicy</a> [mozilla.org] so far. It's not a drop in replacement however. On the upside it blocks all cross site requests, not just javascript (was that an invisible 1x1 gif?), on the downside if you want a third party image to load you will also enable javascript from that party. You also can't block javascript from the site you are on, but that's what <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4922" title="mozilla.org">YesScript</a> [mozilla.org]is for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been happy with RequestPolicy [ mozilla.org ] so far .
It 's not a drop in replacement however .
On the upside it blocks all cross site requests , not just javascript ( was that an invisible 1x1 gif ?
) , on the downside if you want a third party image to load you will also enable javascript from that party .
You also ca n't block javascript from the site you are on , but that 's what YesScript [ mozilla.org ] is for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been happy with RequestPolicy [mozilla.org] so far.
It's not a drop in replacement however.
On the upside it blocks all cross site requests, not just javascript (was that an invisible 1x1 gif?
), on the downside if you want a third party image to load you will also enable javascript from that party.
You also can't block javascript from the site you are on, but that's what YesScript [mozilla.org]is for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323891</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't work on me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244902980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Returned no results for me. FireFox on Windows, no adblock or noscript.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Returned no results for me .
FireFox on Windows , no adblock or noscript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Returned no results for me.
FireFox on Windows, no adblock or noscript.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329853</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia, web sites visit you</title>
	<author>jorx</author>
	<datestamp>1244980020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>About your sig:<p><div class="quote"><p>Canadian zip code humor: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/V4G1N4" title="tinyurl.com" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/V4G1N4</a> [tinyurl.com]</p> </div><p>Yeah, it's funny... kinda. But Canada doesn't have zip codes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>About your sig : Canadian zip code humor : http : //tinyurl.com/V4G1N4 [ tinyurl.com ] Yeah , it 's funny... kinda. But Canada does n't have zip codes ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About your sig:Canadian zip code humor: http://tinyurl.com/V4G1N4 [tinyurl.com] Yeah, it's funny... kinda. But Canada doesn't have zip codes ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326337</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>slash.duncan</author>
	<datestamp>1244992020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another privoxy user. =:^)</p><p>FWIW, neither konqueror nor iceweasel/firefox responded to the detection page here.  First, I had meta-refresh turned off on konqueror so I had to turn it back on, but when neither it nor iceweasel responded, I put two and two together...</p><p>My strong preference is light text on a dark background, about opposite the scheme most of the web uses by default.  What's worse, it's all too common for a site author to simply assume either a white background or black text, and set one without setting both so one is still the default, thus rendering it either light on light or dark on dark and making it nearly or entirely unreadable.</p><p>But the easiest solution, simply setting up an !important user CSS setup, doesn't account for changing colors at all -- I didn't want<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/all/ pages to be white text on a black background, just light on dark.  If the page set a red background, I wanted to darken it, not make it black.  Similarly, if a page set 0000ff (pure, rather darkish, blue, the eye not being as sensitive to blue as to red or green) text, I wanted perhaps robin's egg blue text, not white.</p><p>As a result I've setup a rather complex privoxy filterset that tries to keep the basic colors, while darkening light backgrounds and lightening dark text.  A bright red background gets darkened to brick red or the like, for instance, just as I want.</p><p>Great... until I realized that loading bright background images with the now wrong assumptions (that my text would be dark, either by default or because the page made it that way before the filter rewrote it) rather killed things.  Unfortunately, the dynamic adjustment of brightness idea doesn't work so well on images, so I'm left with little alternative but filtering those set as background.</p><p>Similarly with sites setting link:visited and the like.  My browser default link colors take into account my preferences, but the page author doesn't know them.  Rather than hassle setting up a whole colorset filter for those as I did for text and backgrounds, however, I simply killed any link: stylesheet directives.  Now they (usually, as with the entire set, I still have to adjust the filters once in awhile) get filtered out and the browser default link colors take over. =:^)</p><p>The originally unintended but quite useful side effect is that this attack doesn't work on my browsers as filtered thru privoxy, because it depends on using as a telltale a feature I've filtered out of the incoming page. =:^)</p><p>Of course it's still possible to avoid privoxy filtering with the use of a secure connection.  Back on MSWormOS I used to use The Proxomitron, which could make use of the SSLeay libs to handle SSL[1] connections too.  As luck would have it, that's on the recently updated privoxy todo list, as well.  I've been WAITING for that!</p><p>[1]  This was NOT a man-in-the-middle attack, as the browser-proxy connection was entirely over localhost and therefore at the client endpoint.  There was thus no more danger to have that connection unencrypted than there was for the browser itself to be handling the unencrypted content.  The connection between the proxy and the server at the far end was still encrypted as usual, and thus resistant to MitM attacks.  All this assuming the proxy code is as trusted as the browser code, of course, and that the proxy would detect problems with the certificate similar to the way a browser would, and would throw up an appropriate notification page if it detected any funny business, just as would the browser.  I'm actually not entirely sure The Proxomitron had integrated certification checking and warning code, but it was of course possible to configure either it or the browser to bypass the mechanism and filtering for individual sites, like my bank.  But given that privoxy is under SPI much as Debian is, and based on public reputation and the fact it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/is/ open source, I expect privoxy will do the right thing, in addition of course to having it be a compile-time option for those uncomfortable with the idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another privoxy user .
= : ^ ) FWIW , neither konqueror nor iceweasel/firefox responded to the detection page here .
First , I had meta-refresh turned off on konqueror so I had to turn it back on , but when neither it nor iceweasel responded , I put two and two together...My strong preference is light text on a dark background , about opposite the scheme most of the web uses by default .
What 's worse , it 's all too common for a site author to simply assume either a white background or black text , and set one without setting both so one is still the default , thus rendering it either light on light or dark on dark and making it nearly or entirely unreadable.But the easiest solution , simply setting up an ! important user CSS setup , does n't account for changing colors at all -- I did n't want /all/ pages to be white text on a black background , just light on dark .
If the page set a red background , I wanted to darken it , not make it black .
Similarly , if a page set 0000ff ( pure , rather darkish , blue , the eye not being as sensitive to blue as to red or green ) text , I wanted perhaps robin 's egg blue text , not white.As a result I 've setup a rather complex privoxy filterset that tries to keep the basic colors , while darkening light backgrounds and lightening dark text .
A bright red background gets darkened to brick red or the like , for instance , just as I want.Great... until I realized that loading bright background images with the now wrong assumptions ( that my text would be dark , either by default or because the page made it that way before the filter rewrote it ) rather killed things .
Unfortunately , the dynamic adjustment of brightness idea does n't work so well on images , so I 'm left with little alternative but filtering those set as background.Similarly with sites setting link : visited and the like .
My browser default link colors take into account my preferences , but the page author does n't know them .
Rather than hassle setting up a whole colorset filter for those as I did for text and backgrounds , however , I simply killed any link : stylesheet directives .
Now they ( usually , as with the entire set , I still have to adjust the filters once in awhile ) get filtered out and the browser default link colors take over .
= : ^ ) The originally unintended but quite useful side effect is that this attack does n't work on my browsers as filtered thru privoxy , because it depends on using as a telltale a feature I 've filtered out of the incoming page .
= : ^ ) Of course it 's still possible to avoid privoxy filtering with the use of a secure connection .
Back on MSWormOS I used to use The Proxomitron , which could make use of the SSLeay libs to handle SSL [ 1 ] connections too .
As luck would have it , that 's on the recently updated privoxy todo list , as well .
I 've been WAITING for that !
[ 1 ] This was NOT a man-in-the-middle attack , as the browser-proxy connection was entirely over localhost and therefore at the client endpoint .
There was thus no more danger to have that connection unencrypted than there was for the browser itself to be handling the unencrypted content .
The connection between the proxy and the server at the far end was still encrypted as usual , and thus resistant to MitM attacks .
All this assuming the proxy code is as trusted as the browser code , of course , and that the proxy would detect problems with the certificate similar to the way a browser would , and would throw up an appropriate notification page if it detected any funny business , just as would the browser .
I 'm actually not entirely sure The Proxomitron had integrated certification checking and warning code , but it was of course possible to configure either it or the browser to bypass the mechanism and filtering for individual sites , like my bank .
But given that privoxy is under SPI much as Debian is , and based on public reputation and the fact it /is/ open source , I expect privoxy will do the right thing , in addition of course to having it be a compile-time option for those uncomfortable with the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another privoxy user.
=:^)FWIW, neither konqueror nor iceweasel/firefox responded to the detection page here.
First, I had meta-refresh turned off on konqueror so I had to turn it back on, but when neither it nor iceweasel responded, I put two and two together...My strong preference is light text on a dark background, about opposite the scheme most of the web uses by default.
What's worse, it's all too common for a site author to simply assume either a white background or black text, and set one without setting both so one is still the default, thus rendering it either light on light or dark on dark and making it nearly or entirely unreadable.But the easiest solution, simply setting up an !important user CSS setup, doesn't account for changing colors at all -- I didn't want /all/ pages to be white text on a black background, just light on dark.
If the page set a red background, I wanted to darken it, not make it black.
Similarly, if a page set 0000ff (pure, rather darkish, blue, the eye not being as sensitive to blue as to red or green) text, I wanted perhaps robin's egg blue text, not white.As a result I've setup a rather complex privoxy filterset that tries to keep the basic colors, while darkening light backgrounds and lightening dark text.
A bright red background gets darkened to brick red or the like, for instance, just as I want.Great... until I realized that loading bright background images with the now wrong assumptions (that my text would be dark, either by default or because the page made it that way before the filter rewrote it) rather killed things.
Unfortunately, the dynamic adjustment of brightness idea doesn't work so well on images, so I'm left with little alternative but filtering those set as background.Similarly with sites setting link:visited and the like.
My browser default link colors take into account my preferences, but the page author doesn't know them.
Rather than hassle setting up a whole colorset filter for those as I did for text and backgrounds, however, I simply killed any link: stylesheet directives.
Now they (usually, as with the entire set, I still have to adjust the filters once in awhile) get filtered out and the browser default link colors take over.
=:^)The originally unintended but quite useful side effect is that this attack doesn't work on my browsers as filtered thru privoxy, because it depends on using as a telltale a feature I've filtered out of the incoming page.
=:^)Of course it's still possible to avoid privoxy filtering with the use of a secure connection.
Back on MSWormOS I used to use The Proxomitron, which could make use of the SSLeay libs to handle SSL[1] connections too.
As luck would have it, that's on the recently updated privoxy todo list, as well.
I've been WAITING for that!
[1]  This was NOT a man-in-the-middle attack, as the browser-proxy connection was entirely over localhost and therefore at the client endpoint.
There was thus no more danger to have that connection unencrypted than there was for the browser itself to be handling the unencrypted content.
The connection between the proxy and the server at the far end was still encrypted as usual, and thus resistant to MitM attacks.
All this assuming the proxy code is as trusted as the browser code, of course, and that the proxy would detect problems with the certificate similar to the way a browser would, and would throw up an appropriate notification page if it detected any funny business, just as would the browser.
I'm actually not entirely sure The Proxomitron had integrated certification checking and warning code, but it was of course possible to configure either it or the browser to bypass the mechanism and filtering for individual sites, like my bank.
But given that privoxy is under SPI much as Debian is, and based on public reputation and the fact it /is/ open source, I expect privoxy will do the right thing, in addition of course to having it be a compile-time option for those uncomfortable with the idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28334173</id>
	<title>Re:simple block</title>
	<author>gibson042</author>
	<datestamp>1245075180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And rendering all links as unvisited by default (perhaps relegating<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:visited <em>exclusively to user style sheets</em>) would permanently resolve it.  Like the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/selector.html#link-pseudo-classes" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">specification</a> [w3.org] suggests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And rendering all links as unvisited by default ( perhaps relegating : visited exclusively to user style sheets ) would permanently resolve it .
Like the specification [ w3.org ] suggests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And rendering all links as unvisited by default (perhaps relegating :visited exclusively to user style sheets) would permanently resolve it.
Like the specification [w3.org] suggests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28328475</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia, web sites visit you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245012180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be a hit with the ladies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be a hit with the ladies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be a hit with the ladies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28328775</id>
	<title>What is a:visited good for anyway?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244970960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep a browser history to find visited pages faster, but that only works because it takes frecency into account. A binary visited/non-visited flag becomes asymptotically useless as history builds up over time. Even more so on shared computers.</p><p>As a quick fix, it shouldn't be too hard to write a userscript that either inserts hidden links for all a:visited styles or disables custom a:visited styles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep a browser history to find visited pages faster , but that only works because it takes frecency into account .
A binary visited/non-visited flag becomes asymptotically useless as history builds up over time .
Even more so on shared computers.As a quick fix , it should n't be too hard to write a userscript that either inserts hidden links for all a : visited styles or disables custom a : visited styles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep a browser history to find visited pages faster, but that only works because it takes frecency into account.
A binary visited/non-visited flag becomes asymptotically useless as history builds up over time.
Even more so on shared computers.As a quick fix, it shouldn't be too hard to write a userscript that either inserts hidden links for all a:visited styles or disables custom a:visited styles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324331</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia, web sites visit you</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244910000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was supposed to be funny, right? I can't imagine anyone going to that much effort. Are you also running it in a virtual machine?</p><p>Anyway... I scanned with it, and it found nothing. But since my browser has no history, maybe that's affecting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was supposed to be funny , right ?
I ca n't imagine anyone going to that much effort .
Are you also running it in a virtual machine ? Anyway... I scanned with it , and it found nothing .
But since my browser has no history , maybe that 's affecting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was supposed to be funny, right?
I can't imagine anyone going to that much effort.
Are you also running it in a virtual machine?Anyway... I scanned with it, and it found nothing.
But since my browser has no history, maybe that's affecting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329173</id>
	<title>Disable :visited in Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244973480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>layout.css.visited\_links\_enabled = false</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>layout.css.visited \ _links \ _enabled = false</tokentext>
<sentencetext>layout.css.visited\_links\_enabled = false</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323773</id>
	<title>For the Masses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244901360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people will never understand and basic exploits like this will always work against them. At what point is it the browser's (and app support staff) responsibility to protect the ignorant? The simple fix for this and many things similar is to not cache, don't keep a history, lock your browser down. If you're too stupid to do that... it's kind of your own fault.
<br> <br>
Does a car manufacturer have a responsibility to make you drive safe? They make the car and if you're too stupid to learn how to use it properly you'll be weeded out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people will never understand and basic exploits like this will always work against them .
At what point is it the browser 's ( and app support staff ) responsibility to protect the ignorant ?
The simple fix for this and many things similar is to not cache , do n't keep a history , lock your browser down .
If you 're too stupid to do that... it 's kind of your own fault .
Does a car manufacturer have a responsibility to make you drive safe ?
They make the car and if you 're too stupid to learn how to use it properly you 'll be weeded out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people will never understand and basic exploits like this will always work against them.
At what point is it the browser's (and app support staff) responsibility to protect the ignorant?
The simple fix for this and many things similar is to not cache, don't keep a history, lock your browser down.
If you're too stupid to do that... it's kind of your own fault.
Does a car manufacturer have a responsibility to make you drive safe?
They make the car and if you're too stupid to learn how to use it properly you'll be weeded out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324485</id>
	<title>Re:For the Masses</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1244912280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what, we shouldn't fix it then? The fix is dead-simple: the browser should load all "a:visited" images, regardless of whether or not it will display them.</p></div><p>Yes, that is a brilliant solution, and to me (Probably in hindsight to your comment) just seems like the most sane action for the browser to take anyway.</p><p>It does make the prefetch data larger that needs transfered, but for most people I don't think that would be a big deal anyway, and especially so if pointed out of this attack it counters.<br>At the very worst it could be an option in about:config that defaults to always load, which could be disabled back to current behavior if data transfer is that much of a concern (as you already would want to cut down other prefetch options in that case.)</p><p>I have to question however, is there really a good need or use for a hidden flag on iframes at all??<br>I honestly don't know, maybe its one of the more handy features in there, and I just don't see it from the user side of things, but 'hidden' is not an attribute I would ever imagine wanting on a frame or iframe...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what , we should n't fix it then ?
The fix is dead-simple : the browser should load all " a : visited " images , regardless of whether or not it will display them.Yes , that is a brilliant solution , and to me ( Probably in hindsight to your comment ) just seems like the most sane action for the browser to take anyway.It does make the prefetch data larger that needs transfered , but for most people I do n't think that would be a big deal anyway , and especially so if pointed out of this attack it counters.At the very worst it could be an option in about : config that defaults to always load , which could be disabled back to current behavior if data transfer is that much of a concern ( as you already would want to cut down other prefetch options in that case .
) I have to question however , is there really a good need or use for a hidden flag on iframes at all ?
? I honestly do n't know , maybe its one of the more handy features in there , and I just do n't see it from the user side of things , but 'hidden ' is not an attribute I would ever imagine wanting on a frame or iframe.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what, we shouldn't fix it then?
The fix is dead-simple: the browser should load all "a:visited" images, regardless of whether or not it will display them.Yes, that is a brilliant solution, and to me (Probably in hindsight to your comment) just seems like the most sane action for the browser to take anyway.It does make the prefetch data larger that needs transfered, but for most people I don't think that would be a big deal anyway, and especially so if pointed out of this attack it counters.At the very worst it could be an option in about:config that defaults to always load, which could be disabled back to current behavior if data transfer is that much of a concern (as you already would want to cut down other prefetch options in that case.
)I have to question however, is there really a good need or use for a hidden flag on iframes at all?
?I honestly don't know, maybe its one of the more handy features in there, and I just don't see it from the user side of things, but 'hidden' is not an attribute I would ever imagine wanting on a frame or iframe...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326157</id>
	<title>Re:No more "cool" stuff, please.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244990040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't you just install Lynx / Elinks and quit your whining gramps?<br>Seriously, you really are a massive baby if you are moaning over AJAX.<br>You really hate AJAX?<br>Yeah, i will give you that most people end up screwing it up, but it can be used to great effect, main one being that it saves bandwidth for you and the servers owners.<br>And this is why you are the big baby, because you don't care about the owners of the server, nor do you care about your own bandwidth, you just want it, like a leech.</p><p>Also, why are you even on here?  I could bet you are using that lovely AJAX interface for Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you just install Lynx / Elinks and quit your whining gramps ? Seriously , you really are a massive baby if you are moaning over AJAX.You really hate AJAX ? Yeah , i will give you that most people end up screwing it up , but it can be used to great effect , main one being that it saves bandwidth for you and the servers owners.And this is why you are the big baby , because you do n't care about the owners of the server , nor do you care about your own bandwidth , you just want it , like a leech.Also , why are you even on here ?
I could bet you are using that lovely AJAX interface for Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you just install Lynx / Elinks and quit your whining gramps?Seriously, you really are a massive baby if you are moaning over AJAX.You really hate AJAX?Yeah, i will give you that most people end up screwing it up, but it can be used to great effect, main one being that it saves bandwidth for you and the servers owners.And this is why you are the big baby, because you don't care about the owners of the server, nor do you care about your own bandwidth, you just want it, like a leech.Also, why are you even on here?
I could bet you are using that lovely AJAX interface for Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323795</id>
	<title>Old, sure...</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1244901720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and maybe even nefarious, but you've got to admit: it's a neat hack (in the original sense of the word--i.e., clever)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and maybe even nefarious , but you 've got to admit : it 's a neat hack ( in the original sense of the word--i.e. , clever )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and maybe even nefarious, but you've got to admit: it's a neat hack (in the original sense of the word--i.e., clever)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691</id>
	<title>big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244900400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd care a lot more about this if NoScript was still a viable option. NoScript <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noscript#AdBlock\_Plus" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> has become malware at this point.</a> [wikipedia.org] The real issue is the need for someone more trustworthy to make a simpler, and more trustworthy replacement for NoScript. Please? Pretty please?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd care a lot more about this if NoScript was still a viable option .
NoScript has become malware at this point .
[ wikipedia.org ] The real issue is the need for someone more trustworthy to make a simpler , and more trustworthy replacement for NoScript .
Please ? Pretty please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd care a lot more about this if NoScript was still a viable option.
NoScript  has become malware at this point.
[wikipedia.org] The real issue is the need for someone more trustworthy to make a simpler, and more trustworthy replacement for NoScript.
Please? Pretty please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324903</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't work on me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244919840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now you're safe from people finding out how depraved you are. Except<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. but we'd never use that information against you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you 're safe from people finding out how depraved you are .
Except / .
but we 'd never use that information against you : &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you're safe from people finding out how depraved you are.
Except /.
but we'd never use that information against you :&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324961</id>
	<title>Re:Old stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244921040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you perhaps explain the non-Javascript version in simpler terms than what's on the story's webpage? The explanation on the page is either very vague, or over my head. (Or both.)</p><p>I fully understand how you can use Javascript to grab the computed style of the A tag and figure out if it matches the ":visited" style you have defined, but what I don't get is how he's grabbing the style using only server-side technologies. Since when is it possible for a web server to tell the computed style of an element?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you perhaps explain the non-Javascript version in simpler terms than what 's on the story 's webpage ?
The explanation on the page is either very vague , or over my head .
( Or both .
) I fully understand how you can use Javascript to grab the computed style of the A tag and figure out if it matches the " : visited " style you have defined , but what I do n't get is how he 's grabbing the style using only server-side technologies .
Since when is it possible for a web server to tell the computed style of an element ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you perhaps explain the non-Javascript version in simpler terms than what's on the story's webpage?
The explanation on the page is either very vague, or over my head.
(Or both.
)I fully understand how you can use Javascript to grab the computed style of the A tag and figure out if it matches the ":visited" style you have defined, but what I don't get is how he's grabbing the style using only server-side technologies.
Since when is it possible for a web server to tell the computed style of an element?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28331569</id>
	<title>caja</title>
	<author>tukia</author>
	<datestamp>1244997360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What we need is caja, <a href="http://code.google.com/p/google-caja" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/p/google-caja</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we need is caja , http : //code.google.com/p/google-caja [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we need is caja, http://code.google.com/p/google-caja [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325365</id>
	<title>Re:Old stuff</title>
	<author>aamcf</author>
	<datestamp>1244973480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not make the browser access any URLs for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:visited links regardless of whether or not there are any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:visited links on the page?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not make the browser access any URLs for : visited links regardless of whether or not there are any : visited links on the page ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not make the browser access any URLs for :visited links regardless of whether or not there are any :visited links on the page?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324329</id>
	<title>Actually</title>
	<author>Cylix</author>
	<datestamp>1244909940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several firefox plugins which limit and reduce your history.</p><p>I don't think the NoScript fellows are specifically targeting anonymity, but rather simply choosing what actions (in a volatile world) can be executed.</p><p>There exist a world of many more precautions to take for those who are worried about keeping their privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several firefox plugins which limit and reduce your history.I do n't think the NoScript fellows are specifically targeting anonymity , but rather simply choosing what actions ( in a volatile world ) can be executed.There exist a world of many more precautions to take for those who are worried about keeping their privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several firefox plugins which limit and reduce your history.I don't think the NoScript fellows are specifically targeting anonymity, but rather simply choosing what actions (in a volatile world) can be executed.There exist a world of many more precautions to take for those who are worried about keeping their privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326349</id>
	<title>Easy to block in Firefox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244992140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is for FF 3.0. YMMV with other versions and other browsers.</p><p>Go to Preferences -&gt; Advanced -&gt; General. Under "Accessibility" check the option for "Warn me when web sites try to redirect or reload the page".</p><p>The attack relies on trying a lot of links<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but with the above setting FF warns on each attempt, with a warning across the top of the page saying "Firefox prevented this page from automatically redirecting to another page". So the attack could proceed if you sat there clicking the "approve" button constantly. But after the second or third warning, well, I hope you'd become suspicious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is for FF 3.0 .
YMMV with other versions and other browsers.Go to Preferences - &gt; Advanced - &gt; General .
Under " Accessibility " check the option for " Warn me when web sites try to redirect or reload the page " .The attack relies on trying a lot of links ... but with the above setting FF warns on each attempt , with a warning across the top of the page saying " Firefox prevented this page from automatically redirecting to another page " .
So the attack could proceed if you sat there clicking the " approve " button constantly .
But after the second or third warning , well , I hope you 'd become suspicious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is for FF 3.0.
YMMV with other versions and other browsers.Go to Preferences -&gt; Advanced -&gt; General.
Under "Accessibility" check the option for "Warn me when web sites try to redirect or reload the page".The attack relies on trying a lot of links ... but with the above setting FF warns on each attempt, with a warning across the top of the page saying "Firefox prevented this page from automatically redirecting to another page".
So the attack could proceed if you sat there clicking the "approve" button constantly.
But after the second or third warning, well, I hope you'd become suspicious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324147</id>
	<title>Re:For the Masses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244906880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The simple fix for this and many things similar is to not cache, don't keep a history, lock your browser down. If you're too stupid to do that... it's kind of your own fault.</p></div> </blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...which would be a lot easier if I could run two separate instances of Firefox simultaneously.
</p><p>
Instead, Firefox checks to see if a copy of itself is already resident, and if so, it pops open a new window.  A simple command-line option to "run me in a separate process space even if I think I'm already running" would suffice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple fix for this and many things similar is to not cache , do n't keep a history , lock your browser down .
If you 're too stupid to do that... it 's kind of your own fault .
...which would be a lot easier if I could run two separate instances of Firefox simultaneously .
Instead , Firefox checks to see if a copy of itself is already resident , and if so , it pops open a new window .
A simple command-line option to " run me in a separate process space even if I think I 'm already running " would suffice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple fix for this and many things similar is to not cache, don't keep a history, lock your browser down.
If you're too stupid to do that... it's kind of your own fault.
...which would be a lot easier if I could run two separate instances of Firefox simultaneously.
Instead, Firefox checks to see if a copy of itself is already resident, and if so, it pops open a new window.
A simple command-line option to "run me in a separate process space even if I think I'm already running" would suffice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324763</id>
	<title>Ingenious</title>
	<author>pixelot</author>
	<datestamp>1244916360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is pretty sweet, albeit scary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty sweet , albeit scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty sweet, albeit scary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia, web sites visit you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244906280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm letting it scan my browser now.  So far the only thing it has found is Slashdot.  It could maybe find sites that I've followed links from Slashdot to.  But it won't find much because I run a separate browser instance, with its own (initially empty) browser history, cookies, etc, for each site I visit via by the means I have set up to start a new browser (command line script, and menu selection for the browser).  And for those of you who are wanting to tell me "but Firefox just joins all startups into the same process and only gives you a new window".  Well, I defeated that by dynamically creating a new home directory on the fly for each startup, populating it with a template set of files Firefox expects, setting the HOME environment variable to that path, and starting the Firefox process.  So the scanning of my browser is limited to just what this one I use for Slashdot has visited recently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm letting it scan my browser now .
So far the only thing it has found is Slashdot .
It could maybe find sites that I 've followed links from Slashdot to .
But it wo n't find much because I run a separate browser instance , with its own ( initially empty ) browser history , cookies , etc , for each site I visit via by the means I have set up to start a new browser ( command line script , and menu selection for the browser ) .
And for those of you who are wanting to tell me " but Firefox just joins all startups into the same process and only gives you a new window " .
Well , I defeated that by dynamically creating a new home directory on the fly for each startup , populating it with a template set of files Firefox expects , setting the HOME environment variable to that path , and starting the Firefox process .
So the scanning of my browser is limited to just what this one I use for Slashdot has visited recently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm letting it scan my browser now.
So far the only thing it has found is Slashdot.
It could maybe find sites that I've followed links from Slashdot to.
But it won't find much because I run a separate browser instance, with its own (initially empty) browser history, cookies, etc, for each site I visit via by the means I have set up to start a new browser (command line script, and menu selection for the browser).
And for those of you who are wanting to tell me "but Firefox just joins all startups into the same process and only gives you a new window".
Well, I defeated that by dynamically creating a new home directory on the fly for each startup, populating it with a template set of files Firefox expects, setting the HOME environment variable to that path, and starting the Firefox process.
So the scanning of my browser is limited to just what this one I use for Slashdot has visited recently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324343</id>
	<title>Lynx</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244910180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does it work on Lynx?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it work on Lynx ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it work on Lynx?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324911</id>
	<title>Blocked by InPrivate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244920080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you care about your history being sniffed like this, you can just use IE8's InPrivate mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you care about your history being sniffed like this , you can just use IE8 's InPrivate mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you care about your history being sniffed like this, you can just use IE8's InPrivate mode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326649</id>
	<title>Re:No more "cool" stuff, please.</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1244996340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Oh, wait... then web developers will inject 3rd party web code directly into the main document with AJAX, which is even worse."<br> <br>

Not if you disable Javascript:  AJAX = Asynchronous Javascript And Xml.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh , wait... then web developers will inject 3rd party web code directly into the main document with AJAX , which is even worse .
" Not if you disable Javascript : AJAX = Asynchronous Javascript And Xml .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh, wait... then web developers will inject 3rd party web code directly into the main document with AJAX, which is even worse.
" 

Not if you disable Javascript:  AJAX = Asynchronous Javascript And Xml.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323989</id>
	<title>According to their scanner ive visited...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244904300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems .
Please try again later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems.
Please try again later.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323793</id>
	<title>Doesn't work on me</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1244901720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't work on me - Firefox, with adblock plus, element hiding helper, and flashblock, running whatever the latest Ubuntu is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't work on me - Firefox , with adblock plus , element hiding helper , and flashblock , running whatever the latest Ubuntu is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't work on me - Firefox, with adblock plus, element hiding helper, and flashblock, running whatever the latest Ubuntu is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323975</id>
	<title>Re:Doesn't work on me</title>
	<author>ElKry</author>
	<datestamp>1244904120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Worked for me, Iceweasel with NoScript in debian SID 64bits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Worked for me , Iceweasel with NoScript in debian SID 64bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worked for me, Iceweasel with NoScript in debian SID 64bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325159</id>
	<title>On the other hand</title>
	<author>bytesex</author>
	<datestamp>1245011400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe one can use this site to their advantage.  Obviously, the owners know something we know not - popularity of websites.  If you can 'play' the browser at the user end, you can have a look into their database.  See what they're searching for and how.  It cuts both ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe one can use this site to their advantage .
Obviously , the owners know something we know not - popularity of websites .
If you can 'play ' the browser at the user end , you can have a look into their database .
See what they 're searching for and how .
It cuts both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe one can use this site to their advantage.
Obviously, the owners know something we know not - popularity of websites.
If you can 'play' the browser at the user end, you can have a look into their database.
See what they're searching for and how.
It cuts both ways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679</id>
	<title>Old stuff</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244900220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The CSS history hack has been known since (at least) August 2006:

<a href="http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-know-where-youve-been.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-know-where-youve-been.html</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CSS history hack has been known since ( at least ) August 2006 : http : //jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-know-where-youve-been.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CSS history hack has been known since (at least) August 2006:

http://jeremiahgrossman.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-know-where-youve-been.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325303</id>
	<title>simple block</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244971620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>putting the rule<br>a:visited {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; background:none !important;<br>in userContent.css seems to stop this particular scan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>putting the rulea : visited {           background : none ! important ; in userContent.css seems to stop this particular scan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>putting the rulea:visited {
          background:none !important;in userContent.css seems to stop this particular scan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323655</id>
	<title>damnit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244900040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hotgaycock.cum again?</p><p>oh well... i do enjoy the meat missile!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hotgaycock.cum again ? oh well... i do enjoy the meat missile !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hotgaycock.cum again?oh well... i do enjoy the meat missile!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324503</id>
	<title>Re:For the Masses</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1244912580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Run Firefox in one and <a href="http://www.seamonkey-project.org/" title="seamonkey-project.org">Seamonkey</a> [seamonkey-project.org] in the other. Seamonkey the browser component is nothing but Firefox, and even many Firefox extensions work just fine with Seamonkey. You can choose browser only on install if you don't want/need the email, IRC chat, or HTML editor. Plus it is nice to have a "guest browser" for when you have.....guests.</p><p>Or if you are on Windows you also have the choices of <a href="http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">Kmeleon</a> [sourceforge.net] or <a href="http://kmeleon.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">KmeleonCCFME</a> [blogspot.com]. Both are superfast Win32 native gecko engine builds, but they don't have as many extensions due to not using XUL. Of the two Kmeleon is great if you want it installed, but I prefer KmeleonCCFME because it comes with ABP installed and is already portable. Just unzip to a flash and go.</p><p>

This IMHO is one of the great things about Open Source software. if you think you have a better idea you are free to fork it your own way. I have found Seamonkey to be a very useful for getting my older clients away from Outlook Express/IE, and Kmeleon/CCFME is simply very fast on Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Run Firefox in one and Seamonkey [ seamonkey-project.org ] in the other .
Seamonkey the browser component is nothing but Firefox , and even many Firefox extensions work just fine with Seamonkey .
You can choose browser only on install if you do n't want/need the email , IRC chat , or HTML editor .
Plus it is nice to have a " guest browser " for when you have.....guests.Or if you are on Windows you also have the choices of Kmeleon [ sourceforge.net ] or KmeleonCCFME [ blogspot.com ] .
Both are superfast Win32 native gecko engine builds , but they do n't have as many extensions due to not using XUL .
Of the two Kmeleon is great if you want it installed , but I prefer KmeleonCCFME because it comes with ABP installed and is already portable .
Just unzip to a flash and go .
This IMHO is one of the great things about Open Source software .
if you think you have a better idea you are free to fork it your own way .
I have found Seamonkey to be a very useful for getting my older clients away from Outlook Express/IE , and Kmeleon/CCFME is simply very fast on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run Firefox in one and Seamonkey [seamonkey-project.org] in the other.
Seamonkey the browser component is nothing but Firefox, and even many Firefox extensions work just fine with Seamonkey.
You can choose browser only on install if you don't want/need the email, IRC chat, or HTML editor.
Plus it is nice to have a "guest browser" for when you have.....guests.Or if you are on Windows you also have the choices of Kmeleon [sourceforge.net] or KmeleonCCFME [blogspot.com].
Both are superfast Win32 native gecko engine builds, but they don't have as many extensions due to not using XUL.
Of the two Kmeleon is great if you want it installed, but I prefer KmeleonCCFME because it comes with ABP installed and is already portable.
Just unzip to a flash and go.
This IMHO is one of the great things about Open Source software.
if you think you have a better idea you are free to fork it your own way.
I have found Seamonkey to be a very useful for getting my older clients away from Outlook Express/IE, and Kmeleon/CCFME is simply very fast on Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323709</id>
	<title>How to interpret results</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244900640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the server responds<blockquote><div><p>Service Temporarily Unavailable
</p><p>The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>then it means you've come from Slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the server respondsService Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems .
Please try again later .
then it means you 've come from Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the server respondsService Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems.
Please try again later.
then it means you've come from Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28331167</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia, web sites visit you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244993820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with just using "firefox -P profile --no-remote"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with just using " firefox -P profile --no-remote " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with just using "firefox -P profile --no-remote"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324953</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia, web sites visit you</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1244920800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... you posted just to brag about the extreme efforts you go to to support your irrational paranoia?</p><p>Thanks, I guess?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... you posted just to brag about the extreme efforts you go to to support your irrational paranoia ? Thanks , I guess ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... you posted just to brag about the extreme efforts you go to to support your irrational paranoia?Thanks, I guess?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324229</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1244908260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I temporarily uninstalled noscript but I've since put it back on.  He admitted a mistake and fixed it.  I think that, on balance, I'd rather risk noscript than the endless javascript exploits out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I temporarily uninstalled noscript but I 've since put it back on .
He admitted a mistake and fixed it .
I think that , on balance , I 'd rather risk noscript than the endless javascript exploits out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I temporarily uninstalled noscript but I've since put it back on.
He admitted a mistake and fixed it.
I think that, on balance, I'd rather risk noscript than the endless javascript exploits out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325207</id>
	<title>stopping CSS processing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245012900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, so how does one go about turning off CSS processing in a browser?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , so how does one go about turning off CSS processing in a browser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, so how does one go about turning off CSS processing in a browser?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324067</id>
	<title>Just ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1244905380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... put me down for a few visits to Goatse and save yourself a lot of trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... put me down for a few visits to Goatse and save yourself a lot of trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... put me down for a few visits to Goatse and save yourself a lot of trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324579</id>
	<title>Re:big issue is NoScript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244913600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the surface it seems like NoScript had descended into the point of malware, but take a look into the history of <a href="http://hackademix.net/2009/05/04/dear-adblock-plus-and-noscript-users-dear-mozilla-community/" title="hackademix.net">why Giorgio did what he did</a> [hackademix.net] and you will see that AdBlockPlus (Wladimir) and EasyList (Ares2) weren't entirely innocent in the matter (namely specifically blacklisting NoScript's domains). I notice that Giorgio was quick to apologise for his part, but Wladimir still refuses to apologise for his actions that certainly contributed.</p><p>Yes, there needs to be a more trustworthy NoScript, but at the same time there also need to be a more trustworthy AdBlockPlus and more transparency over subscription filtersets like EasyList.</p><p>I, personally have taken AdBlockPlus off my system, not because of this debacle, but because one of the updates recently broke my browser. I have found Privoxy much better suited to my needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the surface it seems like NoScript had descended into the point of malware , but take a look into the history of why Giorgio did what he did [ hackademix.net ] and you will see that AdBlockPlus ( Wladimir ) and EasyList ( Ares2 ) were n't entirely innocent in the matter ( namely specifically blacklisting NoScript 's domains ) .
I notice that Giorgio was quick to apologise for his part , but Wladimir still refuses to apologise for his actions that certainly contributed.Yes , there needs to be a more trustworthy NoScript , but at the same time there also need to be a more trustworthy AdBlockPlus and more transparency over subscription filtersets like EasyList.I , personally have taken AdBlockPlus off my system , not because of this debacle , but because one of the updates recently broke my browser .
I have found Privoxy much better suited to my needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the surface it seems like NoScript had descended into the point of malware, but take a look into the history of why Giorgio did what he did [hackademix.net] and you will see that AdBlockPlus (Wladimir) and EasyList (Ares2) weren't entirely innocent in the matter (namely specifically blacklisting NoScript's domains).
I notice that Giorgio was quick to apologise for his part, but Wladimir still refuses to apologise for his actions that certainly contributed.Yes, there needs to be a more trustworthy NoScript, but at the same time there also need to be a more trustworthy AdBlockPlus and more transparency over subscription filtersets like EasyList.I, personally have taken AdBlockPlus off my system, not because of this debacle, but because one of the updates recently broke my browser.
I have found Privoxy much better suited to my needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28330049</id>
	<title>Re:For the Masses</title>
	<author>gaspar ilom</author>
	<datestamp>1244982060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;come up with something trickier that requires no js.</p><p>Nest a span in your anchor/link, and put a unique background-image on *that.*</p><p>a.testlink:visited span#unique-id {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; background-image: url(unique-id.py);<br>}</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; come up with something trickier that requires no js.Nest a span in your anchor/link , and put a unique background-image on * that .
* a.testlink : visited span # unique-id {         background-image : url ( unique-id.py ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;come up with something trickier that requires no js.Nest a span in your anchor/link, and put a unique background-image on *that.
*a.testlink:visited span#unique-id {
        background-image: url(unique-id.py);}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324481</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28433905</id>
	<title>results completely incorrect</title>
	<author>Jon47</author>
	<datestamp>1245686760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are we certain this isn't a scam to exploit slashdot traffic? I'm a proud purveyer of the occasional pornography, but that website claimed I visited hundreds of adult sites i've never even heard of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we certain this is n't a scam to exploit slashdot traffic ?
I 'm a proud purveyer of the occasional pornography , but that website claimed I visited hundreds of adult sites i 've never even heard of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we certain this isn't a scam to exploit slashdot traffic?
I'm a proud purveyer of the occasional pornography, but that website claimed I visited hundreds of adult sites i've never even heard of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28331167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28351811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28330049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28328313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28335421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28328475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28334173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28338125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_2125211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28327623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28351811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28338125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28334173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28335421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324485
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324481
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28330049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28328313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324147
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324767
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28327623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28325365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28328475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28331167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28329853
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28323689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_2125211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28324511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_2125211.28326157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
