[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject        [<<]Thread    

Number   :  9608
Date     :  2005-01-06
Author   :  des4212001
Subject  :  Re: An Interesting Synchronization Problem
Size(KB) :  4



--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "John Zeman"  wrote:
> 
> --- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, "des4212001"  wrote:
> > 
> > Nothing like answering your own questions. But just in case 
anyone's 
> > interested... The info Windows uses to point to the cookies 
(show 
> > them in the Temperory Internet Files) is in the index.dat file 
in 
> > the Cookies folder. The only way I currently know to get Windows 
to 
> > use it is after updating the Cookies them selves, delete the 
> > index.dat on the next start. Windows will create a new one, but 
more 
> > importantly reference the cookies in the Temporary Internet 
Files.
> > 
> > While I have suceeded is getting W98 to use an XP created 
index.dat 
> > file, there are some differences in how W98 handles some cookies 
vs. 
> > XP. So I feel it's better to let whichever flavor create it's 
own. 
> > Now, IE (or Windows?) gets around this kludge. I'd certainly be 
> > interested in duplicating that with out having to wait for a 
restart 
> > on the destination to see the results... Anybody?
> > 
> > Oh, and the structure inside the Temporary Internet Files 
> > (Content.ie5 & system folders per days of History) exists in XP 
just 
> > as W98, only XP won't show (or share) it. But then XP doesn't 
show a 
> > whole lot of stuff (I call Beyond Hidden) that's actually there. 
I 
> > have anther tool, the Paragon Partition Explorer, that gets 
around 
> > this.
> > 
> > DES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DES I have to admit I have no idea what you're trying to do here, 
but apparently you're trying to do it with the Microsoft Internet 
Explorer.
> 
> Ever checked out Firefox at Mozilla.org?
> 
> IMO that browser leaves IE in the dust in many ways, cookie 
handling just being one of them.
> 
> John

I keep hearing that. Right before the, "Oh, BTW it won't render this 
corectly, or display that (yet?), and I have to keep IE around for 
this and that." And of course it "appears" more secure, no one is 
busy cracking it... yet! A friend who is trying it out sent me an 
attachment recently. It somehow wasn't handled correctly and left me 
with a zero byte file (in both the Temp Internet Files and where I'd 
saved the attachment) that couldn't be deleted with Win32 running. 
He replied, "Yeah, it looked a little funney when I sent it... but?" 
Opps! So, I'm not quite ready to try the "alternatives" yet.

But back to the point, which is probably independant of browsers. I 
routinely delete the Temp Internet Files (among May other MRU & left 
behind items). The program that does this understands other browsers 
besides IE. It's desirable to keep some Cookies as they represent 
log in ID, etc. at various sites. WindowWasher does this. Zone Alarm 
Pro does this. The question was, how can I reflect this info, the 
Kept Cookies, from one machine to another. Normally IE shows\points 
to\whatever\ the Cookies in the Temporary Internet Files. It can 
put\show this data there... you can't.

Well, actually you can. Further experimentation has determined that 
copying the contents of the Cookies folder, including the index.dat 
file from WinXP to Win98 will surfice. The Cookies won't be 
correctly reflected into the Temporary Intenet Files until the next 
start of Win98. There are a couple more files concerned with this 
that are the Domain & Cookie data for WindowWasher, but this is 
irrelavent to IE seeing and using transferred cookies.

What's happening here is tricking a machine into thinking it's been 
out browsing all day just like the one that actually has. Many sites 
use a 2 Cookie scheme. Each day Cookie1 is recognized and replaced 
by Cookie2. The Cookie Keeper data must contain both, then the 
relevant Cookie is never deleted on a WindowWash. Since these things 
expire periodically, the backup machine will slowly loose it's store 
of ID Cookies if not refreshed somehow.

If you don't keep your machine cleaned up, in my opinion the prime 
reason for eventual failure, then the whole point is totally lost, 
and sorry I bothered you!

DES



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.