[Previous] [Next] [Index] [Thread]

Undeliverable message

Your message could not be delivered for the following reason:

Mailbox 75162.3375 is currently full.
Please resend your message at a later time.

--- Returned message ---

Sender: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Received: from ns2.rutgers.edu (ns2.rutgers.edu [128.6.21.2]) by arl-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
	id BAA24568; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 01:58:30 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ns2.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) id SAA05550 for www-security-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:23:46 -0400
Received: from hp.com (hp.com [15.255.152.4]) by ns2.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA05542 for <www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:23:45 -0400
Received: from hpfsvr01.cup.hp.com (allan.cup.hp.com) by hp.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/15.5+ECS 3.3) id AA208691116; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:25:17 -0700
Received: from allan by hpfsvr01.cup.hp.com with SMTP
	(1.37.109.15/15.5+IOS 3.20+cup+OMrelay) id AA136761094; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:24:54 -0700
Message-Id: <31E2DC34.2E5F@cup.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 15:24:52 -0700
From: Gene Ingram <gene@hpfsvr01.cup.hp.com>
Reply-To: www-security <www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b4 (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.05 9000/720)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: www-security <www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: COMMENT: Cookie dough (fwd) 
References: <Pine.HPP.3.92.960709075457.11056A-100000@martin.luther.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu

Benjamin Tomhave wrote:
> 
> If anybody is interested, and hasn't taken the time to look at their
> cookie file yet, Netscape gives their rationale/excuse for cookies at
> http://www.netscape.com/newsref/std/cookie_spec.htm  This URL can be
> found in your Netscape cookie file.  On a related note, I editted my
> cookie.txt file (under WinNT), clearing all entries, saved, and then made
> the file read only.  So far I have not had any more entries added, which
> is a nice feeling.  I would get a little nervous if the browser were to
> change attributes on a file to add that sort of information.
> 
> -ben
> 

It has always been a concern if cookies are really secure.  

So I started experimenting with my ``cookies'' file in unix.  
By changing the ``FALSE'' statement to ``TRUE'' I noticed a 
different advertisement pop-up.  Interesting.  Someone should 
publish the ``ideal cookie'' which contains the type of site 
activity warranting VIP red-carpet treatment, and sell it for 
ecash to people wanting to surf the web in style.  :-)  On a 
serious note, I'm surprised you didn't get an error message by 
changing your cookie attribute to read-only.

Where does the information go if it's trying to write, then?  
Into a ``hole'' of some sort or simply NUL device?

Gene

-- 
___
 | ._  _ ._ _.._ _    ``I do not fear computers
_|_| |(_|| (_|| | |     I fear lack of them.''  -Isaac Asimov
_____  _|  _______________________________________________________
Key fingerprint:  93 E1 15 E6 35 BC B2 84  B2 7B 39 76 29 72 32 72
 [Signature lettering created by ``Figlet Ascii Font Converter''
  http://mediacube.datacom.de/cgi-bin/moniteurs/figlet]