ie8 fix

Microsoft: Google bypassed privacy settings in IE, too

By | February 20, 2012, 11:35am PST

Summary: Microsoft officials are now saying that Google also circumvented IE users’ privacy settings, as it did with Safari.

A week after Microsoft criticized Google over bypassing user privacy settings on Apple’s Safari, the Softies are admitting publicly that Google did the same with Internet Explorer (IE).

On February 17, Microsoft used Google’s circumventing of certain privacy settings on iPhones, iPads and Macs as a reason to tout IE’s superiority in terms of privacy protection. But on February 20, in a post to the IEBlog, Microsoft officials admitted that Google also skirted IE users’  privacy settings, as well.

Dean Hachamovitch, Corporate Vice President of IE, blogged:

Google is employing similar methods (to what it employed with Safari) to get around the default privacy protections in IE and track IE users with cookies. …We’ve also contacted Google and asked them to commit to honoring P3P privacy settings for users of all browsers.”

In today’s blog post, Hachamovitch explained why IE also is vulnerable to Google’s cookie practices:

“IE blocks third-party cookies unless the site presents a P3P Compact Policy Statement indicating how the site will use the cookie and that the site’s use does not include tracking the user. Google’s P3P policy causes Internet Explorer to accept Google’s cookies even though the policy does not state Google’s intent….

“Google sends a P3P policy that fails to inform the browser about Google’s use of cookies and user information. Google’s P3P policy is actually a statement that it is not a P3P policy.”

Hachamovitch said that IE users can take additional privacy steps by using an IE9 Tracking Protection list Microsoft created to thwart Google’s policy on this specifically. He also said that Microsoft is “investigating what additional changes to make to its products — including the possibility that IE, going forward, will ignore the P3P specification and block cookies with unrecognized tokens.

Update: Lorrie Faith Cranor, Director, CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory (CUPS) and an Associate Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, emailed me to tell me that she and her students alerted Microsoft to this potential P3P-centric privacy breach in 2010. Here’s a paper she and some of her students wrote about it. She also did a blog post on February 18 on the Microsoft-sponsored Technology/Academics/Policy site noting not just Google, but Facebook, also can track IE users via the same P3P loophole.

Update No. 2: Microsoft’s response to Cranor’s post from a spokesperson: “The IE team is looking into the reports about Facebook, but we have no additional information to share at this time.”

Update No. 3: Google officials (eventually) had plenty to say about Microsoft’s disclosure today. Here’s Google’s response to Microsoft’s blog post from today, attributable to Rachel Whetstone, Senior Vice President of Communications and Policy:

“Microsoft omitted important information from its blog post today.

“Microsoft uses a ’self-declaration’ protocol (known as ‘P3P’) dating from 2002 under which Microsoft asks websites to represent their privacy practices in machine-readable form.  It is well known - including by Microsoft - that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft’s request while providing modern web functionality.  We have been open about our approach, as have many other websites.

“Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational. A 2010 research report indicated that over 11,000 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.”

Google officials noted that onstead of fixing the P3P loophole in IE of which Facebook, Google and Amazon all are making use, Microsoft has not done so, yet its officials are complaining about it.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
86
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft: Google bypassed privacy settings in IE, too
Michael Alan Goff 22nd Feb
Chrome is not Open Source, Chromium is. There is a difference, Google does change things from Chromium to Chrome.
Silly, Facebook does this too. Seriously, if anything, it should be Microsoft & Apple to blame for putting out products that are open to exploitation.
0 Votes
+ -
@tatiGmail I second that completely. If anything, this is more of an issue with how weak both IE and Chrome are.
0 Votes
+ -
@AWilliams87 you've meant IE and safari. Google's Chrome is rock solid with excellent privacy protections.
@The Linux Geek
Yeah excellent protection from anything other than Google. Google on the other hand probably tracks your voice and room through the Mic and Cam so they can pick out products in your room so they can direct the ads at you. Yeah great protection as they said before you don't get privacy protection from Google, they just don't care as money rules the roost there!
@AWilliams87

So the bank robber isn't evil. It's the banks for not having perfect protection.

Do you even read what you write these days?
@tonymcs@...
If my bank account got robbed. I would totally blame the bank.
@AWilliams87 I also agree, but keep in mind that this has happened to other browsers as well. The truth be said, companies should act more ethical and not bypass what security exists. Morality and ethics have gone to the dogs in this industy!!!!
@The Linux Geek
I would never trust Chrome, it is a Google product that enables them to know what you are doing so they can feed the search engine and get more ad revenue. BTW, Google is proving time and again, almost weekly, why it cannot be trusted.
@AWilliams87
I'd liken this to the rapist having your wife because she is a woman. Get real. If you take advantage of any browser for profit, against the users wishes you should be considered criminal and held accountable. Antimalware and antivirus should be updated to quarantine this kind of activity.
0 Votes
+ -
M$ and apple browsers are so lame
The Linux Geek 20th Feb
@tatiGmail
that you can exploit vulnerabilities even without knowing it. Google did them a service by not exposing how lame they are and instead provided an improved user experience. More reasons to switch to Android!
@The Linux Geek
Google should have informed both Windows and Apple about the exploit not take advantage of it. You are such a Dolt for Google.
So the people making the locks are responsible for the break-in, not the thief?
@Michael Alan Goff You honestly have to wonder, why MS and Apple are so intent on blocking Google to begin with... What are they afraid of? Maybe this is just their way of cutting off funding to the company they see as the biggest threat but that's okay because, Chrome is steadily takoing over the Market because it is simply a better browser.
IE and Safari aren't blocking Chrome. >>;
@Peter Perry
Are you serious or ignorant?

University researchers have discovered Google has bypassed privacy settings of browsers. Browser makers promised those privacy settings are working. Now shouldn't they repair those loopholes? Is it too difficult to understand for you?
@Michael Alan Goff If the locks are defective.... Yes!
@Dameadows

Tell that to a judge and see how quickly he laughs you out of the courtroom!
wmac1:

While the loophole needs to be closed, Google should be flogged for unethical tactics for using the loophole intentionally! Of coarse if companies like Google were trustworthy, the loophole would not be an issue.
0 Votes
+ -
@ANYBODY TRULY CONCERNED
Even the most secure alarm systems have not stopped automotive theft. I believe auto theft is still considered a felony so how on Earth can you defend a criminal for his or her activity just because he gets past a lock. I won't defend any tech firm for exploiting loopholes to their advantage no matter their name or what they sell. Only the most liberal defender of FOSS software would be so ignorant to defend Google for blatant use of browser loopholes in competing browsers, and those same liberal defenders of Google care little they are monitored via their own Google Chrome. Too many reasons to list why people should avoid Google, Google Plus and Facebook for their privileged monitoring behaviors.
@tatiGmail
So under your thought process, its quite ok for you to rob your neigbors home since they left the door unlocked? Yeah I agree they should plug the hole, but to completely ignore Google in all this really just shows that you like Google and they do no wrong. I don't care what company does this they will not get my best wishes and they need to correct their actions now and stop acting like anything on the internet is theirs to take, like our privacy to browse the freakin web without them gathering data on it. I just turned on tracking protection and wish I would have before all this.
@OhTheHumanity The neighbors didn't leave the door unlocked, it was the house builder that neglected to make sure that all the windows and doors had locks! Bottom line, you can blame Google all you want but they're not the people who created the security in those browsers!

In spite of all this, I still trust Google more than Apple and to me, MS is mostly irrelevant these days.
Not surprising you find everything they do as without fault.
@Peter Perry
Way to make excuses man and divert the attention. I sure hope you don't do that with your kids! You know the parents that say their kids can do no wrong and they are actually the worst kids around!
0 Votes
+ -
@OhTheHumanity
This whole blog reminds me of the current state of the country. No inference was directed at you personally, it was directed at the "whole" blog etal.
You have people defending their "Google" ergo "it" can do no wrong. It's everyone else's fault not Google. You don't have to use much imagination to see how close this mimic's the political issues in our country!
0 Votes
+ -
@tatiGmail wrote:
it should be Microsoft & Apple to blame for putting out products that are open to exploitation

Underlying this hack by Google, Facebook and others are IFRAMES. Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari web browsers do not support disabling IFRAMES. And guess what? Neither Google's Chrome nor open-source, Chromium browser support disabling iFRAMES. One needs to download, install and configure the NotScripts extension to disable IFRAMES on Chrome and Chromium.

For individuals wanting maximum control of their web browsers there are three choices today: Mozilla Firefox with the NoScript add-on, Opera and Google Chrome/Chromium with the NotScripts extension (that is, if you still trust Google).
@Rabid Howler Monkey

Many websites use IFrame (and its is not an apple brand aka iFrame) and that is one of the standard HTML tags. Browser makers are not supposed to selectively block HTML tags.
0 Votes
+ -
@wmac1 wrote:
"is not an apple brand aka iFrame"

LOL! Most of my spellings were IFRAMES. I only wrote iFRAMES once and it was a typo.

IFRAMES are neither necessary nor safe:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/browsertips.php5#ifram

Both malware and privicy miscreants *LOVE* IFRAMES. That's enough reason to block them for most, if not all, web sites. If you need them for some specific sites, use a whitelist to manage your 'trusted' sites.
0 Votes
+ -
@Rabid Howler Monkey .. you'd have to confirm that
thx-1138_@... Updated - 21st Feb
... before making the claim as fact:

" ... Underlying this hack by Google, Facebook and others are IFRAMES. "

Now, if it is the case, i would definitely recommend FF && NoScripts - which i've used for the last 4 years. NoScripts allows granular control of per web-page content parsing, quite unlike any other browser protection available anywhere else. Now, i also see you mentioned NotScripts; i'd say NotScripts is OK .. just nowhere near as configurable, robust, secure or precise as NoScripts. Also be aware that NotScripts for Chrome's dev' stopped upkeep for the extension some time ago (i think 2010).

There is actually an addon / extension that is far better than NotScripts called ScriptNo: which provides as good a XSS script-blocking service as NotScripts - and with a lot more control of script blocking behavior. I've used both with Iron & Chromium (i will not go anywhere near Chrome-proper). Due to laziness, i configured Chromium (c/w NotScripts) about 2 months ago; i'll make time (..eventually) to switch to ScriptNo.

While we're on the subject of locking down browsers, I found this a bit odd from you:

" ... Google Chrome/Chromium with the NotScripts extension (that is, if you still trust Google). .. "

Chromium & Iron are both forks and affiliates - but they do not include the tracking / spyware capabilities of Chrome (their sister browser). That, by the way, was one of the main reasons for those forks - and is a major sticking point for why their sub-communities started both projects. What irks me though is that so many people ignore the 'other two' through ignorance, fan-boyish worship of Google, or a combination of many things.

Lastly, as much as i like Chromium and Iron, i'm afraid i will always favor Firefox (v3.6.27 currently ... only a couple years adrift from recent releases) - and that won't change and is non-negotiable.

Nice heads-up for the uninitiated.
0 Votes
+ -
@thx-1138_@... wrote regarding IFRAMES:
you'd have to confirm that ... before making the claim as fact

This link is found as a reference in the Carnegie Mellon University paper linked in Mary Jo's article:

http://viralpatel.net/blogs/2008/12/how-to-set-third-party-cookies-with-iframe.html

This link was provided in Zack's ZDNet article on this same topic involving Apple's Safari web browser:

http://anantgarg.com/2010/02/18/cross-domain-cookies-in-safari/

IFRAMES are central to this scheme and, as I stated above, are a favorite tool of malware and privacy miscreants.

P.S. I'll have to look into the ScriptNo extension on the Chromium browser.
0 Votes
+ -
@Rabid Howler Monkey .. I'm well aware
thx-1138_@... Updated - 21st Feb
... of the danger IFRAMES pose - especially when used in conjunction with clickjacking and XSS. That's the prime reason i use FF & NoScripts: because NoScripts offers protection on the most widely / commonly used browser-based, fronts - cross-site scripting (type-0 & 1), clearclick and (of course) IFRAMES.

Now staying more on topic with MJF's blog, the reason Chrome's developers ought to be 'persona non grata' is exactly the reasons explained by the research team at Carnegie Mellon: Google and, now it seems, Facebook are up to the same nefarious, clandestine tracking of users via a well documented P3P vulnerability.

The gravity of what the university research team discovered is pretty, darn heavy. Bear in mind these are university students acting independently, as non-profit researchers - into what can only be seen as a browser-industry bomb shell. It's also the main reason *why* folk should steer clear of G-Chrome .. because it's obviously optimized for the tracking and hidden mining capabilities Google want - without a need for any P3P vulnerability whatsoever.

I fully expect MS to begin including P3P block mechanisms in future browser iterations. Now, we could argue the semantics of why MS never fixed the P3P vulnerability earlier, but that doesn't justify Google & FB exploiting it for ill gotten gains.

This is just the indelible evidence of Google's bent for data mining and usage tracking that the public needs to make them think twice before using Chrome ... somehow though, due mostly to apathy and/or ignorance, i see the majority staying with Google Chrome, regardless.
0 Votes
+ -
@thx-1138_@...
Rabid Howler Monkey 21st Feb
It's quite clear that there is more than a little difference of opinion whether or not P3P is a relavent standard today (for example, see daikons post below).

You can choose to deal with this issue any way you like, or not. Myself? Since IFRAMES are necessary for these miscreants to do their dirty deeds with P3P, I will use my web browser's ability to disable IFRAMES to deal with the issue.
@ tatiGmail

This is about a voluntary W3C recommendation called P3P, which is designed to help protect privacy. Under P3P, websites inform browsers of how they will use cookies, including whether or not the cookies will be used to track users. Apple and Microsoft adhere to the standard. Google violates it. Instead of sending valid P3P tokens, Google sends a human-readable message, which presumably indicates users will be tracked. However, no human ever sees it.

A browser that adheres to the P3P specification will ignore the unrecognised token sent by Google, and assume the cookies Google is using for tracking are not being used for tracking. The reason they do that is because it's what the P3P specification says browsers should do. It is a voluntary mechanism that assumes websites are not malicious.

IE is perfectly capable of blocking tracking by Google and other malicious websites. However, at the moment this has to be enabled explicitly by users. By default, IE, like Safari, adheres to P3P, which allows Google's malicious tracking to occur. Apparently at least Microsoft developers are considering deviating from the P3P specification to block cookies with unrecognised tokens by default. Sites can still send explicitly false policies (e.g. claim no tracking and then track), but that would be much easier to respond to with a lawsuit.
@WilErz Apparently they don't adhere to standards or they would have blocked the invalid token huh?
0 Votes
+ -
No.
WilErz 21st Feb
@ Peter Perry

The P3P specification specifies that invalid tokens are to be ignored. This is to allow extension of the token set in the future without breaking old implementations. Ignoring Google's invalid token is what the specification says to do, and what Apple and Microsoft are doing.

Unfortunately, since Google is abusing this loophole, Microsoft and Apple will probably deviate from the specification and start blocking cookies with unrecognised tokens. In other words, you've got the situation precisely backwards.
@tatiGmail If you allow me to run my code I can do anything I want on your PC.
@The Linux Geek -
Back to the Fry Station - smoke break is over with.
0 Votes
+ -
Once again Google plays dirty. I hope Microsoft does more to block Google or even block them completely from IE, that would be awesome. This kind of publicity can't be good for Google, getting caught red handed twice on violating users privacy. Expect a huge dip in Google usage after this.
@Loverock Davidson-
wet dreams dude!... people will switch to the leader in privacy protection that is Chrome to get the best user experience and security.
Google and privacy protection being used in the same sentence? Pardon me while I laugh.
0 Votes
+ -
You're smoking rope. What most people will take away from these episodes is that Google will do sneaky things to collect data on users. And here you are suggesting that to be free of this, people should switch to a Google-made browser that has who-knows-what sneaky things in it.
@The Linux Geek
This the must s^*(^*& comment of the day. Do you think Google will publish they bypass their own browser settings??? and that Chrome Private browsing only means that only Google can see what you did in the session??? Come on mannnnnnnnnnnn! Please people start using you d!@# brains for once.
@The Linux Geek Google the leader in pricacy protection?? ya right.
@The Linux Geek ..you can be assured that chrome lets through and even expedites every Google originated cookie like these..
@The Linux Geek
Opening yourself to the source of the problem never solves it. You're first in line to be monitored. It's almost like bending over too many times in prison, if your open to that kind of activity your first to be loosened up!
0 Votes
+ -
And there are no 'ifs or buts'.
Firefox also makes the deletion of all cookies extremely easy - a 5s job.
0 Votes
+ -
Do No Evil
WebSiteManager 20th Feb
Right?
@The Linux Geek
That's right, that's why Chrome has never had any security flaws fixed...oh wait.

"Just days after fixing multiple security flaws in their web browsers, Google and Mozilla have updated their products again to fix a serious bug that could result in remote code execution."

Being a fanboi doesn't cut it. Anything that runs code is susceptible to malicious code.
@swmace Yep but Chrome and Opera have repeatedly tested less vulnerable than Safari or IE.
@Peter Perry
Not recently they haven't. Not since Windows 7 and IE 9.
0 Votes
+ -
Mary Jo, I think you miss the real issue. I read Dean Hachmovitch's post carefully and I encourage you to re-read it.

The problem is that IE correctly supported the P3P policy as defined by the W3C, and that Google deliberately handed over information that violated the policy and would allow them to place tracking objects on the user's system. They inserted code that offered invalid data, triggering fall-back behavior that allowed them to place objects on the user's system.

You are framing this article as a "oh, boy, do the Softies have egg on their faces!" when the headline should be Google deliberately circumvents privacy standards. IE's built in privacy protection works as advertised. They also coded their browser to uphold the W3C's standards. Google maliciously violated those standards. THAT is the story. Presentation of invalid P3P policy information to force users to accept their cookies is the problem here. That they do this with two majors competitors' browsers in differnet ways shows this isn't a coding glitch, as they are trying to spin the Safari mess, but a deliberate act to circumvent privacy standards as such.

Luckily, IE9 does have Tracking Protection List (TPL) security functionality and I can now prevent anything from Google's tracking objects from being downloaded. This is what will happen when companies (not just Google, *any* company) decide they don't have to play by the rules. They lose access to my data.

I would like to see all browsers have *built in* (not some stupid add-in/plug-in/extension) white listing of downloaded objects, allowing users to determine what will access to their systems.

Dean Hachamovitch, are you listening?
Chrome is not Open Source, Chromium is. There is a difference, Google does change things from Chromium to Chrome.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix