Author Topic: Save the Cookies! (Read 21549 times)

Cloq · « **on:** February 03, 2008, 09:08 PM »

I am thinking of switching to XP 64bit since I bought more memory. I am in the process of updating and finding 64bit versions of my software and utilities.

I have updated most of my critical applications to their 64bit counterparts except for CookieWall (www.analogx.com) and Maxthon. For the record, I dislike Maxthon 2.x. I am still using 1.6.3.

Cookiewall is great in that it allows me to choose what cookie I want to keep and what to banish whenever my machine downloads a bad one.

I wish Cookiewall could store my cookies so that I can back it up and restore it whenever I need to reinstall my OS.

What cookie mangers do other Cody members use and what are your experiences with XP 64bit?

app103 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2008, 09:21 PM »

I don't know anything about 64-bit XP, but if you can use Firefox, you can use Cookie Culler or something similar, and make backups of the important files in your Firefox userprofile, including cookies, with Bookmark Backup.

Hirudin · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2008, 03:50 PM »

I use CCleaner to wrangle my cookies, it works quite well on my Vista 64; I'd have to imagine it'll work on XP 64 too.

The left pane is all the cookies on your computer (that aren't on the "save" list). Move them to the save side and they wont be deleted by CCleaner again.

Darwin · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2008, 06:29 PM »

[Offtopic] Hirudin! Nice to see you back in these parts

It's been a while since we've seen you at DC

[/Offtopic]

mouser · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2008, 07:45 PM »

cough cough, plug for my post:
Mini-HowTo: Handling Cookie Privacy the Right Way

Hirudin · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:12 AM »

[MoreOffTopic]

Thanks Darwin! I try to make it back at least every now and then, but usually only get a post or 2 in.

Last I remember you were off to Africa or something... how'd that go?[/MoreOffTopic]

I see you use CCleaner for cookies too mouser. When I saw you made a How-To and said it was the "Right Way" the first thing I thought was... "Oh no, now I have to learn the right way... but I liked MY way..."

mouser · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2008, 08:13 AM »

great minds think alike

f0dder · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:27 AM »

Christ, stop worrying about cookies already!

Also, there isn't much point in hunting for 64-bit versions of most software, as you only get performance improvements in very specific cases. So if you really want to be silly and nitpick about cookies, you can grab a 32bit firefox and whatever cookie management extension you want.

If you're paranoid about cookies but use an IE-based browser, I give up.

Renegade · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:44 AM »

Christ, stop worrying about cookies already!
-f0dder (February 05, 2008, 09:27 AM)

Agreed. They just don't matter. Cookies are as harmful as, well... They're just not that bad. They can't hurt you. In 99.99999% of cases, you really really really really want them as they make your life easier without you even knowing.

Renegade · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:45 AM »

Oh - I forgot... Cookies are good for 1 thing in particular! Creating jobs for computer security hacks that hype fake computer threats!

f0dder · « **Reply #10 on:** February 05, 2008, 09:58 AM »

BUT OMFG TIHNK OF TEH PONIEZ! TEH COOKIES CAN TRAX0R YOUR BROWZING HABITS OMGF! CLIK TIHS LINK AND DOWNLOAD COOKIE IMMUNIZAER, NO SPYWEAR GUARANTEE!

Lashiec · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2008, 11:44 AM »

BUT OMFG TIHNK OF TEH PONIEZ! TEH COOKIES CAN TRAX0R YOUR BROWZING HABITS OMGF! CLIK TIHS LINK AND DOWNLOAD COOKIE IMMUNIZAER, NO SPYWEAR GUARANTEE!
-f0dder (February 05, 2008, 09:58 AM)

lnkplz. kthnx

Hirudin · « **Reply #12 on:** February 05, 2008, 11:56 AM »

Well, 99% of the time you wont need a virus scanner or a firewall either, so what's your point?

I don't like my computer to be perpetually logged into some sites. Is it a "REAL" security threat? Probably not, but it takes very little effort to delete cookies.

I use CCleaner to empty my recycle bin, it does the cookies too, it's convenient.

Cloq · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2008, 07:04 PM »

mm... I am more interested in saving/restoring my good cookies.

I guess I could write a simple autoit script (batchfiles are fugly) to do what I need it to do, though I am not sure if the newly installed os will function with cookies from the old installation. $:-\$

Cleaning the cookie jar is pretty darn simple and there are cleaners available left and right to do that, for that matter it's a builtin function in maxthon.

Honestly, assuming you practice safe surfing, any IE based frontend browser is pretty good. I use a hostfile (www.bluetack.co.uk), AdMuncher (www.admuncher.com) and ESS (www.eset.com) + maxthon.

f0dder · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2008, 06:34 AM »

Honestly, assuming you practice safe surfing, any IE based frontend browser is pretty good.
-Cloq (February 05, 2008, 07:04 PM)

Not really, as even with "safe surfing" you can get hit by surf-by banner ad exploits. Reputable (heh) ad servers have been hacked in the past to feed end-users exploits.

I use a hostfile (www.bluetack.co.uk), AdMuncher (www.admuncher.com) and ESS (www.eset.com) + maxthon.
-Cloq (February 05, 2008, 07:04 PM)

Well then, you're adding a lot more security than just the browser. I don't get why pepole are messing with the hosts file though, and ad blocker is more effective and makes the hosts file superfluous anyway.

Cloq · « **Reply #15 on:** February 06, 2008, 05:41 PM »

Not really, as even with "safe surfing" you can get hit by surf-by banner ad exploits. Reputable (heh) ad servers have been hacked in the past to feed end-users exploits.

Well then, you're adding a lot more security than just the browser. I don't get why pepole are messing with the hosts file though, and ad blocker is more effective and makes the hosts file superfluous anyway.
-f0dder (February 06, 2008, 06:34 AM)

Why use a hostfile? If your request (to an ad site name such as www.doubleclick.com or any big bannered ad server) is denied then you have just potenially saved yourself from a ad based background script drive by download and bandwidth to boot. Your typical ad blocker and/or proxy based ad blocker usually downloads the entire page then filters it according to whatever rules or actions that are programmed in it.

Bluetack B.I.S.S maintains a well monitored hostfile used by thousands of users (can't verify that without knowing their download counter) plus a lot of the users provide feedback on their hostfile.

Simply put, a hostfile cuts the request before it even goes out to the net. Proactive.

Yes, hostfiles can be poisoned/altered and all that nasty stuff but that would mean your machine already has other issues that need to be addressed.. the fact of the matter is, nothing is 100% safe aside from not going on the net period.

When everything is said and done, I would recommend using a hostfile from a reputable source. It's worked rather well for 10+ years

*knock on wood*

Critical surfing safely software: hostfile, ad muncher and a good antivirus program.. and by golly avoid those freebie screensavers/ringtones/games!

f0dder · « **Reply #16 on:** February 06, 2008, 07:06 PM »

Simply put, a hostfile cuts the request before it even goes out to the net. Proactive.
-Cloq (February 06, 2008, 05:41 PM)

If your ad blocker + rules are decent, you get the same - no reason to make a big hosts file. It's scary how often that file is read... sure, it'll be filesystem cached, but it still has to be parsed on every read.

Cloq · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2008, 07:53 PM »

It's scary how often that file is read... sure, it'll be filesystem cached, but it still has to be parsed on every read.
-f0dder (February 06, 2008, 07:06 PM)

Yep, I agree with you on that... and it can drastically slow your machine down.

The fix is (XP and 2000) you must disable the DNS Cache service before using a hostfile. If you don't disable the dns cache, XP will try and resolve/parse every bleeping site in your hostfile.

The slowest machine I have used a hostfile on is a P3 900mhz laptop. Seemed to work wonders so I was happy. I supoose ymmv depending on what antivirus/antispyware you use, since I know some of them seem to think hostfiles are evil and sit there scanning them forever.

Darwin · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2008, 12:10 AM »

ast I remember you were off to Africa or something... how'd that go?
-Hirudin (February 05, 2008, 08:12 AM)

[Increasinly Offtopic] I was in Belgium over the summer (six weeks) went really well, thanks! The highlight was meeting up with Tomos. I spent the rest of my time in a cave...[/Increasingly Offtopic]

f0dder · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2008, 05:10 AM »

It's scary how often that file is read... sure, it'll be filesystem cached, but it still has to be parsed on every read.
-f0dder (February 06, 2008, 07:06 PM)

Yep, I agree with you on that... and it can drastically slow your machine down.

The fix is (XP and 2000) you must disable the DNS Cache service before using a hostfile. If you don't disable the dns cache, XP will try and resolve/parse every bleeping site in your hostfile.

The slowest machine I have used a hostfile on is a P3 900mhz laptop. Seemed to work wonders so I was happy. I supoose ymmv depending on what antivirus/antispyware you use, since I know some of them seem to think hostfiles are evil and sit there scanning them forever.
-Cloq (February 06, 2008, 07:53 PM)

Disable the DNS cache? Sounds like a pretty bad idea to me. And is the hosts-file even used at all, then?

Cloq · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2008, 06:01 AM »

[Increasinly Offtopic] I was in Belgium over the summer (six weeks) went really well, thanks! The highlight was meeting up with Tomos. I spent the rest of my time in a cave...[/Increasingly Offtopic]
-Darwin (February 07, 2008, 12:10 AM)

Point taken..

f0dder: We could continue to this discussion on a more relevant thread if you had more comments.

Darwin · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2008, 08:00 AM »

Cloq! That wasn't a dig at you (or f0dder)! I am following your conversation with f0dder with interest - I just wanted to indicate that my missive to Hirudin was, well, off-topic

kartal · « **Reply #22 on:** September 20, 2008, 12:31 AM »

I never use cookies, my browsers are set to refuse and delete all. I also use cookiesafe extension for firefox. It does not give me much grief at all. If a site is determined to use a cookie I simply do not visit. For example yahoo is very persistent. I just do not visit yahoo, I do not give a damn about yahoo and I am sure they would not give damn about me either. For the sites I care to visit I use another browser that has cookies set properly. I use that browser only for the sites I need with cookies, like banking, shopping etc. Other than that, cookies contain high carbs, can make you fat.

app103 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 29, 2008, 12:05 AM »

This bookmarklet could possibly work to do exactly what you want to save your cookies and create a new bookmarklet that can be used to add them to another browser. Works with IE, Firefox, and Opera.

https://www.squarefr...tml#transfer_cookies

Darwin · « **Reply #24 on:** October 29, 2008, 08:26 AM »

Just to note - WinPatrol, in either the free or the Plus version, comes in a 64-bit flavour and allows you to specify which cookies to keep and which to zap. It's been updated recently to work with Firefox as well.