Alternate Browser Security

[Kyle Thomas Pope]

I have read repeatedly in this forum that when it comes to web
browsing Internet Explorer is definitely not the way to go.
Apparently it is an open invitation to every purveyor of scumware,
spyware, hijackers, etc. and has created a virtual industry centered
around trying to render it secure. As it is I don't use IE. Opera is
my primary browser with Mozilla as a secondary. I also have K-Meleon
as a third option. And I do all my web surfing from behind
Proxomitron. In addition I run Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D routinely. I
have been paying attention.

So what I want to know is are there any threats out there specifically
targeting any of these alternative browsers that I need to be aware
of? I have to imagine that the people who create all the
exploitation-ware out there are aware of this forum and the advice in
it and are likely trying to come up with countermeasures to the
information distributed here. It is the nature of warfare (which I
consider this to be with our PCs as the battleground) that
countermeasures beget counter-countermeasures.

-----
Kyle Pope

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!" - No. 6

Keeper of the Edit List -

(http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/columns/edit-list.php)


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[jayjwa]

Kyle Thomas Pope wrote:

> So what I want to know is are there any threats out there specifically
> targeting any of these alternative browsers that I need to be aware
> of? I have to imagine that the people who create all the
> exploitation-ware out there are aware of this forum and the advice in
> it and are likely trying to come up with countermeasures to the
> information distributed here. It is the nature of warfare (which I
> consider this to be with our PCs as the battleground) that
> countermeasures beget counter-countermeasures.

Not that I've heard of. I don't think people sit around looking for ways
to infect browsers that don't have much malware for them; it's more like
ly that these people target apps/OS's that people use most, hence most
malware/viruses/worms are for Windows, with it's IE and Outlook Express.
I've used Mozilla on both Windows and now Linux, and I've never had any
trouble with it. Before, I used IE and it caught spyware or malware or
whatever in the first day I had it up. That's when I deleted it all and
moved to Mozilla, deleting Windows and moving to Linux was not far after
that, either, same reasons applied.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=The New Atr2.Ath.Cx=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- jayjwa Mod_SSL Https Only PGP Key / CA Onsite
Was I helpful?: https://atr2.ath.cx/papers/affero.php
Mail: jayjwa@hotspam.com Spam servers: listme@listme.dsbl.org
/cgi-bin/ping-jay.cgi or finger for GPG & info
/pub is public WWW directory Registered Linux fanatic #37
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Linux Tough.Powered By Slackware=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[Chuck]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:46:28 -0700, Kyle Thomas Pope
<kurokyle@notmail.spam.not.com> wrote:

>I have read repeatedly in this forum that when it comes to web
>browsing Internet Explorer is definitely not the way to go.
>Apparently it is an open invitation to every purveyor of scumware,
>spyware, hijackers, etc. and has created a virtual industry centered
>around trying to render it secure. As it is I don't use IE. Opera is
>my primary browser with Mozilla as a secondary. I also have K-Meleon
>as a third option. And I do all my web surfing from behind
>Proxomitron. In addition I run Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D routinely. I
>have been paying attention.
>
>So what I want to know is are there any threats out there specifically
>targeting any of these alternative browsers that I need to be aware
>of? I have to imagine that the people who create all the
>exploitation-ware out there are aware of this forum and the advice in
>it and are likely trying to come up with countermeasures to the
>information distributed here. It is the nature of warfare (which I
>consider this to be with our PCs as the battleground) that
>countermeasures beget counter-countermeasures.

There are threats that apply to any browser. Checkout one of these
browser security tests:
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/BrowserSecurity/
http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/index.php
https://testzone.secunia.com/browser_checker/

Chuck
I hate spam - PLEASE get rid of the spam before emailing me!
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:24:44 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, jayjwa
<jayjwa@hotspam.microsoftsux.suk> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Not that I've heard of. I don't think people sit around looking for ways
> to infect browsers that don't have much malware for them; it's more like
> ly that these people target apps/OS's that people use most, hence most
> malware/viruses/worms are for Windows, with it's IE and Outlook Express.
[snip]

It goes quite beyond that.

Sure, popularity is *one* reason MSIE/OE is a target; but it is hardly the
only -- or even the most determinant -- reason. More importantly,
popularity has nothing whatever to do with why that target actually
_gets_hit_ virtually every time it is aimed at.

The key issue is the fact that MSIE/OE is *inherently* so insecure as to be
laughable. Despite the constant never-ending merry-go-round of patch after
update after patch after update after patch, there are *currently* something
like three dozen known -- and yet UNpatched -- security holes in MSIE/OE
(the situation is *SO* bad that MS themselves announced awhile back that
they were flat-out giving up on OE; tho' of course they didn't admit this
was the reason). *That* is the big reason why so many virii/worms/trojans
and other malware/expoits have targeted it: because they CAN. And that
remains the case independant of popularity.

Now, there is nothing new about this -- Windows in general, and MSIE in
particular, have been *known* to constitute (as the OP quite accurately put
it) "an open invitation to every purveyor of scumware, spyware, hijackers,
etc." for a l-o-o-o-o-n-g time. Which is why I don't understand why so many
folks (including quite a few on this supposedly "security concuious" NG)
*still* seem to be in a persistent state of denial about that. It's a
simple fact: Any system with MSIE installed on it *cannot* be made even
semi-secure, no matter how many after-the-fact band-aids are applied. So it
follows that removing MSIE should be *the* first step in securing any
WinBox. Yet, many folks continue to deny the obvious and try to "reinvent
the wheel" by creating convoluted work-arounds (often in the form of yet
more parasitic always-running add-on utilities), instead of fixing the
underlying problem once and for all. That just doesn't make sense to me.

--

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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[jayjwa]

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:

> Now, there is nothing new about this -- Windows in general, and MSIE in
> particular, have been *known* to constitute....."an open invitation to

every purveyor of scumware, spyware, hijackers,
> etc." for a l-o-o-o-o-n-g time. Which is why I don't understand why so many
> folks (including quite a few on this supposedly "security concuious" NG)
> *still* seem to be in a persistent state of denial about that.

True, definately true!
It's a
> simple fact: Any system with MSIE installed on it *cannot* be made even
> semi-secure, no matter how many after-the-fact band-aids are applied.

Haha!
So it
> follows that removing MSIE should be *the* first step in securing any
> WinBox. Yet, many folks continue to deny the obvious and try to "reinvent
> the wheel" by creating convoluted work-arounds (often in the form of yet
> more parasitic always-running add-on utilities), instead of fixing the
> underlying problem once and for all. That just doesn't make sense to me.
>

Me neither. And why people *still* insist on paying money for a system
that comes with that gaping security hole installed by default when
better, more secure, OS's exist for free is beyond me.

--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=The New Atr2.Ath.Cx=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- jayjwa *Https Only* Mod-SSL / PGP Key / CA Onsite
Was I helpful?: https://atr2.ath.cx/papers/affero.php
What every Windows user needs: https://atr2.ath.cx/pub/pic.jpg
Mail: jayjwa@hotspam.com Spam servers: listme@listme.dsbl.org
/cgi-bin/ping-jay.cgi or finger for GPG & info
/pub is public WWW directory Registered Linux fanatic #37
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Linux Tough.Powered By Slackware=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[jayjwa]

Chuck wrote:

> There are threats that apply to any browser. Checkout one of these
> browser security tests:
> http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/BrowserSecurity/
> http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/index.php
> https://testzone.secunia.com/browser_checker/

Of course. But what would you rather be? A target for hundreds or a
target for ten's?


--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=The New Atr2.Ath.Cx=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- jayjwa *Https Only* Mod-SSL / PGP Key / CA Onsite
Was I helpful?: https://atr2.ath.cx/papers/affero.php
What every Windows user needs: https://atr2.ath.cx/pub/pic.jpg
Mail: jayjwa@hotspam.com Spam servers: listme@listme.dsbl.org
/cgi-bin/ping-jay.cgi or finger for GPG & info
/pub is public WWW directory Registered Linux fanatic #37
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Linux Tough.Powered By Slackware=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

[Chuck]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:31:49 -0400, jayjwa
<jayjwa@hotspam.microsoftsux.suk> wrote:

>Chuck wrote:
>
>> There are threats that apply to any browser. Checkout one of these
>> browser security tests:
>> http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/BrowserSecurity/
>> http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/index.php
>> https://testzone.secunia.com/browser_checker/
>
>Of course. But what would you rather be? A target for hundreds or a
>target for ten's?

I'd rather not be a target at all - or at least not a defenseless one.
Harden all your browsers, please.

And as a rhetorical answer, would I rather be a target for hundreds of
incompetents, or tens of competents? Depends upon how bulletproof I
feel.


Chuck
I hate spam - PLEASE get rid of the spam before emailing me!
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.