Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Firefox > The safest Browser is IE7

Reply
Thread Tools

The safest Browser is IE7

 
 
John Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2007
On 2007-03-31, Zaghadka <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> That said, IE is perfectly safe for the average user, when used *only* to go to
> known trusted sites.


The only site for which IE should be used is the Windows Update site,
and even then only because you have no other choice.

--

John ((E-Mail Removed))
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Leonidas Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2007
Tony Raven wrote:
> Leonidas Jones wrote on 31/03/2007 03:03 +0100:
>> SteveG wrote:
>>> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:05:11 +0000 (UTC), john sumner
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):

/snip/

> Or maybe its shorthand for "validate and verify"
>



You know, that could be a useful word!!

Lee
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Leonidas Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2007
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:23:52 GMT, Zaghadka <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 02:05:29 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>
>>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:56:49 -0500, John Thompson
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)2.dhs.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-03-30, (E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>

/snip/
>>>> I'd love to get rid of Windows, but these days one cant do much with
>>>> DOS, and OS2 is dead. Of course there's always the Macintosh if one
>>>> can afford them.
>>> You never heard of Linux? Free distro's, if you've never tried it
>>> Ubuntu is very user friendly:
>>>
>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/

/snip/
>
> Yes, i have heard of Linux and yes, I even tried it once. That was
> about 10 years ago. I had run dos, win3.x, win95, and OS2. I was
> able to use all of them. Then I tried Linux. My instant reaction was
> "what a POS". I want to USE my computer. I want to use standard
> software that I can buy or download and is compatible with the rest of
> the world, and I DO NOT want to spend my whole life in front of my
> computer trying to tinker with the OS. I'll leave Linux for some kid
> who has no life outside of their computer. It reminds me of some kid
> who builds their own car in their garage, but has to spend more than
> half their life keeping it running. I buy commercial cars, and I will
> stick to commercial software (at least the operating system, since I
> do use some freeware and shareware). Windows has it's flaws, but it
> works and dont need constant attention. Dos also works, and I still
> use it too. OS2 was a challenge, but it worked quite well despite the
> lack of software for it. If anything should have been further
> developed, it should have been OS2, not Linux.
>
> Half of what you said in your post I did not even understand. I
> congratulate you for successfully using Linux, but it's not for me. I
> have a life outside of my computer. Linux might be great for the geek
> types whose entire lives are their computer, but it's not for me. If
> windows ever becomes too much trouble, I'd turn my pc into a dos only
> machine and get a Macintosh. However, I dont forsee that happening
> since even if MS is a company I dont care to like, I know they do at
> least attempt to keep up with things. At the same time, if they
> abandon all OSs except Vista, I may change my mind. I have no
> interest in Vista whatsoever. To be quite honest, I'm tired of having
> to change and relearn software every few years. To me, a computer is
> a tool. Yet it seems everytime I get real good at using a tool, I am
> supposed to get a new tool and start all over. I cont like that at
> all, and THAT is my biggest complaint about MS.



Man, you say you want to get rid of Windows. You say Mac is an option,
but you can't afford it. I suggest a Linux distro intended to work
easily for Linux newbies. You reply that you tried Linus ^TEN YEARS
AGO*, and couldn't get it to work.

Really, this is absurd!

Lee
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leonidas Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2007
Tony Raven wrote:
> Leonidas Jones wrote on 31/03/2007 03:05 +0100:
>>
>> You never heard of Linux? Free distro's, if you've never tried it
>> Ubuntu is very user friendly:
>>

>
> In a relative sort of way. Still not good on many laptops.
>


Interesting to know, I had never tried to install it on a laptop. The
again, I'm real happy with OSX.

I do find Ubuntu a great distro for Linux newbies. Most likely, Linuux
newbies would not be installing it on a portable machine.

Lee
 
Reply With Quote
 
Zaghadka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2007
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:18:14 -0500, in alt.fan.mozilla, John Thompson wrote:

>On 2007-03-31, Zaghadka <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> That said, IE is perfectly safe for the average user, when used *only* to go to
>> known trusted sites.

>
>The only site for which IE should be used is the Windows Update site,
>and even then only because you have no other choice.


You read Secunia too, I see. ;^)

--
Zag


"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550

"The Means Justify The Means" ~George W. Bush, c. 2000
 
Reply With Quote
 
Zaghadka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2007
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:54:36 -0500, in alt.fan.mozilla, (E-Mail Removed)
wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:44:31 GMT, Zaghadka <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:13:00 -0500, in alt.fan.mozilla, (E-Mail Removed)
>>wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I
>>>have a life outside of my computer.

>>
>>As do I. ;^)
>>
>>Your reply has little to do with browser security, however. If you came here to
>>bash Linux, you came to the wrong group. Go to a Linux group, pick a distro,
>>and talk about it, and they will be able to tell you about what is wrong with
>>their implementation of Linux, and Linux in general, because there is plenty.
>>
>>I will say that the underlying security model in Linux is better than that of
>>Windows, and that's why Windows has all those Admin context exploits on it.
>>When a software developer doesn't have the sense to keep the cursor rendering,
>>or the JPEG rendering, or Windows Metafile *rendering* out of the ROOT/Admin
>>context, anything can happen. ;^)
>>
>>Windows has had exploits, both in GUI Plus (JPEG exploit), WMFs (backdoor), and
>>cursor rendering (arbitrary code launch) that will allow an attacker to take
>>control of your system. In other words, in Windows, you can get rooted just by
>>viewing a picture.
>>
>>And don't get me started about the OS contexts in Windows that even *allow*
>>something like a "rootkit" to exist in the first place.
>>
>>So are you sure about your choice of OS and how "easy" it is to operate, or are
>>you simply ignorant and lulled into a *false* sense of security?
>>
>>Good, I'm glad you think you've made the right choice. But don't click on any
>>phishing links in your emails, if you can tell the difference, because your
>>choice is going to get your box zombied if you're not careful, and it may have
>>nothing to do with your choice of *browser*.
>>
>>Sony would've rootkitted your machine just for autorunning a CD.
>>
>>I run Windows XP as my primary OS as well, and it takes a *lot* of time and
>>work to secure it properly. It is, to my mind, no "easier" than Linux, and
>>certainly more dangerous.

>
>You are right. I did not come here to bash Linux. I did not bring it
>up either. I dont think I was bashing it when I said I want nothing
>to do with it. I'll leave it for the high school crowd, which seems to
>be where it gets used the most.
>
>And for the record I dont click on ANY links in my email, in fact I
>use a text only Win3.x email software and that is all I will ever use.
>Outlook Express is pure garbage. In fact of all the Microsoft
>software, I consider OE to be the worst of the worst. I completely
>deleted it from my drive. I use email to communicate, not to look at
>stupid and irritating smiley faces that dance around my screen. HTML
>email is purely assenine.
>
>Now back to determining which browser is the most secure !!!!


The bare minimum feature set that meets your needs is the most secure browser.
Period.

If you can get by browsing the web in console, Lynx is the most secure browser.

http://lynx.isc.org/lynx2.8.5/index.html

But if you need more, the only "secure" browser is a browser with a
knowledgeable administrator. The best security administrators choose browsers
like Firefox or Seamonkey for their needs, because they afford you more control
of the browsing environment, and don't load up with everything running. You add
what you need. Galleon is also very popular.

The more paranoid operators also run *any* browser with JavaScript turned OFF,
and no JRE runtime present. Some even blacklist problem domains to 127.0.0.1 in
their HOSTS file (Spybot S&D http://www.safer-networking.org/ will do this
automatically for you).

So *you* take whatever steps you feel are necessary to ensure your security.

If you're serious about IE security, then Microsoft is currently recommending
that you set the "Internet Zone" to "high" security level (no ActiveX, JS, or
JVM allowed) and white list domains you trust to the "low" level by adding them
to the "Trusted Sites Zone." You can thus protect yourself from yet
undiscovered exploits.

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...ng_safety.mspx

If you do that, even IE is *reasonably* safe. But if you really want to be
safe, you need to lose any browser which uses ActiveX. Microsoft has made a
mess of things, they know it, and when they recommend such a pain-in-the-arse
procedure at their own website, you know they expect future problems.

Guess which browser doesn't allow ActiveX by default? Guess which one has it?

Do you know what a BHO is? For one thing, it's a great malware vector.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/298931/en-us

Do you really want to go to all this trouble? I don't. I got sick of it once I
learned about all the dodgy crud IE passes off as "secure."

Guess which browser will not allow arbitrary .dll's to run at start up?

You get my drift? IE isn't as "easy" as you think. I chose Firefox because it
gives me a stripped down functional browser that I can run as lean as I like,
and limits my exposure much more easily with a high default level of
functionality.

If you choose Firefox, you will still have to add your *own* plugins and
extensions, which is largely a one-time "set it and forget it" process, rather
than an ongoing saga like IE is.

With IE, you had better make sure you're patched, and you had better keep up
with the unpatched security advisories and pay attention to the workarounds.

That's why Firefox is a good choice, flexibility and choice, not because it's
more "secure." Security largely depends on HOW you use and configure your
browser, and WHERE you connect to, and little else.

--
Zag


"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550

"The Means Justify The Means" ~George W. Bush, c. 2000
 
Reply With Quote
 
Zaghadka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2007
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:00:20 -0500, in alt.fan.mozilla, John Thompson wrote:

>Really? What about the continuous need to update malware protection,
>"Patch Tuesday" and so on?


Ostriches have no need to worry about an avalanche? ;^)

--
Zag


"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550

"The Means Justify The Means" ~George W. Bush, c. 2000
 
Reply With Quote
 
SteveG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2007
john sumner wrote:
> SteveG <_@_._> wrote in
> news:IOcPh.2813$(E-Mail Removed) k:
>> John may (or may not) lack comprehension skills but I have to tell you
>> that "validify" is NOT an English word. I'm guessing your American and
>> exercising your "right" to make up words just because you don't know the
>> correct one to use. Try "validate" instead
>>
>> <flame proof jacket now donned in anticipation of impending tirade> <BCG>

>
> I do have comprehension skills
>


John, I never doubted it for a moment

--
Regards

Steve G
 
Reply With Quote
 
john sumner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2007
SteveG <_@_._> wrote in news:zpMPh.3731$(E-Mail Removed):

>
> John, I never doubted it for a moment
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Steve G
>


Me neither and i do comprehend that businessman is nothing but a troll.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Zaghadka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2007
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:32:19 -0500, in alt.fan.mozilla, (E-Mail Removed)
wrote:

>Personally, I'll
>reward those that create the most USEFUL sites that load quickly
>without all the bloat. Eye appeal is a plus, but it can be achieved
>with simple photos and creative use of text and color.


And now you're talking about REAL internet security. Your original question was
a red herring, but certainly understandable.

--
Zag


"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550

"The Means Justify The Means" ~George W. Bush, c. 2000
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Safest Browser? John Kerkes Firefox 4 01-18-2008 07:41 PM
Safest Way to Share Files? =?Utf-8?B?THVpcw==?= Wireless Networking 3 11-21-2005 05:07 PM
The safest airline in the world Barry Plant Doherty Computer Support 11 07-29-2004 06:49 AM
Re: The worlds safest downloader? Max Quordlepleen Computer Support 3 08-04-2003 11:43 PM
Re: The worlds safest downloader? °Mike° Computer Support 0 08-04-2003 07:09 PM



Advertisments