null@zilch.com wrote in news:5191hv0tt6j4jk2iojfluldqqt4p6iaccf@4ax.com:
> Nah. With Moz based browsers you can leave both scripting and Java
> Script enabled with very little concern ... and quit the goddam
> screwing around
Nothing is perfect. See this
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/324266
Aaron
--
Want to learn how to use Winboard and the 150+ free Winboard
Chess engines?Visit http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/
On 18 Jul 2003 20:18:30 +0800, Aaron <aarontaycheehsien@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>null@zilch.com wrote in news:5191hv0tt6j4jk2iojfluldqqt4p6iaccf@4ax.com:
>
>
>> Nah. With Moz based browsers you can leave both scripting and Java
>> Script enabled with very little concern ... and quit the goddam
>> screwing around
>
>Nothing is perfect. See this
>
>http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/324266
The old links he mentions seem to be all be dead. I did run his
"redirection" test and both Netscape 7.10 and Opera 7.11 did "fail"
meaning that they did redirect. Since this one is so old, and both NS
and Opera now "fail" I wonder if the developers have decided that this
one isn't a security threat and to hell with it.
Here's a recent history of Moz known vulnerabilities along with the
dates they were fixed:
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/secu...abilities.html
The latest NS (7.10) is built on a quite recent Moz build, and it
should incorporate all the fixes mentioned in that link, I believe. So
the "redirection" "failure" is puzzling unless one posits that there
has been a change in policy on it rather than a "goof" or oversight.
Anyway, the paranoid are always free to only enable Java Script at
certain web sites. Personally, I don't bother disabling it at all
since I doubt there are any _serious_ vulnerabilities or exploits with
the latest Moz browsers (or Opera).
Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:15:42 +0100, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dave G" <Dave
G@NoSpam.Co.UK> wrote:
>
> Okay... so I had some annoying pop up ads through the messenger service
> (see my previous post)...
>
> Digging a little deeper (following a post by YK) I find I am in need of a
> personal Firewall.... yes I know... What am I doing in the spyware NG if
> I don't already have one of these!!!
>
> Any recommendations out there...
[snip]
Well, personally... In terms of pre-packaged solutions, I rather like the
D-Link DFL-80. But since you said you're still on dial-up, the NetGear
FR328S would be a more appropriate choice.
> My machine spec is Win XP, IE6, Outlook
> Express,
[snip]
Ouch! You've got the Bad News Trifecta going there! About the only way to
make it worse would be to add WMP8/9.
Regardless of what firewall you choose, get rid of ALL of those trojans NOW.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:20:37 +0300, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Lance
Delacroix <lance_delacroix@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> YK is our resident troll. He should be fed regularly, but sparingly.
> Too much food makes him bloat.
>
[snip]
<SPLORF!>
Dead right -- but where the Hell was the [C&C] on that?!?
(Another perfectly good keyboard, down the tubes... And these old-stock
Model Ms are getting hard to find, too.)
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:21:17 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Well I don't endlessly fix, patch, and screw around and I DO have a clue,
[snip]
That's great! Except that you then immediately turn around and prove the
exact opposite:
> having for many years run a very large and very busy website that
> delivered a minimum of 50 copies of whatever the latest viruses may be
> and several hundred spams a day to my inbox. I DO use XP, IE and OE
[snip]
And you don't see the teensiest little correlation there, eh?
> ...because that is
> what 90% of my visitors use
[snip]
Despite it's time-honored popularity, that has to be the lamest excuse for
using bad software I've ever heard.
> ...and it is convenient to be able to explain where
> problems they are having might lie
[snip]
You need to experience the stab wound to explain that a knife can cut?
More to the point, if you write standards-compliant code, you need not worry
about browser-specific glitches.
> And when I drop by every now and then over at Steve Gibson's to get my
> security checked, guess what? My computer simply doesn't exist
>
[snip]
<SPLORF!>
"The blind man can't see me, so I must not exist."
> Get rid of McAffee/Norton/etc. and install PcCillin - www. antivirus.com,
> which is based on both definitions of known viruses and heuristic (the
> others are definitions only)
[snip]
False to fact.
<http://cws.internet.com/reviews/virus-nav3.html>
<http://www.latamnews.com/virus_magistr2_e090401.html>
> Get ZoneAlarm - spring for the PRO version.
>
[snip]
No, don't -- at least, not if you want protection, as opposed to generating
bogus "SOMEONE IS HACKING MY PORT 80!" GWF alarms every few seconds. Zone
Alarm is NOT a "firewall", no matter how much a certain blow-hard
know-nothing with the initials "S.G." might hype it as such.
For a small dose of reality, see:
<http://www.samspade.org/d/persfire.html>
<http://www.samspade.org/d/firewalls.html>
> Get the free version of AdAware and Spybot Search and Destroy. Set them
> both to run every time you reboot.
>
[snip]
Gross overkill, unless you're in the habit of downloading and blindly
installing all manner of SuckerWare. Even then, running these utilities
immediately after any software install/update should be more than
sufficient, as long as you're not also doing something else really stupid
(like, for example, web-brosing with MSIE in "I'm bent over and greased up!"
mode).
> Set your security everywhere to high.
>
[snip]
Are there any non-malware applications which actually have such "settings"?
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:01:38 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> HMMM - I was just "reading the news" a bit ago and happened upon a very
> interesting breaking news article here -
> [URL snipped]
>
> Entitled "AOL Spins Off Mozilla To Independent Foundation" it says in
> part -
>
> <QUOTE>
> Mozilla is the open source version of the Netscape browser, which AOL
> bought, along with the parent Netscape corporation. <END>
>
> I guess that you were - and are - wrongMoz was indeed owned by
> Netscape and then purchased by AOL
>
Uhhh... Not quite. The article you quoted is rather badly written, in that
confuses ownership of the code (which had already been released to the
public ~3 years ago) with the ownership of <mozilla.org> itself. AOL/T-W
had been pumping money into the latter ever since the release of the source
code, as sort of an incubation project. They're now turning off that
faucet, no doubt due in part to the realities of the post-"dot-bomb" economy
(the fact that they've been bleeding market share and profits for long
enough that their already "iffy" bond ratings are in jeopardy might also
have something to do with it <~>).
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news:nt6jhvks7kgco1anvmq2ob44g69g24fc1m@news.rcn.c om...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:21:17 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
> <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Well I don't endlessly fix, patch, and screw around and I DO have a
clue,
> [snip]
>
> That's great! Except that you then immediately turn around and prove the
> exact opposite:
>
> > having for many years run a very large and very busy website that
> > delivered a minimum of 50 copies of whatever the latest viruses may be
> > and several hundred spams a day to my inbox. I DO use XP, IE and OE
> [snip]
>
> And you don't see the teensiest little correlation there, eh?
NOPE, sure don't. The viruses that I receive in the email are the result of
people who happen to have my email address in their OE address book becoming
infected, most due to lack of knowledge and care. (Note that I have NEVER
been infected with any of the various virii that have come my way.) That is
not the fault of MY use of the product.
> > ...because that is
> > what 90% of my visitors use
> [snip]
>
> Despite it's time-honored popularity, that has to be the lamest excuse for
> using bad software I've ever heard.
>
> > ...and it is convenient to be able to explain where
> > problems they are having might lie
> [snip]
>
> You need to experience the stab wound to explain that a knife can cut?
>
> More to the point, if you write standards-compliant code, you need not
worry
> about browser-specific glitches.
One can tell that you've never attempted to put together an interactive
website that looks & works about the same for almost everyone.
Standards-compliant code is all well and good, except that each and every
browser complies with the standards in a slightly different way, just the
teeniest bit here or there - and sometimes not so teeny. If you are coding
straight html with nothing whatever extra or interactive standards-compliant
code is fairly easy to achieve. Add anything whatever interactive - even a
simple form - and you're talking a whole different ball game. And do
remember that the way even a specific browser - IE, Netscape, AOL, or
anything else - handles a given task often changes from one version to the
next. Note that no one has yet come up with a way to code an email link
that will work for *all* AOL users.
And BTW, ActiveX controls embedded in a web page are not required for IE to
utilize either javascript (or the MS jscript version) or java. A properly
written script will run in either IE or Netscape.
'Twas Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:08:20 -0400 when all alt.privacy.spyware stood
in awe as Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net>
uttered:
> > >For email and newsgroups, you can use Netscape. I prefer using Pegasus
> > >and Free Agent.
> >
> > That sounds like spamming.
>
>Say what?
>
>Both David Harris (the author of Pegasus Mail) and Forté Internet Software,
>Inc. (the producers of Agent and Free Agent) are *staunchly* anti-spam. So
>exactly what are you blathering on about?
He means it's spam because it's advertising for particular products. He's
wrong of course, since it was an opinion expressed in a conversation in a
single newsgroup, not an unsolicited broadcast. I think he believes that
praising Microsoft products is just normal conversation while praising
anything else is spam. Microsoft calls this philosophy "software
neutral".
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ admin@RandallBart.spam.com Barticus@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ http://RandallBart.com/ DOT-HS-808-065 MS^7=6/28/107
a |/ Play http://sky.4r.st Ånåheim Ångels 2002 World Chåmps!
l |\ This is why we spend billions of dollars for drug research:
l |/ http://www.cbc.ca/webone/alison/
In article <nt6jhvks7kgco1anvmq2ob44g69g24fc1m@news.rcn.com >, usenet01
+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net says...
> Jay T. Blocksom
> --------------------------------
> Appropriate Technology, Inc.
> usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
>
Nice company name - does it excuse you from customary practice re.
appropriately sized sig blocks?
nog wrote:
> In article <nt6jhvks7kgco1anvmq2ob44g69g24fc1m@news.rcn.com >, usenet01
> +SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net says...
>> Jay T. Blocksom
>> --------------------------------
>> Appropriate Technology, Inc.
>> usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
>>
> Nice company name - does it excuse you from customary practice re.
> appropriately sized sig blocks?
Actually, I have J.T. Blocksom blocksomed.
It needs to have a big sig to match its big ego so to cover up its
inferiority complex.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote