«

john sumner <> wrote in
news: emas.de:

> Me neither and i do comprehend that businessman is nothing but a troll.

So why did his thread get over 30 replies?

--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

elaich wrote:
> So why did his thread get over 30 replies?

I don't really know.

elaich wrote:
> john sumner <> wrote in
> news: emas.de:
>
>> Me neither and i do comprehend that businessman is nothing but a troll.
>
> So why did his thread get over 30 replies?
>

Perhaps the group's a bit slow at the moment and some of us need a
little light entertainment


--
Regards

Steve G

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:05:23 -0300, in alt.fan.mozilla, john sumner wrote:

>elaich wrote:
>> So why did his thread get over 30 replies?
>
>I don't really know.

More importantly, why are we adding replies expressing consternation at the
number of replies?

DOH! Now I'm doing it!

(This reminds me of that Monty Python sketch where they keep trying to figure
out who's filming them.)

--
Zag


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

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

On 2007-03-31, <> wrote:

> I wish I could keep java script and activex turned off, and I often
> do. But having them turned off means that many websites do not work.

That's where Firefox and NoScript shine. NoScript by default will block
all Javascript/Java/Flash and allow you to selectively enable them
explictly for those sites that truly require them.

--

John ()

John Thompson wrote:
> On 2007-03-31, <> wrote:
>
>> I wish I could keep java script and activex turned off, and I often
>> do. But having them turned off means that many websites do not work.
>
> That's where Firefox and NoScript shine. NoScript by default will block
> all Javascript/Java/Flash and allow you to selectively enable them
> explictly for those sites that truly require them.
>



I run with Javascript and Flash enabled all the time, I dont have any
active X plug in.
I go to every single Spam site sent my way, an go to many 'dubious'
pages/sites in regards to other having problems. Still, I dont see any
reason to turn off Javascript or Flash (aside from annoyance issues that
is).

Quite the opposite to your settings, I leave them ON all the time. I
have the extension QuickJava that allows me to kill them per page if
need be (for testing)

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:22:41 GMT, "Moz Champion (Dan)"
<> wrote:

>John Thompson wrote:
>> On 2007-03-31, <> wrote:
>>
>>> I wish I could keep java script and activex turned off, and I often
>>> do. But having them turned off means that many websites do not work.
>>
>> That's where Firefox and NoScript shine. NoScript by default will block
>> all Javascript/Java/Flash and allow you to selectively enable them
>> explictly for those sites that truly require them.
>>
>
>
>
>I run with Javascript and Flash enabled all the time, I dont have any
>active X plug in.
>I go to every single Spam site sent my way, an go to many 'dubious'
>pages/sites in regards to other having problems. Still, I dont see any
>reason to turn off Javascript or Flash (aside from annoyance issues that
>is).
>
>Quite the opposite to your settings, I leave them ON all the time. I
>have the extension QuickJava that allows me to kill them per page if
>need be (for testing)

There recently is (or was) a nasty malware program on AOL in one of
the flash ads that really caused havok with computers. Even if you
hate AOL, they are a mainstream service and somehow that flash ad was
right on their main page. The malware is called Winfixer. It placed
a popup on the screen constantly every few minutes even when not
online. That's why I dont trust flash player, not to mention the
irritating flash ads on almost every site these days.

wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:22:41 GMT, "Moz Champion (Dan)"
> <> wrote:
>

>>
>> Quite the opposite to your settings, I leave them ON all the time. I
>> have the extension QuickJava that allows me to kill them per page if
>> need be (for testing)
>
> There recently is (or was) a nasty malware program on AOL in one of
> the flash ads that really caused havok with computers. Even if you
> hate AOL, they are a mainstream service and somehow that flash ad was
> right on their main page. The malware is called Winfixer. It placed
> a popup on the screen constantly every few minutes even when not
> online. That's why I dont trust flash player, not to mention the
> irritating flash ads on almost every site these days.



Here is the wikipedia page on Winfixer

Note that in ALL cases the user has to accept the installation of the
product - Hey, if you are going to install software on your machine then
its up to you to check it out first!


On the AOL/Flash problem. The conditions to be infected from such
1: Had to be an AOL member and sign on
2: Must have allowed (not blocked) ads
3: Must be running Flash
4: Must be running Active X

And even after all that, all the user got was an offer to
download/install the Winfixer program.


So yes, it caused havoc, on computers whose owners downloaded the
suppossed 'fix' program after getting the 'scare'.


Once again. running Java or Flash is simply not a security hazard

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:58:09 GMT, in alt.fan.mozilla, Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:
>Once again. running Java or Flash is simply not a security hazard

Right. Ignorant users are the security hazard. That's always been the case.
Users have to stop clicking "YES" and "OKAY" by reflex and think about it.

If you mindlessly okay the wrong dialogues, even Java isn't safe.

Most of all, if you don't need it, DON'T RUN IT.

--
Zag


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

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

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:58:09 GMT, "Moz Champion (Dan)"
<> wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:22:41 GMT, "Moz Champion (Dan)"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite to your settings, I leave them ON all the time. I
>>> have the extension QuickJava that allows me to kill them per page if
>>> need be (for testing)
>>
>> There recently is (or was) a nasty malware program on AOL in one of
>> the flash ads that really caused havok with computers. Even if you
>> hate AOL, they are a mainstream service and somehow that flash ad was
>> right on their main page. The malware is called Winfixer. It placed
>> a popup on the screen constantly every few minutes even when not
>> online. That's why I dont trust flash player, not to mention the
>> irritating flash ads on almost every site these days.
>
>
>
>Here is the wikipedia page on Winfixer
>
>Note that in ALL cases the user has to accept the installation of the
>product - Hey, if you are going to install software on your machine then
>its up to you to check it out first!
>
>
>On the AOL/Flash problem. The conditions to be infected from such
>1: Had to be an AOL member and sign on
>2: Must have allowed (not blocked) ads
>3: Must be running Flash
>4: Must be running Active X
>
>And even after all that, all the user got was an offer to
>download/install the Winfixer program.
>

This might be the case with THIS malware but is not always the case.
I can recall 3 incidents in the past where malware got installed on my
computer. In one case, a directory was created and malware program
was installed on my drive without my knowledge whatsoever. I never
did learn where it came from. The other case, I was supposed to
download a shareware file which was listed on several legit download
sites such as Tucows, Download.com, etc. It appeared legit. I was
redirected to "the authors site". While the intended file downloaded,
another malware program also downloaded and was installed. In a 3rd
instance, I downloaded what appeared to be a pretty innocent screen
saver with animal pictures. I dont generally use screen savers but
thought the kids would like to see it. The download contained both a
screen saver (as stated) and some malware that really caused a mess
until I finally managed to kill it. Both were in the same install
file, and the malware was actually 80% of the large file size. The
screen saver portion when zipped was very small compared to the full
download. NONE OF THESE WARNED ME OR GAVE ME ANY OPTIONS.


>
>So yes, it caused havoc, on computers whose owners downloaded the
>suppossed 'fix' program after getting the 'scare'.
>
>
>Once again. running Java or Flash is simply not a security hazard