> They don't even need to spider those sites (they wouldn't get past
> password protected sites that way). If they are able to insert
> <script> tags directly into the datastream to your computer, that
> means they can read the page as it travels over the network to your
> computer. How do you think it figured out where the </html> tag was to
> begin with?

> On May 13, 4:28 am, webado wrote:

> > I had a spat with nebuad a while back when my ISP suddenly started
> > adding scripts to some pages served to me (and probably to others of
> > their users).
> > At the time the scripts weren't doing anything that I could tell
> > (unless they were collecting information only), they were only visible
> > in the source code, added after the </html> tag. Perhaps they needed
> > yet to be activated from the nebuad end. I only found out by accident
> > when viewing my source code, I forget why I was looking at it.  The
> > validator never pointed the invalid code out, simply because it was
> > never getting the script tacked on.

> > I complained to my ISP, they denied it, but changed my fixed IP to a
> > new one. It stopped. Hmm...
> > Reading up on nebuad's methods I was appalled that the only way to
> > stop it from happening was to set a blocking cookie on my pc - while
> > we all know cookies don't persist for very long. So there was no real
> > acceptable way to stop it for good, except actively blocking nebuad's
> > domain and subdomain in the hosts file.

> > I believe it's still happening on and off on my connection but I've
> > not managed to put my finger on it yet. It might even be a different
> > but similar ad server site.

> > I don't think it was in any way tied in to the website I was accessing
> > though, at least not robotically. It was tied in to my IP address and
> > my browsing habits. The script was being added to the site I was
> > visiting most often at the time (what I was working on). Perhaps as
> > they collect information on my browsing habits they also spider the
> > site maybe to find content to match the ads to. I don't know. This
> > never got off the ground as far as I can tell.

> > But it's a worrisome prospect when ISP's opt in to such gimmicks.
> > Despicable. And if the scripts being added also contain a malware
> > element this is absolutely criminal.

> > On May 13, 5:10 am, jelv wrote:

> > > I've raised a similar concern about Phorm here:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Tools/browse_t...

> > > Any chance of someone from Google responding?- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -