Solved

Could open persistent cache for writing?

Posted on 2004-10-16
5
275 Views
Last Modified: 2013-12-29
Hi:  I have a Win98SE machine.  When I close my browser (IE6), I get a secure messaging error that says "Could open persistent cache for writing."  I've done some research on the web but am not able to find a resolution.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks.
0
Comment
Question by:fnholley
  • 4
5 Comments
 
LVL 38

Accepted Solution

by:
BillDL earned 50 total points
ID: 12332902
Are you sure it doesn't say "could NOT open...."?  Otherwise this is puzzling, and something I haven't come across.

If, as you say, the message definitely IS "COULD open...", then clearly this is telling you about the potential for a security breach, and I assume that there will be some restriction to prevent a "persistent cache" from being compromized in some way.

The nearest I could get to some sort of explanation about "persistent cache" and related risks is as detailed on the following linked pages:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/critical/patch9/default.asp

MS00-043, MS00-045, and MS00-046.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS00-043.mspx

>>> This update resolves the "Persistent Mail Browser Link," "Cache Bypass," and "Malformed E-mail Header" security vulnerabilities in Outlook Express. <<<
It also seems to relate to Outlook 2000.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS00-045.mspx

>>> By design, HTML mail can contain script, and among the actions such a script can take is to open a browser window that links back to the Outlook Express windows. Also by design, script in the browser window could read the HTML mail that is displayed in Outlook Express. However, a vulnerability results because the link could be made persistent. <<<

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS00-046.mspx

>>> 
When an HTML mail needs to store a file, it generates a Globally Unique Identifier (GUID), assigns it to the file, and then asks the security architecture to put the file into the cache for it. The security architecture generates a random name for the file - one that only it knows - and records the correspondence between the GUID and the random name in an internal table. When the HTML mail needs to use the file, it requests it via the GUID, and the security architecture retrieves the file and opens it after taking appropriate security measures.
What kind of security measures does the security architecture take when retrieving a file from the cache?
The most important security measure, at least for the purposes of this vulnerability, is that the security architecture ensures that any cached HTML files are opened in the Internet Zone, rather than the Local Computer Zone.
The Local Computer Zone allows a web page to have considerably more privileges than the Internet Zone. Most important for our purposes, the Local Computer Zone allows a web page to access files on the user's computer.
<<<

The problem is that those linked pages refer to older versions of Internet Explorer than yours, but it seems to me that this is the TYPE of security risk you are being warned about.  I would have thought that IE 6 would have patched this type of vulnerability, but you never know.

The utility Tweak UI 1.33 allows you to create various "paranoia" settings in your registry, and one of them is to empty the Temporary Internet Files folder when you close IE.  This setting is also available from the "Advanced" tab in Control Panel > Internet Options, but there are some applications like Norton ones that don't allow it to work as intended.

This page refers to the details of it, and interestingly uses the registry value named "Persistent" which MAY be related to the security message:

http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/39670/39670.html

Look under the heading "IE: History"  on this page, and you will see direct mention of the expression "Persistent Cache":

http://geekcorp.com/diskstate/doc/html/5-Tutorial-SysTools-Tracks.htm

>>>
You can clean the history of visited web sites. In this case, the IE Persistent Cache option deserves an explanation. Internet Explorer have a security bug which records all URL activity in hidden undeletable history files. By unchecking this IE Persistent Cache option, these files become deletable upon next reboot. That is, if you enable this option, the next time you click "Clean History" in Internet Explorer, the hidden URL activity logging is also cleared. By clicking "IE History" in DiskState, it will prompt to erase these hidden files without enabling this option.
<<<

Tweak UI also has a tweak to force deletion of the contents of your "History" folder, but I generally set mine to last Zero days anyway.

Do you have any utilities that are likely to have generated such a security message? eg. Norton Internet Security or something like that.  If so, check the settings in that utility.

It's all I can think of for now, because I've never seen that message before.

0
 
LVL 38

Expert Comment

by:BillDL
ID: 12332935
Aha.  Do you have pcAnywhere installed?  Perhaps that is the source of the message, rather than Internet Explorer.

http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/329/

I would consider the "index.dat" files on your system to be a more "persistent" repository for data.  Perhaps, if you have used a utility designed to wipe out those index.dat files after an internet session, and then disabled this, then that utility could be generating the message.

Let us know if you have any such utilities installed so that we know if this is the area to look, or to turn elsewhere for some ideas.
0
 
LVL 38

Expert Comment

by:BillDL
ID: 12332987
More ideas here that MAY contain related info:

http://www.falconstor.com/safecache.asp

Could this be something generated by the most recent release of Adobe Acrobat Reader?

http://www.smithbarney.com/help/faq/edelivery.html

Although it refers to Netscape-specific settings when it quotes the expression "Persistent cache", it got me thinking about the fact that Acrobat Reader 6 might have some additional settings to prevent possible compromising of security where stored data is concerned.  Worth checking, I would think.
0
 

Author Comment

by:fnholley
ID: 12366299
Thanks...please close this question.
0
 
LVL 38

Expert Comment

by:BillDL
ID: 12366717
Thank you, fnholley.  Have you identified the source of the message?
0

Featured Post

Master Your Team's Linux and Cloud Stack!

The average business loses $13.5M per year to ineffective training (per 1,000 employees). Keep ahead of the competition and combine in-person quality with online cost and flexibility by training with Linux Academy.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

Recently Microsoft released a brand new function called CONCAT. It's supposed to replace its predecessor CONCATENATE. But how does it work? And what's new? In this article, we take a closer look at all of this - we even included an exercise file for…
A Bare Metal Image backup allows for the restore of an entire system to a similar or dissimilar hardware. They are highly useful for migrations and disaster recovery. Bare Metal Image backups support Full and Incremental backups. Differential backup…
The viewer will learn how to successfully create a multiboot device using the SARDU utility on Windows 7. Start the SARDU utility: Change the image directory to wherever you store your ISOs, this will prevent you from having 2 copies of an ISO wit…
With the advent of Windows 10, Microsoft is pushing a Get Windows 10 icon into the notification area (system tray) of qualifying computers. There are many reasons for wanting to remove this icon. This two-part Experts Exchange video Micro Tutorial s…

770 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question