Careful with those referrers

by Volker Weber

Found this in my referrers. You should protect yourself better. :-)


Thanks for the pointer, it was one something I was aware of. If websites are going to actively publish their referer information, we all need to be conscious of what referer information we send out when clicking links. What's surprising here is that the page is not secure, as I have to login to other parts of their system. I'll have to have a word.

One of the other things that you should look at in your referer list, is exluding non-public address ranges like 195.168.* and from those addresses recorded. When I click on your link from my local server, you record the address, even though its not accessible.

Dave Meehan, 2003-05-07

Dave, I try to do that already. Both 127.* and 195.168.* should not show up here.

Volker Weber, 2003-05-07

And while we are at it. Here is another one.

Volker Weber, 2003-05-07

Anyone have a problem with people (like me) publishing their referer-stat analysis?
I think the real problem would begin if we also published the IP number along with the referers...
Otherwise I see this a rather anomyous data that is interesting.

I don't feel like I need to 'protect' this data for my sake, I don't mind others seeing it. I also publish my blogroll etc. ...

Martin, 2003-05-07

If you don't have a problem, nobody should. They are your's.

Volker Weber, 2003-05-07


I think you need to consider excluding sites without a top level domain. My server (langley2) is behind a firewall. Ther local IP address is in the 195.168 range, but I suspect that you get to see the firewall's IP address, allocated by my ISP on demand. As 'langley2' is not a valid domain name (because it lacks a TLD part), you could exclude these addresses without loosing anything important.


Dave Meehan, 2003-05-09

Dave, that is a good idea.

Volker Weber, 2003-05-09

Old archive pages

I explain difficult concepts in simple ways. For free, and for money. Clue procurement and bullshit detection.


Paypal vowe