Suck it Firefox [Archive]

Nuts

08-16-2006, 8:06 AM

Seriously, why do all the fanboys get so excited about Firefox? I have been using it for the past 6 months and I have decided to go back to IE. Why would I do this? Let me count the ways.

1. Firefox handles pdf's about as well as the Sudan handles human rights. I can't count the number of times I have tried to load a PDF, only to have Firefox completely freeze up, subsequently locking EVERY OTHER OPEN FF WINDOW! Of course, this results in the entire operation crashing and any web pages I have open are gone.

2. Embedded video. While this isn't a necessary job function, I see that Firefox sucks with embedded video. It's wonderful to navigate to a video only to hear it, but not see it. Firefox, the preferred browser for the deaf!

3. Page loads. Sorry, I don't care what the popular opinion says, Firefox loads pages like an old lady on sedatives. Wait.....wait......hey, look, half the page is getting ready to display.....wait....wait, oooooh, a graphic! Not to mention that pages load oddly, so that the layout is all screwed up until it's completely done loading.

4. The tab feature sucks. Why have tabs if they're not easily accessible? File>New Tab? How about point and click? No, that's too easy! IE finally addressed this issue, so I don't see any advantages for Firefox anymore.

Bottom line, IE wins. Firefox, you had your chance and you blew it.

No soup for you!

Schwitzer

08-16-2006, 8:10 AM

4. The tab feature sucks. Why have tabs if they're not easily accessible? File>New Tab? How about point and click? No, that's too easy! IE finally addressed this issue, so I don't see any advantages for Firefox anymore.
Try clicking on a link with your middle mouse button / scroll wheel. Failing that, [ctrl] + [T] for the win. Oh snap! ;)

Nuts

08-16-2006, 8:13 AM

Try clicking on a link with your middle mouse button / scroll wheel. Failing that, [ctrl] + [T] for the win. Oh snap! ;)

Ok, smartass, fix problems 1-3. :D

Markpyro

08-16-2006, 8:14 AM

1. Firefox handles pdf's about as well as the Sudan handles human rights. I can't count the number of times I have tried to load a PDF, only to have Firefox completely freeze up, subsequently locking EVERY OTHER OPEN FF WINDOW! Of course, this results in the entire operation crashing and any web pages I have open are gone.
FF handles PDF's fine for me. The first one I load takes a few seconds, as Acrobat is starting, but then the rest load very quickly.

2. Embedded video. While this isn't a necessary job function, I see that Firefox sucks with embedded video. It's wonderful to navigate to a video only to hear it, but not see it. Firefox, the preferred browser for the deaf!
Never had a problem with it, really. The only things that I cant view are ytmd's, having something to do with a plugin I've been to lazy to load.

3. Page loads. Sorry, I don't care what the popular opinion says, Firefox loads pages like an old lady on sedatives. Wait.....wait......hey, look, half the page is getting ready to display.....wait....wait, oooooh, a graphic! Not to mention that pages load oddly, so that the layout is all screwed up until it's completely done loading.
For me, it loads fine O_o. The layout is there, and it takes a second to load the images, but everything is in place and it rarely moves.

4. The tab feature sucks. Why have tabs if they're not easily accessible? File>New Tab? How about point and click? No, that's too easy! IE finally addressed this issue, so I don't see any advantages for Firefox anymore.
It's not accessible if you dont make it accessable. There's control click, and the scroll-wheel click to open tabs when you click on a link, and then you can put the "new tab"
button right next to your URL bar.

Just how it seems to me >.>

Nuts

08-16-2006, 8:19 AM

See....I knew people would come here and defend their precious. ;)

I would understand if IE failed me in these ways, but it doesn't. Sure, IE has its fair share of problems, but it's much more stable for me in the long run.

I'll chalk this up to personal preference.

EvilEmpire

08-16-2006, 8:20 AM

+ All those problems have a shit load of extentions that can improve/fix everything
-If tou have FasterFox delete it.
But you can always stick to IE cashing adware and spyware.

Nuts

08-16-2006, 8:24 AM

+ All those problems have a shit load of extentions that can improve/fix everything
Why should I have to install and add additions when IE includes them already? I never understood the extensions issue. Why not just include everything in the intial install?

But you can always stick to IE cashing adware and spyware.
I don't claim to know much about IE -vs- FF in this regard, but let me say this; I get just as much adware/spyware with FF as I did with IE. I saw no noticeable difference.

I can tell I struck a nerve here. ;)

TheBB

08-16-2006, 8:36 AM

Lol :).

Personally, Opera > FF > IE. Never had any problems with the above in Opera. In particular Operas renderer is ultra-fast. You should try it, hehe :).

Nuts

08-16-2006, 8:42 AM

I tried Opera once, I think I liked it. There was one issue that bugged me but I can't recall what it was. Perhaps I'll give it a shot again. :)

Battlecruiser

08-16-2006, 8:46 AM

1. Firefox handles pdf's about as well as the Sudan handles human rights. I can't count the number of times I have tried to load a PDF, only to have Firefox completely freeze up, subsequently locking EVERY OTHER OPEN FF WINDOW! Of course, this results in the entire operation crashing and any web pages I have open are gone.
I've never had Firefox freeze when loading a PDF, but even if it did, I wouldn't lose any webpages because of my Crash Recovery extension. If Firefox ever crashes, all I have to do is open it up again, and all the webpages I was viewing will be loaded again.

2. Embedded video. While this isn't a necessary job function, I see that Firefox sucks with embedded video. It's wonderful to navigate to a video only to hear it, but not see it. Firefox, the preferred browser for the deaf!
I've never had this problem so far, and I've seen many embedded videos on sites such as youtube, putfile, etc. So maybe its a problem with your computer. Can you point me to a video where this is the case? I'll see if I can watch the video or not.

3. Page loads. Sorry, I don't care what the popular opinion says, Firefox loads pages like an old lady on sedatives. Wait.....wait......hey, look, half the page is getting ready to display.....wait....wait, oooooh, a graphic! Not to mention that pages load oddly, so that the layout is all screwed up until it's completely done loading.
That's true, when my connection slows down for some reason (I think its my neighbors who are stealing using their wireless laptops), I have this problem, but I think this is how it is with all browsers.

4. The tab feature sucks. Why have tabs if they're not easily accessible? File>New Tab? How about point and click? No, that's too easy! IE finally addressed this issue, so I don't see any advantages for Firefox anymore.
You can either Ctrl+Click or use the scroll thingy in the middle of your mouse to click, and it will open in a tab.

My replies are in bold.

ice

08-16-2006, 9:04 AM

i got firefox for 4 days and iam thinking to chage back to opera or some reasons ( Nuts allready told a part of them )

1) when you save a tab, it loads like shit
2) opera auto-saves your tabs
3) on opera, you dont have to load that tab every damn time you acces it, its still there loaded
4) i have to reapat this one : WTF dose it have to open another damn window everytime you go on a link ? %#!^%#! - Schwitzer got teh answer :D but i still find it crappy

5) Opera > Firefox
IE = FF :p

Neo

08-16-2006, 12:36 PM

Wtf.

Your complaining about things that would take like maybe 5 minutes max for fixing.

I've got embedded videos working fine in Firefox, I don't know how, since all I remember doing was "installing" a video player. Maybe its because I use VLC?

The page loading times are annoying, thats the only reason I have fasterfox installed -- it lets you decrease the paint delay option (mines set to like 50 ms, instead of the default 250 or 500).

There is a really awesome PDF extention (I agree with you about pdfs here, but to be fair, FIrefox has nothing to do with ADobe's PDF reader, that thing freezers damn near anything you touch it with) that allows you to open the pdf in a new tab, download it, or to view the pdf in html (it really handy as far as I'm concerned).

And Nuts, you bitching about "why not include everything in the initial install" is just lame. The point of firefox is that you can customize it to what you need it to do. Some people use it to chat (chatzilla extention) others use it with Adblock (I've yet to see any ads on major sites, its nice), still others use extentions like WeatherFox (takes me about 10 seconds to check my weather, and no funky weatherbug spyware :P), or for me personally, Web Developer is one of the coolest things I've ever used.

Then theres stumbleupon, though thats available across the board as far as browsers are concerned. I also enjoy other extentions, like ones that link urls, even if they are in plain text format. Something else I enjoy is the "Copy Plain Text" extention, I can copy just the text, without the formatting, and paste it into things like Word or whatever without it freaking out.

Firefox also has a lot of nifty themes, tell me, are you using the default one still? If your unwilling to customize fox for what you need, then perhaps you need a different browser.

Personally, I enjoy controlling my browser. If you truly are unwilling to use or install any extentions, then you really need to stop using Firefox, since those are what basically make it the best browser. If your looking for the fastest, try Opera. I prefer my slightly slower, more featured Firefox though.

We've got a whole thread about Firefox Extensions. Most of your gripes would've been answered by getting a couple. Oh, and fyi, just like any browser, you need to change certain default settings, I personally set firefox to open up new tabs, instead of new windows, regardless of the sites commands. You can also customize the back/forward/stop/home bar and add things like a New Tab button/New Windo button, etc... I did that awhile back, also have a downloads button up there.

The point being that if you would rather be lazy about browsing, then feel free to use IE. I would suggest Opera, but it has some extensive preferences and settings that might bore you.

EDIT: Can someone explain to me why they want the last site(s) they visited saved so they open again? I never understood that, I rarely ever need to visit the last site I visited the next time I boot my browser up. Besides that... Yes there is an extention for that to :p It even lets you save different sets of tabs, which is kind of cool. I could save a set of tabs for warboards, like, the ML, Tech Annex, IR, Staff Forum, Gamer's, Diablo, etc... and open them whenever I goto carpet bomb XD

-Neo

Modred

08-16-2006, 12:44 PM

I think I ocassionally had the video problem, but the page loading problem can be fixed by tweaking the config. For some reason, they don't make it wasy to optimize the browser for a hi-speed connection. Well, you could get an extension to do it for you...but my experience with FasterFox was meh.

Anyway, I've switched from Ff to Opera, and I feel somewhat similar to BB's sentiments on the matter.

Neo

08-16-2006, 12:53 PM

I would love to use opera, its so fast, but I've got major issues on its tab handling. It seems to split sideways and give more support for "windows" rather then actual tabs. And if I close a tab... ffs, goto the one to the right, if nothing there, go left. I don't open 10 tabs from a google search just to revert back to the search after looking at only one. That is the largest reason I dislike using opera.

Otherwise, I would miss my extensions, (just realized I've been mispelling that word >_>) but it would be a small price to pay for opera's uber-fast-ness.

-Neo

Nuts

08-16-2006, 3:12 PM

Neo

08-16-2006, 5:04 PM

Neo, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the crux of your argument revolves around the ability to customize FF (i.e. fix things or improve aspects of Firefox on your own.) Perhaps that's the core of my problem. I used IE for years and never had to fix or improve it for these basic things to work. Displaying video, viewing pdf's and page load times are aspects of a browser which I expect to be there as a default. I don't like the idea that I have to alter the browser or add-on to it for certain things to work.

I use my browser as a purely utilitarian piece of software. It connects me to the internet, end of story. I can see where some might like the plug-in features as a neat way of keeping your browser on the cutting edge of technological advancements, but that's not something I require.

With the advent of tabbed browsing in IE 7, I see no benefits to either FF or Opera. I think, and I may be wrong, that most people dislike IE simply because it's produced by M$. You know, the whole "fight the power" thing. Like I said, I could be wrong.

On a side note, I now know how to incite anger from Neo. ;)
I dislike IE because it was buggy, insecure, and would crash-- causing me to lose all my windows.

Opera has one benefit, that I can think of is, and that is that its fast. Faster then any browser out there (barring like, text only ones or something).

You have to understand something about Firefox -- there is alot of features to it that don't have "gui" counterparts. For instance, everything that the FasterFox extension does, can be done through changing a couple lines in "about:config" I only mentioned that as a fix for what you perceive as a problem.

As for the PDF thing -- I don't like Adobe reader anyways, as such, it freezes/hangs most things that it "incorporates" into, and I've been meaning to test the adobe reader alternative. I mentioned the PDF Extension, because once again, it offers you a choice, such as a new tab, download it and then look at it, or view it as html.

Your other arguements (tabs/embedded media) are somewhat moot, since both Windows Media Player and Quicktime work with Firefox now. Though I tend to use Quicktime alternative/VLC player, which integrates just fine.

As for IE7 being all "nifty and cool" thats fine. The only problem I have with it is that it forces anti-alias'd text on you, and that it replaces IE6 (which makes it somewhat worthless for me, since I need to test sites in various browsers anyways).

I didn't meant to be so hostile, but Firefox isn't for you if your unwilling to push a few extra buttons. I use Firefox as an "uber-browser" so-tosay, I have extensions that can generate lorem ipsum text, the weather thing I mentioned earlier, adblocks, stumbleupon for when I'm bored :P THe linking unlinked urls -- even an IE-Tab extension that reloads a tab using IE (useful for certain sites that don't seem to work).

Another thing that others fine useful (I don't) is the 2 click "clear private data" function, which erases history, cookies, form information, everything. Although, personally, it seems more like a "CLICK ME TO HIDE YOUR PORN ACTIVITIES" =D

Nut's it seems to me that you are to used to MS-Type programs that hold your hand and tell you whats right and wrong. I don't hate Microsoft, I've used Frontpage 2000, and later 2002 to author almost every site I've ever designed, and I've used windows for longer (duh). I may not like certain aspects of MIcrosoft, or even certain programs, (*Cough* ME) but that doesn't mean I'm one of those moron "M$ haters" -- seriously, find something more constructive to whine about, heh.

Then again, I'm really heavily into open source stuff, I love Firefox for that reason, and I have so many other OS proggys around my system. You just don't expect a candified program when your not using Retail stuff anymore... Firefox, at its core, does exactly what a browser should, and is secure -- you will never see Firefox get hijacked alone. Granted there are Flash exploits, but those deal with Macromedia (adobe?) Flash Viewer, more then Firefox itself. You can not visit a website with firefox and have it infect or hijack your computer. Can you say the same for IE? IE7, I'll reserve judgement until it goes mainstream.

-Neo

Nuts

08-16-2006, 5:14 PM

All points aside, I don't like having my hand held, but I don't like the opposite either. I want a program that simply works and does what I want. If that M$ ever decided to force that stupid paperclip help character into my browser, I would find an alternative quickly. I'm not into stupid applications, but I am into simple applications. When the job requires complexity, I expect to have to work hard for results. But surfing the internet isn't difficult and shouldn't require pushing more buttons than go and stop.

Aside from that, I simply cannot get Firefox to work with certain embedded videos.

For example :http://w*w.m90.org/index.php?id=20245

This site gives me particular grief. It's got some NSFW content, so user beware. (replace the *)
I hear audio, but no video. Other sites work fine, but on occasion, I find a site like this.

Markpyro

08-16-2006, 5:24 PM

I can see the video on that page O_o with FF. FF must hate you :P

And you cant expect your browser to be modeled to each person's specific needs. You just need to do some inital tweaking, as do all other programs, and it's fine until you want to change something. FF does the best job, in my opinion, of displaying the pages I want, with the features I want. Anyways, I give the creators a lot of credit, considering that it's open source and free, and they deserve a bit of leniancy to the minor flaws that exist.

Nuts

08-16-2006, 5:30 PM

No, no leniency for you! ;)

EvilEmpire

08-16-2006, 5:53 PM

Nah.. Nuts made this thread just to see how much people care of theyr beloved brouser and how manically they'll protect its glory so he can entertain himself.

Zerg_eater

08-16-2006, 5:59 PM

Markpyro

08-16-2006, 6:02 PM

No, it's MY computer :P

King_Critter

08-16-2006, 6:51 PM

Like you said nuts, it's a matter of taste. I personly used to use CrazyBrowser, which was basicly IE with tabs. Then, after IE and CrazyBrowser started making text HUGE (I've got that fixed now, though) I started using FireFox... And I love it. :D Coolest thing is that you can get new skins. And there was only a few plugins that were necisary, and I got those within a few minutes of using FF.

Nuts

08-16-2006, 7:43 PM

its ur computer

Seriously? Wow, thanks man, I don't know what I would have done without that valuable advice. And quoting my entire original post, that was very informative too. Are you sure I can't send you a few bucks for all your help?

bluemicrobyte

08-16-2006, 10:23 PM

Personally, the reason I absolutely despise IE is not because of it's browsing side, but because as a web developer I have to spend EXTRA time on web pages to make them look normal in IE. Just as I've finished a site and it looks all fine and shiney in most browsers, I open it up in IE and BAM! Somethings not lined up the way it should be. It works in Firefox, it works in Safari, it works in Opera, but of course, not in IE. So then I have to go back through my CSS code and add the _underscore code after each style and re-code it to work in IE as well. Fun.

Nuts

08-16-2006, 10:33 PM

Why would you make a website that is optimized for only a small percentage of internet users? Doesn't IE have an overwhelming majority? Seems to be it would make sense to build a site around IE, then tweak it for others, no?

Of course, in a perfect world, your sites would meet WC3 standards, right? :)
I find WC3 hilarious since most mainstream websites will fail miserable on their compatibility tests. What good is a standard if nobody adheres to it?

sololop

08-16-2006, 10:47 PM

Why should I have to install and add additions when IE includes them already? I never understood the extensions issue. Why not just include everything in the intial install?

Firefox is more user-friendly. It allows you to customize it much easier than IE, so it installs with the basics. But getting all the extentions and add-ons takes about a whole 10 minutes.

Why would you make a website that is optimized for only a small percentage of internet users? Doesn't IE have an overwhelming majority? Seems to be it would make sense to build a site around IE, then tweak it for others, no?

Some pages are being assholes and force you to use IE. My bank for example, if you load with firefox/opera, a little line of text appears on a white screen saying "Please use the browser "Internet Explorer"'

Also, IE is very, very bad for people using it to access your computer, flat out.

TimP

08-16-2006, 11:16 PM

There are legitimate reasons for requiring IE usage though, namely if your bank or corporate intranet site uses ActiveX controls. Often these ActiveX controls tie in to C++/VB code which then ties into a larger server. They can't just snap their finger and remove ActiveX dependencies. On the other hand, I've yet to see a compelling reason to force non-IE usage, especially with IE7 around the corner. People who do generally just have a stick up their ass.

pixels

08-17-2006, 1:40 AM

Another good word for Opera.

But honestly I'm not that much of a zealot.

JarquaFelmu

08-17-2006, 3:02 AM

Some pages are being assholes and force you to use IE. My bank for example, if you load with firefox/opera, a little line of text appears on a white screen saying "Please use the browser "Internet Explorer"'We'll there's a fix for that as well. An extention you can download will render firefox pages as IE pages with a right click of the mouse button and then selecting wether you want it to render the current page, or open an new tab with it rendered as IE. Very helpful.

TheBB

08-17-2006, 7:08 AM

Of course, in a perfect world, your sites would meet WC3 standards, right? :)
I find WC3 hilarious since most mainstream websites will fail miserable on their compatibility tests. What good is a standard if nobody adheres to it?

Just for the record, their name is "W3C".

Nuts

08-17-2006, 7:19 AM

Just for the record, their name is "W3C".

Umm, yeah, I knew that. ::shiftyl:

Nothing to see here, move along now.

Neo

08-18-2006, 3:36 PM

Nuts the problem is that IE doesn't follow standards, while the other browsers do.

We we code valid -- perfect -- sites and then while they may validate, and look fine in Opera, Firefox or Safari, we then have to go through and make sure that IE isn't screwing it up.

Its not as if we've chosen to NOT code it for IE, its just that IE is a pain in the ass. Thats another reason I hate it =P And if most major sites aren't standards compliant... well then, they need a better Website Coder/Dev working on them. It was fine in 1999 to have a table-laden site with non-compliant code, but its 2006. Lets move on shall we? =P

-Neo

TimP

08-18-2006, 4:08 PM

Dealing with old browsers has been a chore since before Firefox came out. When IE 5/6 were the new browsers, people were complaining about making sure sites rendered in Netscape 4.7 and compatibility hacks. IE 7 will be out shortly which takes care of the pressing deficiencies like lack of transparent PNG support.

Basan

08-18-2006, 8:18 PM

We'll there's a fix for that as well. An extention you can download will render firefox pages as IE pages with a right click of the mouse button and then selecting wether you want it to render the current page, or open an new tab with it rendered as IE. Very helpful.

The name it's IE Tabs (http://www.warboards.org/showthread.php?t=15355) (i.e., helping out Sololop a bit). ;)

---------
And Nuts, if you don't like FF there are other alternatives out there. But don't act as if IE is a better browser as it is nowadays.

I've been steady on the corner seeing this thread for a while now, but for the record have tested out the supposed IE7 'miracle' (when it as at Beta 2) and quite frankly am disappointed. Some of it's features hadn't worked properly or still are near non-existence like the tabbed browsing, the "anti-phishing center" (if you can call that to a simple warning mode telling that you might be entering a suspicious site - no proactive tool what so ever :shiftyl: ) and it's add-ons (http://www.ieaddons.com/default.aspx?cid=home&scid=0)... well, most of'em that I saw aren't it, although called that way. They're programs that you have to install just to make your browser more secure and for most of'em you have to pay for. Gee, thanks a lot MS. :P For that 'immense concern', I'll have to stick with my extensions. *Shrugs shoulders (as becoming usual when dealing with 'Net stuff from MS)*

So far, what I've mostly seen in IE7 (refer to version I shortly tested) is a concoction of Opera stuff, allied with some FF functionalities and still not working that great. Thanks, but no thanks. :rolleyes: I still prefer to tell my browser what to do and set it up my own way (as in: not having a 'twisted' mind of it's own counts too, particularly when comparing the display and functionality of some 'Net addresses). *Sighs*

Somehow, in a 'weird kind of way' I still can't see IE beating FF in performance, customization and acceptance to 'Net browsing (and programming).
Then I ask Nuts what I must do to have a safe, pleasant browsing (at the least) if IE doesn't cut it? <_<

... IE 7 will be out shortly which takes care of the pressing deficiencies like lack of transparent PNG support.

And that is known for what? Almost a couple of years now, right? Don't you think that being MS the top dog of the browser market and supposedly "caring for their customers" they could've patched/amended it by now (as many other holes in their 'Net interactive software)? *Beating the dead horse... once again*
It's their well known lack of short time responses that concerns me as a user. :concern: (Just not to mention that it might drive folks away, not the other way around.)

TimP

08-18-2006, 8:51 PM

Don't you think that being MS the top dog of the browser market and supposedly "caring for their customers" they could've patched/amended it by now (as many other holes in their 'Net interactive software)? *Beating the dead horse... once again*
It's their well known lack of short time responses that concerns me as a user. :concern: (Just not to mention that it might drive folks away, not the other way around.)

The top dog being lazy isn't a Microsoft specific behavior. IBM did the same thing with the PC in the 1980s. Had Netscape absolutely destroyed competing browsers like IE did, I'm sure they would be twisting the web with their own proprietary standards. Netscape didn't exactly have a stellar web standards track record. Remember the <blink> tag?

Neo

08-19-2006, 11:47 AM

Yes, but not everyone will be able to get/use IE7.

On top of that, they are still -- I can see it now -- going to piss off a lot of people with the totally new IE7 interface.

-Neo

TimP

08-19-2006, 1:17 PM

Yes, but not everyone will be able to get/use IE7.

It works on all operating systems released in the last 5 years. They can only push backwards compatibility so far.

Basan

08-19-2006, 8:29 PM

The top dog being lazy isn't a Microsoft specific behavior. IBM did the same thing with the PC in the 1980s. Had Netscape absolutely destroyed competing browsers like IE did, I'm sure they would be twisting the web with their own proprietary standards. ...

So? See what that lil' incompatibility thingy lead IBM. The point isn't their behaviour anyway, but the lack of timeful responses.

TimP

08-19-2006, 9:35 PM

fire fox sux
internet explorer rox

In case there's any doubt, bntd is not my alter ego. ;)

Basan

08-20-2006, 12:11 AM

In case there's any doubt, bntd is not my alter ego. ;)

Was there any doubt? Usually you're far more eloquent!?! On the other hand, we had Zero'... :smirk:

In any doubt, reported his @*s3. Anyone who bothers to register just to spew those lines and go away wasn't even worthy of my attention (for the time being at least). :P

Hawthorne

08-20-2006, 3:37 AM

Nuts, I'll just say this for your problems:

1. Tabs. THe easiest way to define how they work is Tab Mix Plus, easy, handy and small.
2. Embedded video. Well this can happen. It had happened to me, but the main trouble with embedded video is your codecs. If you're using outdated codecs or non at all, that's the problem. Trying something along the lines ot K-like Codec Pack, or their Mega Pack will fix problems like that.
3. Yes, things might load up differently in IE, than in FF. That's generally because some pages are old configuration and they have problems with FF. THe chances of such a thing though are 1 in a million to happen.
4. PDF's. Easiest wya ot sort your way with those is the extension PDF Download and installing either the newest version of Acrobat Reader, or any other PDF reader. Acrobat gives you more choice and looks better, but let's say an old program like PDF Reader is way fatster in opening them ( 5 seconds liuke ) but has limited choices.

Darmago

08-20-2006, 12:28 PM

every once in a while... firefox will crash on me... and sometimes it cant do things that IE can do(I cant really remeber specifics and there is probably an extension for it) but I like firefox mostly because of its tabbed browsing and its mouse gestures... I <3 mouse gestures... hold right click, make an L close a tab...

Markpyro

08-20-2006, 2:01 PM

Old people dont like change. Old people like traditional things, no matter what is better, safer, or faster :P

Dangnabit, Firefox is just too newfangled and used by too many young whippersnappers for a senisble man like Nuts to appreciate it :P

http://pyrom.net/sigs/manual/hr.png

http://pyrom.net/sigs/manual/sigimage.png
*http://pyrom.net/test/blamecountimage.php*http://pyrom.net/test/lastblameimage.php*
http://pyrom.net/test/blameclick.png (http://pyrom.net/test/blame.php)

Dark_Soul74

08-20-2006, 5:43 PM

I actually tried FireFox a while back and was extremely disappointed. Tabs worked like crap, I got more adware and spyware from normally secure sites(My IE gets significantly less with a tiny patch from my anti-spy/adware), and even after putting on a few extensions, it worked like crap.

I later tried Opera, and was generally pleased. However, I gave up on it after I found out it didn't work properly with a few sites I visit(Probably something I could've fixed, but I'm not going to spend an hour on a program just to gain tab/chat functions when I've got ones that work fine already.). The widgets were fun, though. :D

For me, IE is fine. It does what it is supposed to do, does it fast, and, despite what you say, I've had it crash less in two years of use it than the weeks I used FireFox. Tabs aren't neccesary, since you can just open up a new window and it serves the same function, just displayed on the taskbar instead of in a master window(Nobody thought of that, huh?). I've gotten less adware, spybots, and viruses from it than from FF, and I could honestly care less if I could make my GUI blue or green.

Neo

08-20-2006, 8:38 PM

It works on all operating systems released in the last 5 years. They can only push backwards compatibility so far.
No, I meant that you have to validate XP to get it, and it won't be available for even Win2k, which is still used. Regardless of any of that, it also completely replaces Internet Explorer, which is going to complicate things for many web developers.

And besides any of that, people will not like the new gui to IE7. Geeks, and other computer litterate people don't mind it, but the normal person? It is going to confuse my grandparents a great deal, and thats only one example.

Its nice that Microsoft is finally working on a new browser, but why couldn't they keep a similar gui, and simply fix the major security problems inherent with IE6 and ActiveX controls?

IE7 looks pretty, but will it act as expected for the normal user? Especially without a standard File, Edit, etc... toolbar, what the fuck is up with that? EVERY windows application has one. Why the hell are they changing the browser?

I actually tried FireFox a while back and was extremely disappointed. Tabs worked like crap, I got more adware and spyware from normally secure sites(My IE gets significantly less with a tiny patch from my anti-spy/adware), and even after putting on a few extensions, it worked like crap.
Thats a lie, you can't get spyware or adware through firefox. Thats something no one can debate. Try again? The worse you get through Fox are evil cookies, but really, any browser would.

I later tried Opera, and was generally pleased. However, I gave up on it after I found out it didn't work properly with a few sites I visit(Probably something I could've fixed, but I'm not going to spend an hour on a program just to gain tab/chat functions when I've got ones that work fine already.). The widgets were fun, though. :D
So basically your unwilling to take 2 seconds to change 1 option to get it to work?

For me, IE is fine. It does what it is supposed to do, does it fast, and, despite what you say, I've had it crash less in two years of use it than the weeks I used FireFox. Tabs aren't neccesary, since you can just open up a new window and it serves the same function, just displayed on the taskbar instead of in a master window(Nobody thought of that, huh?). I've gotten less adware, spybots, and viruses from it than from FF, and I could honestly care less if I could make my GUI blue or green.
Yeah, I generally can have open, at any given time, 10-25+ tabs. Pardon me if I don't want 25 individual windows open. Not everyone uses that funky ass taskbar "grouping" option. Personally i dislike it intently. I want to see or have access to all windows I have open.

You can't get adware or spyware through Firefox. I can link you to like 4 different sites that would infect and/or hijack your IE though.

I mean, its one thing to not like a browser, but to lie about it. Cmon? I don't like IE, but I dont make up stuff about it. (Not that one would have to...)

-Neo

King_Critter

08-20-2006, 8:58 PM

And besides any of that, people will not like the new gui to IE7. Geeks, and other computer litterate people don't mind it, but the normal person? It is going to confuse my grandparents a great deal, and thats only one example.

Hm... Maybe Microsoft is trying to make it apeal more to advanced users? I mean, that would be rather stupid, but still...

Dark_Soul74

08-20-2006, 9:26 PM

Thats a lie, you can't get spyware or adware through firefox. Thats something no one can debate. Try again? The worse you get through Fox are evil cookies, but really, any browser would. I'm not lying, Neo. Deny all you want, it's still possible, and I have gotten spyware from using FireFox.

So basically your unwilling to take 2 seconds to change 1 option to get it to work?Again, you don't even look at what I'm saying. It required work that would've taken me longer than it was worth because I wasn't experienced with it. Looks like you can't even take two seconds to come up with one good argument?

Yeah, I generally can have open, at any given time, 10-25+ tabs. Pardon me if I don't want 25 individual windows open. Not everyone uses that funky ass taskbar "grouping" option. Personally i dislike it intently. I want to see or have access to all windows I have open.

You can't get adware or spyware through Firefox. I can link you to like 4 different sites that would infect and/or hijack your IE though.

I mean, its one thing to not like a browser, but to lie about it. Cmon? I don't like IE, but I dont make up stuff about it. (Not that one would have to...)

-Neo
If you want to have a different way to manage your insane number of windows, go ahead. But wait! Wouldn't the tabs be just as mangled as the large list, albeit differently displayed?

You can get adware/spyware, I have gotten it through it. You've already discussed this too, so you shouldn't answer it twice unless you're desperate to deny a point.

I'm not lying, and I'm not even showing as much bias in my opinions as you are. You're practically frothing at the mouth to trash IE, and you don't even pay attention to anything that might make your browser of choice look bad. Don't accuse me of lying when your arguments against IE are skirting lies themselves or lording your own tech knowledge over that of a layman.

Neo

08-20-2006, 9:55 PM

Your lieing about getting spyware/adware through Firefox. Thats fact. If you wish to contradict me, then feel free to prove it. But its not possible.

Yes, there is a remove possibility that through Flash Player you could've got spyware, but that was fixed relatively quickly (and was Macromedia's fault, not firefox's). Besides any of that, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A DEFAULT FIREFOX TO GET ADWARE.

Your lieing. Firefox has you confirm ANYTHING like extensions or the like. It doesn't even open EXEs on its, yo ustill have to confirm it. So yeah, I guess if you just sat there like an idgit and opened "hijackingcomps.exe" then sure, yeah, you got spyware through firefox.

But its not possible to visit a site and get hijacked through firefox.

I'm not "frothing at the mouth to bash IE" I'm pissed off that people like you seem to think they can apply IE standards to firefox. I'll say it again -- you can't get hijacked through Firefox. Perhaps if you were already infected, then yeah. Considering that you use IE, thats a definite possibility as well. Am I being a bit hostile? Perhaps. But your trying to diss Firefox for an impossible action.

I know what makes Firefox bad. Its slow, its controls can be cumbersome, and it can be confusing to novice users. By the same token, I know what Opera's and IE's pros and cons are as well. Don't act as if I am some moronic anti-ms basher -- because I am not.

EDIT: This is one reason why all official and trusted extensions were moved to "updates.mozilla.org" its to stop people from hosting unofficial, hijacks, spyware, etc... elsewhere. But generally one doesn't trust "Windows UPdate programs" from a geocities website do they? I can't actually find an instance of Firefox getting automatically hijacked or spy/ad war'eded

-Neo

Dark_Soul74

08-21-2006, 9:03 AM

Deny all you want, but I'm not lying. I doubt I could prove it to your standards anyway, since I'd have doctored the image just to trash FF, or some insane thing, at least since you seem to value my word less than garbage.

What the hell do you mean by "applying IE standards to FireFox"? They're both programs designed to do the same exact things; your statement is akin to complaining that we shouldn't compare a golden retriever to a bloodhound because they are different. You're being extremely hostile, and doing whatever it takes to try to deny my statement, which is not a lie. But hey, if you're the one desperate to disprove it, why not load up a base version of FF, turn off your security programs, visit the most ware-laden sites you can find, and do a scan and see what you find?

TimP

08-21-2006, 4:03 PM

I've seen computers where the user claims to only use Firefox full of spyware. Even if the spyware comes from Flash, it's still facilitated by Firefox.

mcflurry_1982

08-21-2006, 4:22 PM

a cleverly programmed popup can give you spyware but if ur firewall and browser are set properly u can prevent most if not all. as far as speed goes most high speed access people wont really notice the difference between ie and ff. the dialup people do.

netscape was a very viable alternative to ie until version 8 when it became a noc off of ff v1.0. it has always had better popup blocking than ie.

i like ff cuz all the cool add ons arent spyware as they are with ie. i love to customize my possessions and am willing to spend time to do so. but if all u need is a basic browser any will do so long as ur firewall is set properly.

Nuts

08-21-2006, 4:25 PM

Modred

08-21-2006, 6:15 PM

Dark_Soul74

08-22-2006, 11:32 AM

Nuts

08-22-2006, 12:53 PM

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2006/08/22/internet_explorer_7_v_firefox_/1.html

I feel slightly vindicated now that a tech column has echoed some of my concerns. IE7 seems to have redeemed itself in the eyes of this particular columnist.

mcflurry_1982

08-22-2006, 4:27 PM

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2006/08/22/internet_explorer_7_v_firefox_/1.html
although im 99% sure ill stay with ff, this is the information i was looking for for me to want to at least try ie7

Neo

08-23-2006, 3:16 PM

Neo, I'm a fairly self-aware internet user. I have only used Firefox and Opera on this computer, I manually control cookies, I inspect files that are downloaded, I only allow scripting on sites I trust, and so on and so forth. Please explain how I get spyware / adware, because it does show up from time to time.

Firefox is not immune to adware. Your argument sounds like this: "Firefox is invulnerable to adware and spyware unless you do something stupid." No software is totally secure, and to claim otherwise as you are doing isn't logical or ethical. Although I guess since you aren't a developer of Firefox, you aren't technically bound by the ethical guidelines of not misrepresenting what the program can and cannot do.

The point still stands that firefox can not be infected without user acceptance. You , and Dark, are trying to claim that by running Firefox you can get adaware through it.

This is false No matter how much you claim it is. It is not true.

The only way that it was true was because of a recent vulnerability in the Macromedia Flash Player. A VULNERABILTY WITHIN THE FLASH PLAYER. Again, not within Firefox.

You can be angry with Macromedia -- which is fine. But you can't claim over and over that its Firefox's vault.

It is not possible to visit a site in Firefox and get infected, or hijacked. That is truth. Its not being a fanboy or anything.

Now if your stupid enough to accept an addon in Firefox and get hijacked, adaware, or whatever, then its your own fault, not Firefox's.

EDIT: That article is amusing, hehe:

More amusing is IE7's default behaviour when you try to download Firefox. Heading to the Mozilla site for download, then downloading the replacement browser, results in IE7 blocking the 'potentially unsafe' download. Monopoly? What monopoly?

=D One of the only reasons I dislike IE7 is because it completely replaces IE6, and that it forces anti-aliasing on you. Personally I dislike that kind of text, seeing it as only useful in graphics and the like. Then again, Safari does it to -- maybe IE is just copying from them to? Heh.

Someone mentioned IE Standards vs Firefox, or some such, in responce ot something I said. I believe I was speaking of Web Standard Compliance, of which IE6 fails miserably. I was talking about the fact that, coding a perfect site for FF, Opera, or even Safari looks fine, but when viewed with IE6, it looks fucked up. Resulting in you having to recode, or add css hacks and the like to the code to get it to work/look right in IE. Sorry for the confusion.

-Neo

TimP

08-23-2006, 3:25 PM

You can't get any spyware with Lynx either. Not even the Flash one. It also runs on more platforms than Firefox.

Neo

08-23-2006, 3:44 PM

I thought lynx was text only?

-Neo

Modred

08-23-2006, 3:53 PM

You , and Dark, are trying to claim that by running Firefox you can get adaware through it.
Forgive me Neo, but your argument sounded like "Firefox has no security holes that hijackers can exploit, period, end of story, stfu, gg no re noob." I'd like to see some proof, or at least a little better logic.

TimP

08-23-2006, 4:16 PM

I thought lynx was text only?

-Neo

Yes, it's immune to any WMF or JPEG exploits. It also runs on OpenVMS.

Seal

08-23-2006, 4:24 PM

eh. the really paranoid people use the interwebs by netcat. nothing gets through without them knowing.
and of course the system under them is liek openvms on alpha or even an openbsd.

Dark_Soul74

08-23-2006, 5:03 PM

The point still stands that firefox can not be infected without user acceptance. You , and Dark, are trying to claim that by running Firefox you can get adaware through it.

This is false No matter how much you claim it is. It is not true.Why is it, Neo, that you say nothing but "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE RARRRRR"? You completely ignored what I said, and what Modred has said about it. If you want to prove it to us, present evidence. Modred and I at least have our word, whereas you just have a wall of denial and blame.

Oh, and just because I use IE doesn't mean I'm so infected that I'll magically get spybots when I use FF, and you never even bothered arguing against Modred's story, you just denied it some more. If you bothered reading posts before totally denying something, you'd also realized I proposed a method for you to prove FF's invulnerability. Now, maybe you should try it on your "w4r3z fr33 c0mpu13r", so the haxx left over from my demonic IE can't corrupt it.

TimP

08-23-2006, 7:58 PM

eh. the really paranoid people use the interwebs by netcat. nothing gets through without them knowing.
and of course the system under them is liek openvms on alpha or even an openbsd.

Thank you, Seal. In an attempt to protect myself I've stopped using Lynx and now connect to Warboards via telnet sending raw HTTP commands and parsing the HTML in my head.

http://timbo87.home.comcast.net/temp/wb1.png

http://timbo87.home.comcast.net/temp/wb2.png

Seal

08-25-2006, 9:22 AM

too bad WB.org doesnt support https.. ;)

Nuts

08-25-2006, 10:10 AM

Well, it's official, I am now an IE7 user again.

Ahhhhh, so fresh and so clean. ;)

Ktan

08-25-2006, 11:16 AM

Ah, c'mon Nuts...Firefox is dirty and you want it :P

To be honest, I only really use FF because of the tabs and it seems to load quicker though. This Opera sounds a bit fancy pants though, I may look into it :)

Nuts

08-25-2006, 11:21 AM

IE7 has tabs and they're cute too. I may go back to FF whenever I want some dirty surfing. ;)

Ktan

08-25-2006, 11:24 AM

Well, the history IS much easier to clear on FF...(mwahahaha)

Hmm, cute tabs, may have to look into this...

Seal

08-25-2006, 1:10 PM

i heard FF has better stuff for pimping it up. including cute tabs :<

TinyDancer

08-25-2006, 11:46 PM

i heard FF has better stuff for pimping it up. including cute tabs :<

You can download sexy themes and extensions for it.

GenocideAlive

08-26-2006, 12:54 AM

I just hate IE and its constant crashy bugginess. Fuck the man, I say.

And plus I got this dandy "Japanese Black" theme that's totally stylish.

(BTW, your video & PDFs load fine for me) :<

Neo

08-26-2006, 4:35 PM

Why is it, Neo, that you say nothing but "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE RARRRRR"? You completely ignored what I said, and what Modred has said about it. If you want to prove it to us, present evidence. Modred and I at least have our word, whereas you just have a wall of denial and blame.

Oh, and just because I use IE doesn't mean I'm so infected that I'll magically get spybots when I use FF, and you never even bothered arguing against Modred's story, you just denied it some more. If you bothered reading posts before totally denying something, you'd also realized I proposed a method for you to prove FF's invulnerability. Now, maybe you should try it on your "w4r3z fr33 c0mpu13r", so the haxx left over from my demonic IE can't corrupt it.

The point I was making is that there are many things out there that can hijack an IE Browser by just visiting the site. It is not possible with FF, no matter how much you wish or claim it to be true. I am posting "facts" not some kind of "opinion" that can't be "backed up"

I am talking about tried and tested factual information about Firefox and its security when compared to IE.

Another thing I might've failed to mention was that there are often spyware/adware/etc... type programs out there now that try to sabatoge Firefox (ie: things already on the computer, or from IE hijacks whatever).

I'm not denying anything, I am calling your post out as impossible. It would be like me claiming that I grabbed a probe in starcraft and changed it into a terran siegetank. Its impossible from within the game itself. Is it possible from without, via mods and such? Yes. But from a clean starcraft game... no you can't do that.

What your claiming, is total bull. The burden of proof is on you -- all you have to do for my "side" is to google firefox. It is one of the most secure browsers. The worst you'll ever get -- without confirming a download/extension -- are the standard tracking cookie things.

Can you say the same for IE?

I asked for proof of your story/claims, and you turned it around into some bullshit "oh well I couldn't do it again/don't have proof/etc..." which to mean reads as "I was just posting some crap about firefox because I was an idiot surfer"

Is that harsh? Maybe. But I don't like being attacked by a lier. Your not a lier? Prove it. I've google firefox + hijacks + adware + spyware, even digged deeper, and all I really found where some articles about "possible spyware companies targeting fox" but nothing really concrete. I did find a few stories from people who downloaded extensions they shouldn't have, but nothing about "auto-hijacks" that IE suffers from.

Personally I prefer Firefox because no matter how many extensions I install, bad, good, or neutral, I can start it up in a "safe mode" and remove whatever shouldn't be there. I find that really cool.

Am I claiming that Firefox is perfect in every way and can't be hacked or anything? No. I am claiming that it can't be auto-jacked like IE can. Thats all. What your saying about getting "more spyware/adware through firefox then IE" is either bullshit, or you confirmed extensions that you shouldn't have.

That is why all extensions (official ones) were moved to the update.mozilla.org domain -- over a secure connection. So people KNEW which were legit, and which werent.

So again, would you care to explain how you got infected? Because if your just going to post with "ZOMG IT HAPPENED, I DONT KNOW HOW BUT IT DID, BELIEVE ME, FF SUX BECAUSE I SAY SO" then don't bother.

-Neo

Modred

08-26-2006, 10:58 PM

It is not possible with FF, no matter how much you wish or claim it to be true. I am posting "facts" not some kind of "opinion" that can't be "backed up"
IE is a secure browser. That is a fact. Firefox is not a secure browsers. This is also a fact. Fact != truth. Please give better logic than "go google firefox." So, Firefox doesn't have ActiveX. Yes, that makes it impossible for you to be hijacked by sites that use ActiveX controls without your permissions. That doesn't make it impossible for code to take advantage of Firefox.

moz_bug_r_a4 discovered that named JavaScript functions have a parent object created using the standard Object() constructor (ECMA-specified behavior) and that this constructor can be redefined by script (also ECMA-specified behavior). If the Object() constructor is changed to return a reference to a privileged object with useful properties it is possible to have attacker-supplied script excuted with elevated privileges by calling the function. This could be used to install malware or take other malicious actions.

Let's take this for example. In case you didn't know, the entire user interface for Firefox (and Thunderbird, and other products using the XUL user interface) is coded with a combination of XML, CSS, and Javascript. As you might expect, this javascript requires special priviledges to perform certain operations, such as read/write access to local disks, and so on. Now, using the bug mentioned above, an attacker could cause arbritrary code to be executed with these additional priviledges.

You'll not that this bug was fixed in 1.5.0.5. But you cannot claim hijack completely impossible, because other bugs of this nature will inevitably be uncovered as more work is done on Firefox. Hopefully such bugs will be fixed in a timely manner, but I believe I have more than shown that Firefox is not impervious to a potential hijacking.

Dark_Soul74

08-27-2006, 12:11 AM

I asked for proof of your story/claims, and you turned it around into some bullshit "oh well I couldn't do it again/don't have proof/etc..." which to mean reads as "I was just posting some crap about firefox because I was an idiot surfer"Actually, if you bothered reading through my posts, you would find absolutely no mention whatsoever of me not being able to do it again or not having proof. All I've done is ask that you prove it because you don't value my own word. In fact, the only time I've even come close to saying that I couldn't reproduce it is to suggest that you be the one to test, because anything I did would be nullifiable by the fact that I use IE, and thus must be infested with hijacks and malware(Even though I regularly do preventative cleaning scans and don't do anything retarded)

But I don't like being attacked by a lier.
I'm pissed off that people like you seem to think they can apply IE standards to firefox. I'll say it again -- you can't get hijacked through Firefox. Perhaps if you were already infected, then yeah. Considering that you use IE, thats a definite possibility as well.
Your lieing
I mean, its one thing to not like a browser, but to lie about it. Cmon? I don't like IE, but I dont make up stuff about it. (Not that one would have to...)
I wonder why I would be hesitant to try to prove to an admittedly hostile FF supporter that is constantly insulting IE and saying that all IE users are infected that my FF could get malware on its own? Especially considering I offered you the much fairer option of having you conduct the security testing, but you seem to love ignoring that point, unless you're trying to turn it back on me to make me test to prove my statement, when you've done nothing to actually prove yours.

Also, I think Modred just disproved your point.

TimP

08-27-2006, 12:28 AM

Assuming that your browser (any browser) is immune to remote exploits is a foolish notion. Just because there aren't any published exploits at the moment doesn't mean they're not out there. Currently I'm not aware of any known IE vulnerabilities that allow remote code execution so explain to me how Firefox is any more secure.

Neo

08-28-2006, 1:32 PM

I've asked you multiple times to "prove" your claim. You've not, instead you have come back and "attacked" my posts, as if somehow picking and choosing what to respond to will make your arguement seem right, and mine seem wrong.

How the hell am I supposed to prove that you weren't infected more with FF then IE? Am I suppose to, like, mind-beam a projection of myself to your home and download FF to your computer and try to get it infected or something?

Modred, the point still stands, The USER INTERFACE cannot be changed via visiting a website -- Yes it maybe insecure, but if your download FF themes/skins/extensions (as I've mentioned, multiple times) then its your own fault if you download/use something thats malicious in nature. So far, there have been no exploits, hijacks, etc... involving FF and simply visiting a website. There have been for IE. Numerous ones in fact.

So is the GUI-ness of Fox/Mozilla stuff insecure? Perhaps. But websites can't effect those aspects of the program by just visiting or loading the page.

Thats really the only point I've been trying to make. And you have, still, not proven your own claim of getting "more" through Fox, then IE. And I maybe hostile, but I'm not a rabid FF fan. I've suggested Opera multiple times, mainly because its the fastest, and if it had better tab control, I'd prolly be using it.

No, instead, please respond with "you love Fox so much, I don't have to prove anything to you!!!" -- If you can't, or won't, prove your own claim, then just don't both posting. Dissecting my posts, and/or attacking them isn't proving your claims. So if thats all your going to do, don't bother to post again.

Dark_Soul, I can visit any number of sites with IE, at this moment, and have them hijack the browser, the home page, or even hijack my computer with things like worms, or trojans, and other malware, such as forcibly keeping the Taskman down, or removing my own access to various features of my own computer.

This is not possible through Firefox. It is through IE. Which makes IE insecure.

Make all the claims you want, but saying IE is a secure browser is complete bullshit, and I am sure that many people would agree with me in saying that. Even IE supporters register the fact that IE has been very insecure.

See, my "problem" with IE, is the multiple computers I've had to fix because of it's insecureness. Its easy to claim that you've got a clean IE, but for the average computer user, they don't know anything about BHO Exploits and the like. Which results in people like me having to go and try to fix a computer so far gone it would be more humane to blow it smitherings.

Same deal with IE7. Oh yay its going to rule!!! ... except that it won't be available to everyone. Yes, I can here Tim's arguement of "itl be on the os's made in the last 5 years" or whatever, but seriously? There are many agencies, such as Schools, or businesses and the like that still run Windows 98, not to mention Windows 2000. To deny them access to a more secure default browser like IE7 is just folly, -- hell, even the upgrade to IE6 isn't available unless you have XP.

I used IE for years -- even disregarding such notions of "Tabbed browsing" and made the same arguements you've made, or Nuts has made, regarding Firefox/Opera/etc... but after adjusting to Firefox, I've fallen in love with its browsing abilities.

Using IE without proper "backup" is folly. But see, unlike IE, I don't require thingslike Spywareblaster, Windows Defender, or whatever.

Besides, its not as if Microsoft disserves any accolades as of late. OneCare anyone? Or whatever thats called.

-Neo

Dark_Soul74

08-28-2006, 2:03 PM

Nuts

08-28-2006, 2:12 PM

Modred

08-29-2006, 12:26 AM

Modred, the point still stands, The USER INTERFACE cannot be changed via visiting a website -- Yes it maybe insecure, but if your download FF themes/skins/extensions (as I've mentioned, multiple times) then its your own fault if you download/use something thats malicious in nature. So far, there have been no exploits, hijacks, etc... involving FF and simply visiting a website. There have been for IE. Numerous ones in fact.

So is the GUI-ness of Fox/Mozilla stuff insecure? Perhaps. But websites can't effect those aspects of the program by just visiting or loading the page.
Get a glimpse of this everyone: Neo has no clue what he's talking about here. The problem wasn't them changing the GUI. The problem is that Javascript executed with these permissions can do all sorts of nasty things regular Javascript in the client can't do. This could have been exploited to install spyware, change your browser settings, or a host of other things without giving you a window to confirm. This isn't downloading extensions with bad code. This is a potential exploit of a vulnerability that could open your computer up to serious infection.

TimP

08-29-2006, 1:27 AM

If there's a buffer overflow, no amount of confirmation screens or signed extensions will save you.

Basan

08-29-2006, 4:06 PM

If there's a buffer overflow, no amount of confirmation screens or signed extensions will save you.

Same applies to IE as well. Just liked to state that, in case it got 'conveniently' forgotten by IE users in this thread. :P

And no, ain't specifically referring to you, Tim'. ;)

Modred

08-29-2006, 4:25 PM

I think TimP just wanted to remind a certain Ff fan that Ff has had buffer overflow problems in the past, further discrediting the "firefox is immune to X" logic. ;)

GenocideAlive

08-29-2006, 4:29 PM

Neo, if Firefox became the most widely used browser on the market, do you think it would be immune to browser hijacks at that point? My point being that a hijack/adware designer is going to target the most popular browser to ensure the hihgest amount of infections. I doubt seriously that IE is any less secure (not in any measureable way) than Firefox, Opera or any other similar browser. Instead, what you see as security is more likely the absence of Firefox specific exploits.

p.s. I'm loving IE7....really I am.
I'm sort of paranoid about Microsoft's constant info-farming that they do from their browsers. I also don't like the way I've caught IE interfacing with Windows on my computer, saving information and using auto-update type features to send Microsoft packets. I thought about getting a firewall, then I was like "Why?" Microsoft probably knows a way to get around that shit too--best to just not use their fucking browser if they're going to abuse.

If anybody wants to educate me or contradict what I'm saying, I'm all ears. My info may be out of date, but I'm relatively certain of which I'm talking about from a few years ago. It was some seriously skandalous shit.

mcflurry_1982

08-29-2006, 5:12 PM

ive had ie do that too but i didnt notice it sending stuff to microsoft.

Neo

08-30-2006, 11:17 PM

Since you can't seem to understand anything I say, here's a summary:

You constantly say I'm infected because I use IE. If I use my computer to test FF for security, you'd say that my FF was infected because of that.

Therefore, I propose that you should test the security by using a base installed copy of FF and visiting all of the sites that you say would hijack IE.

However, you can't seem to gather that, by your own statements, it'd be futile for me to try to prove my statement as, despite the fact that my computer is not infected, you would still say that it was and that it affected the results.

The thing I don't understand is why you are constantly ignoring this option, since it would definitively prove one side's argument. But hey, you can say I'm attacking your posts and mindlessly repeating that "IE is totally immune to everything!"(akin to your support of FF), despite my actual posts, and come off looking like you win by twisting my words.

You can either continue your wall of denial and win just by outlasting your opponent's will to continue trying to actually argue a point against a BS argument, or you can actually prove it.

Your ranting again, it seems like, I never claimed you were infected, or that you had been, or whatever your trying to say there. I've based my comments off your first/original comment of "I got more adware/spyware through Firefox then IE" of which, instead of proving this (which is really on you to do, since I've not heard of this happening) you continually twist my words/ignore portions of my posts/etc...

The sites that I mentioned "hijacking ie" DONT WORK IN FIREFOX. Vanilla install or not.

Your spouting bullshit -- and I called you on it. Instead of trying to backup your claim (getting spyware through Firefox) you've like completely ignored your part of the arguement.

Saying that IE is secure is not akin to me saying Firefox is secure.

Firefox is more secure then IE That is fact.
Firefox is not vulnerable to ActiveX, BHO exploits, etc... that IE is That is fact.
Firefox can not be hijacked by just visiting a site, though IE can, relating to ActiveX Controls and the like This is a fact.

You are claiming that you recieved more Spy/Ad ware through firefox. I am saying that is bullshit, and I've asked you multiple times to prove your claim. If you aren't going to... seriously, dont bother posting again.

Neo, if Firefox became the most widely used browser on the market, do you think it would be immune to browser hijacks at that point? My point being that a hijack/adware designer is going to target the most popular browser to ensure the hihgest amount of infections. I doubt seriously that IE is any less secure (not in any measureable way) than Firefox, Opera or any other similar browser. Instead, what you see as security is more likely the absence of Firefox specific exploits.

p.s. I'm loving IE7....really I am.
The point is that FF doesn't have the same vulnerabilities that IE does, regardless of its popularity -- for instance, FF doesn't use ActiveX, which is probably the biggest insecurity IE has.

I'm not saying that wouldn't happen, and even if it did -- more then likely it would get fixed a lot faster then Microsoft would respond to a similar security problem with IE. Though, with IE7, maybe they will focus on it a bit more then they have in the past.

Modred Uhm... You said that because the gui is based of an XML language, or some such, that it would be vulnerable to javascript-based exploits... or some such. Right? So... You still wouldn't be able to Execute the code by visiting a website or whatever. You would still have to have downloaded/installed some sort of extension that would exploit that.

If I'm confused about this, please feel free to explain it. Because from what I understand, your making a huge deal about something that CANT be affected by loading a site. It doesn't matter if the XML-Based GUI skin... thing is vulnerable if pages can't touch it.

And... uhm... correct me if I am furthur wrong, but don't/can't buffer overflow problems effect any program, regardless of its use/purpose? I mean, so FF has/had buffer overflow problems, as has/had IE -- dont they get fixed? Don't buffer overflows, also generally, result in crashing said program, or your computer? How is that going to help someone install spyware/adware?

I think that those of you who are "attacking me" (for lack of a better term) somehow have gone of and are now discussing overall security issues relating to browsing and programs -- while I've been focused on spyware/adware/hijacks. Am I claiming that FF is totally immune? No. It can be infected, or hijacked like any other program... if you inadvertantly run a malicious program, or extension. The only thing I am claiming is that it is not possible for your system to be infected with spyware by just visiting a website. With IE, that is very possible -- and likely to happen if your not careful.

If it wasn't true, then there would be no need for things like Spybot, HijackThis! or CWShredder.

It happens with IE. It doesn't with FF.

You were infected with Spyware/Adware through Firefox, Dark? What kind? Where? When? Could you describe how it effected Firefox? Would it be possible to see an address of where this happened? Are you sure it was through Firefox? How can you be sure it was?

If your unwilling or can't answer any of those questions, then don't bother to reply. Regardless of "neo is being a fanatic"-belief you have, it doesn't make your claim truth.

Originally i was interested in how/why/when you got infected through FF, since i've never heard of that happening, but then I realized it was bullshit. Because if it was true, it would have made the news somewhere.

-Neo

TimP

08-31-2006, 12:50 AM

Firefox is more secure then IE That is fact.
Firefox is not vulnerable to ActiveX, BHO exploits, etc... that IE is That is fact.
Firefox can not be hijacked by just visiting a site, though IE can, relating to ActiveX Controls and the like This is a fact.

Not quite fact.

1. Find me a current vulnerability in IE that makes it less secure.
2. Saying Firefox is not vulnerable to ActiveX is a bit of a faulty argument. That's what I was trying to get at when I said that Lynx isn't vulnerable to JPG or PNG exploits. The lack of a feature doesn't make it a feature.
3. Find me a site that will infect IE just by visiting it.

I won't argue that all of the above were problems of the past, but none of the things you claimed as fact are quite that simple or factual.

Firefox was more secure then IE That is fact.
Firefox does not implement ActiveX That is fact.
Neither IE nor Firefox can be hijacked by just visiting a site, though IE could be if the user chose to run ActiveX Controls and the like This is a fact

Saying that IE could be hijacked by ActiveX is like saying that Firefox could be hijacked by a bad extension. In both cases the user has to approve it.

Dark_Soul74

08-31-2006, 6:21 AM

Your ranting again, it seems like, I never claimed you were infected, or that you had been, or whatever your trying to say there. I've based my comments off your first/original comment of "I got more adware/spyware through Firefox then IE" of which, instead of proving this (which is really on you to do, since I've not heard of this happening) you continually twist my words/ignore portions of my posts/etc...
I'm pissed off that people like you seem to think they can apply IE standards to firefox. I'll say it again -- you can't get hijacked through Firefox. Perhaps if you were already infected, then yeah. Considering that you use IE, thats a definite possibility as well.
Wait a minute, you're accusing me of the stuff I just accused you of in my last post and you're being an idiot?
Your spouting bullshit -- and I called you on it. Instead of trying to backup your claim (getting spyware through Firefox) you've like completely ignored your part of the arguement.How nice of you to read practically any of my posts.

You are claiming that you recieved more Spy/Ad ware through firefox. I am saying that is bullshit, and I've asked you multiple times to prove your claim. If you aren't going to... seriously, dont bother posting again....and I've told you repeatedly that you would simply dismiss whatever results I get as inaccurate because I would've been already infected by my IE.

Neo, if you keep talking like this, you might seem a bit less knowledgeable than you are.(Especially if you can't argue anything but one specific point, contradict yourself, and completely ignore any valid argument, then accuse your opponents of not even using the valid argument you ignored)

Seal

08-31-2006, 11:26 AM

firefox has one major thing for security: they can break backwards-compability at will, if a fix requires that. MS can't do that.

but currently im loving opera. even better security record than that of firefox.
(and if i get paranoid, i can chroot/sudo the shit out of this).

Basan

08-31-2006, 3:15 PM

Saying that IE could be hijacked by ActiveX is like saying that Firefox could be hijacked by a bad extension. In both cases the user has to approve it.

Not quite. As I remember, IE had ActiveX set to run by default and not the way you spoke around. That is a flaw, since most/the common users just want to open it and click away... to whichever destiny it is. :P

Nuts

08-31-2006, 3:16 PM

Not quite. As I remember, IE had ActiveX set to run by default and not the way you spoke around. That is a flaw, since most/the common users just want to open it and click away... to whichever destiny it is. :P

Any new instances of IE will ask you if you want to install ActiveX controls.

Basan

08-31-2006, 3:26 PM

Any new instances of IE will ask you if you want to install ActiveX controls.

Humph, I still remember not long IE6 (the XP version) doin' the same way I spoke before. Did it really needed to have a complete newer version of the program just to fix that (no previous patches could be made, eh)? I can come up with a few explanations for that, but none of'em are really that much of "user base caring". :P

TimP

08-31-2006, 4:09 PM

I'm almost certain that ActiveX controls have required user approval since IE4 (it would at least warn you). ActiveX controls have never auto-installed on IE6.

Basan

08-31-2006, 4:49 PM

I'm almost certain that ActiveX controls have required user approval since IE4 (it would at least warn you). ActiveX controls have never auto-installed on IE6.

I would've connected the link to some IE7 blog entries about it, but since it wasn't dead clear on the current debated issue, will instead link to this one (http://www.agnitum.com/news/securityinsight/december2005issue.php) which also appeared on my Google 1st search page's results. ;)

TimP

08-31-2006, 5:18 PM

Neo

09-01-2006, 5:21 PM

Not everyone can patch IE6 though -- Another gripe of mine.

TimP, I wasn't talking about IE7 specifically, or even IE6 SP2, I was talking about the base IE6 that most people use, because they are unwilling, can't, or don't know how to upgrade.

Dark, thanks for confirming my belief that you were just lieing about the whole thing.

IE6SP2, and IE7 are both more secure then IE was in the past -- very secure from what I've seen/tested. Which is very cool, since it will make hijacks (hopefully) a thing of the past.

But it has been possible, I don't know about now on a fully patched IE w/windows defender (I love that thing), to hijack IE by simply browsing to a website. ActiveX was one of the worst things about IE. It used to be defaulted into working, which was why every 'safety' guide suggested you turn it off, or have it set to "user approval" Personally I think it had something to do with Microsoft's idea that people are to stupid to understand such things, so eventually it was exploited.

Regardless, I didn't just imagine the hundreds (if not thousands) of browser hijacks, malicious bhos, or whatever.

Thanks TimP, basically you said the same thing I wanted to say, though applied to everything current. When FF first went out of beta, it was a lot more secure then IE, which is why alot of people moved to it.

Personally I'd move to Opera if it had better controls for various things.

-Neo

BroodKiller

09-01-2006, 5:55 PM

Although I didn't participate in this debate from start, here I want to say that I agree with Neo. Noone denies Service Packs making IE a better and safer web browser (it ain't THAT bad, after all ;)) - however we're not speaking about upgraded versions here, but the base installations. Awhile ago in this thread Nuts said the following (direct quote):
Why should I have to install and add additions when IE includes them already? I never understood the extensions issue. Why not just include everything in the intial install?

Which, to me, says it all and only further confirms Neo's post. If you do not bother upgrading your software, then do not argue that 'an upgraded/patched version is better'.

Dark_Soul74

09-01-2006, 6:27 PM

BroodKiller

09-01-2006, 6:45 PM

Ad hominem is not what prooves you're right, man. And if you're just angry, then don't post, 'cause calling someone 'retarded' is an offense to people - of whom I know a few - that truly suffer from this, but who are still most valuable human beings.

So, just chill out :)

Dark_Soul74

09-01-2006, 6:48 PM

Ad hominen or not, he's proving to be the intellectual equal of one.

Basan

09-01-2006, 7:51 PM

Modred

09-01-2006, 8:57 PM

Neo, this is why that bug was serious:

The Javascript for the GUI has special powers, as I've already mentioned. Read/write access to the local discs, ability to download/upload things, and so on. Now the vulnerability was caused by overloading the constructor for Object(). This is perfectly fine, ECMA-standard behavior.

However, if someone were to cause this constructor, which is run when Object() is used to create an object, to return a reference to some of the priviledged objects running in the background, the attacker could then have access to your hard disk, your settings, and so on. The danger was that they could get to this priviledged code and then access it from their own scripts.

If code exploiting this were put into the onLoad() behavoir for a site you visited, you could be hijacked by simply visiting the site. Of course, if you use NoScript to disable Javascript by default you will be fine. Which in turn leads me to say if you get IE to prompt before allowing a page to use scripts in the Security tab of Internet Options. The only downside is that it doesn't remember which pages / sites you want to allow.

Neo

09-01-2006, 10:59 PM

Neo, I need to tell you, you're f***ing retarded.

I'm confirming your belief that I'm lying by continuously suggesting that you be the one to do a safety check because you've repeatedly said that my FF was infected because my IE was infected? Then you completely and repeatedly ignore this, and then accuse me of completely ignoring my own arguments?

It's useless to argue against someone who does nothing but ignore you, accuse you of ignorance, and act like more of a jerk than those would normally entail in the process. Thank you for proving that you are desperate to ignore the chances that you are wrong.

uhm... i keep asking you to prove your claim, and instead of doing that, you just decide to insult me?

I was/am actually interested in what/how/when you got infected... as I mentioned earlier.

If you can't (or won't) stop posting without the insults, perhaps you should walk away from this thread. You think I'm retarded for asking for proof? Sorry, how does that work out?

Thanks Modred for explaining that.

-Neo

Basan

09-02-2006, 7:13 AM

Maybe they mean if you already installed an ActiveX control then it's allowed to run by default (not surprising), but ActiveX controls cannot automatically install themselves on a patched IE6.

If you Google for anything you're looking to prove, then certainly you'll find someone saying it regardless of its accuracy. Googling for "elvis is alive" will probably find a lot of sites that say he's alive but it doesn't make it true.

What patched IE6? Even from the days that had the 2K OS never saw a MS patch switching the default behaviour on IE when regarding ActiveX controls. And it wasn't any different when settled my XP (on a separate mode to then clense the previous OS). Only after getting the Service pack 2 from MS it finally improved IE (not considering me manually tweaking it) but just don't ask me exactly on why, although I suspect that pack's inborn firewall had mostly to do with it. :P

-----------
Modred, that seems pretty darn interesting (and probably was really serious). I'm just having a few doubts upon that, that GUI thing was aimed for what exactly? FF themes is what comes to mind at 1st but ain't 100% sure.

Dark_Soul74

09-02-2006, 7:49 AM

Dark', I've been quiet through this whole 'mess' between you and Neo, but imho you're bordering the line as we're going. If you want to prove something then it's your job to present the evidence. No matter how hard it would be to clean your browsers/OS and then making a fresh test trial run. :P
And it also does matter how 'clean' you're currently speaking to others, anyway (namely Neo on this one).
Even if Neo is being a total jerk in his presentation and using logic akin to one with mental restrictions?

He has never referred to how I'm suggesting that he try it, especially since he knows of several sites that would "instantly hijack IE". Instead, he keeps telling me to get the proof, when he's also said repeatedly that I'm already infected because I use IE, and my FF got infected because of that. My computer is clean to begin with, but I've said it before and Neo has never agreed with it. However, Neo would want for me to basically purchase an entirely new computer(because BIOS and HDDs can get infected too!), wait until it is done patching, download Firefox, download a scanning program with FF, and then bring this new computer to any and all websites that has a chance of having spyware and adware. However, contrary to what he thinks, I'm not spending several hundred dollars just to prove a point to his standards, when he can do it just as well as I can and meet his own standards in the process, unless he's so unsure of the result that he's resorting to faulty logic and misleading tactics to try to stifle things.

Neo, on the other hand, has to install another copy of FF and look up the sites he said would infect IE, and then skim through a couple other suspicious pages and see if anything comes up. However, he's probably busy coming up with another post to accuse me of neglecting to <insert point of whatever I just posted here>, and completely ignore any evidence that comes up against him. Then he gets surprised that someone would have to resort to ad hominem after going back and forth for twenty posts with him, when all he does is deny, twist words, and completely ignore any argument he can't deny outright. Wait, he's a mod, so I have to value his opinion above all, too? Sorry, I don't think I should sit back while someone takes a crap all over something that was supposed to be an actual discussion.

Neo, this isn't aimed directly at you, but I think you can get the gist of it, at least if you actually bother to read this one.

Neo

09-02-2006, 11:15 AM

What patched IE6? Even from the days that had the 2K OS never saw a MS patch switching the default behaviour on IE when regarding ActiveX controls. And it wasn't any different when settled my XP (on a separate mode to then clense the previous OS). Only after getting the Service pack 2 from MS it finally improved IE (not considering me manually tweaking it) but just don't ask me exactly on why, although I suspect that pack's inborn firewall had mostly to do with it. :P

-----------
Modred, that seems pretty darn interesting (and probably was really serious). I'm just having a few doubts upon that, that GUI thing was aimed for what exactly? FF themes is what comes to mind at 1st but ain't 100% sure.

Its because the IE6 "Patch" isn't available for only XP users. That is, IE6SP2 is the one that introduced all of the "security" stuff. Which still negates everyone else not using XP.

Even if Neo is being a total jerk in his presentation and using logic akin to one with mental restrictions?

He has never referred to how I'm suggesting that he try it, especially since he knows of several sites that would "instantly hijack IE". Instead, he keeps telling me to get the proof, when he's also said repeatedly that I'm already infected because I use IE, and my FF got infected because of that.

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT YOU WERE ALREADY INFECTED WITH INTERNET EXPLORER I've made several comments about IE being insecure in relation to Firefox, but I do believe that I posted that even I used IE for many years before switching, and never got hijacked. I'm not saying that you were, or are infected, and I never made the claim that you were.

All that I want is to know WHEN, HOW, and WHY you were infected through Firefox. I would be happy with some names of the spyware that you got infected with. Anything. I mean, you are the one making the claim of being infected through firefox more then through IE.

My computer is clean to begin with, but I've said it before and Neo has never agreed with it.

Please point me in the direction where I claimed you were infected. Because I'm pretty sure that I never made claims about your computer -- except that you couldn't get "more" through fox instead of IE.

However, Neo would want for me to basically purchase an entirely new computer(because BIOS and HDDs can get infected too!), wait until it is done patching, download Firefox, download a scanning program with FF, and then bring this new computer to any and all websites that has a chance of having spyware and adware.
....I'm sorry, but WHAT THE FUCK?!

You're the one who made the claim that you got more adware/spyware through firefox, when you used it and I called out your claim as bullshit! Now I am some retard?! Oh and somehow I am completely deluded into thinking that your going to buy a whole new computer --- What the fuck? Seriously, could you explain this reasoning of mine to... me? Because I'm kinda lost.

However, contrary to what he thinks, I'm not spending several hundred dollars just to prove a point to his standards, when he can do it just as well as I can and meet his own standards in the process, unless he's so unsure of the result that he's resorting to faulty logic and misleading tactics to try to stifle things.
...You are deluded. To the extreme. All I asked was when, how, and why you were infected through firefox. Because you have been unable to make any statements regarding that, I will continue to believe that your statements are bullshit. And you are more interested in attacking me and dodging the explanation of your claims.

Neo, on the other hand, has to install another copy of FF and look up the sites he said would infect IE, and then skim through a couple other suspicious pages and see if anything comes up.

...Are you dense? Like really? SITES THAT CAN INFECT, HIJACK, or CORRUPT IE DO NOT WORK WITH FIREFOX. THEY NEVER HAVE, and NEVER WILL.

However, he's probably busy coming up with another post to accuse me of neglecting to <insert point of whatever I just posted here>, and completely ignore any evidence that comes up against him.

You've offered no evidence against me. Except to infer that I am a retarded moron. Oh, and to continue to dodge any of my base questions about when/how/why you were infected through Firefox.

Then he gets surprised that someone would have to resort to ad hominem after going back and forth for twenty posts with him, when all he does is deny, twist words, and completely ignore any argument he can't deny outright. Wait, he's a mod, so I have to value his opinion above all, too? Sorry, I don't think I should sit back while someone takes a crap all over something that was supposed to be an actual discussion.
I don't believe I ever once mentioned being a mod.

You're the one who is being unreasonable. You're the one who is completely ignoring me, instead you've felt the need to attack my posts, then outright insult me, and to now make outrageous statements on what I believe and think.

So you'll pardon me if I am confused.

Neo, this isn't aimed directly at you, but I think you can get the gist of it, at least if you actually bother to read this one.

Funny, I was wondering the same thing of you, that is, of reading this entire post.

If you can twist this post into something strange and outrageous, please do. I'm actually, now, enjoying your posts. They are somewhat amusing since you have continually dodged any explaination about your own claims. But wait, somehow, I'm the one whos supposed to prove it. ^___^

-Neo

Modred

09-02-2006, 12:33 PM

Modred, that seems pretty darn interesting (and probably was really serious). I'm just having a few doubts upon that, that GUI thing was aimed for what exactly? FF themes is what comes to mind at 1st but ain't 100% sure.
The way it works is that the all the widgets and windows of Gecko-based applications are described in an XML based format. All of the action, such as controlling the menus, downloading extensions and themes, saving or retrieving preferences to a file, and so on, are controlled by Javascript. However, normal Javascript on a web-page can't do most of these things. But through this exploit, an attacker could get a handle that referenced Javascript objects used for these special tasks and then gain powers over your computer he definitely shouldn't have.

As far as themes go, most themes use another aspect of the layout form and add CSS to manipulate color, font, images, and so on. This can generally be done without editing any Javascript, as far as I know. Where the Javascript is important is in things like extensions, which add overlays to the menus, read/write preferences, download/upload things, and so on. With this exploit, an attacker could have gained access to that special code and then used it without the user ever knowing.

I believe the page I linked to, which had the complete bug report, said Thunderbird and other Gecko-based applications were vulnerable to this as well. However, since scripting is disabled by default and highly discouraged in Thunderbird, the danger was not so great as to require a prompt security update.

Dark_Soul74

09-02-2006, 1:45 PM

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT YOU WERE ALREADY INFECTED WITH INTERNET EXPLORER I've made several comments about IE being insecure in relation to Firefox, but I do believe that I posted that even I used IE for many years before switching, and never got hijacked. I'm not saying that you were, or are infected, and I never made the claim that you were.Perhaps if you were already infected, then yeah. Considering that you use IE, thats a definite possibility as well.Another thing I might've failed to mention was that there are often spyware/adware/etc... type programs out there now that try to sabatoge Firefox (ie: things already on the computer, or from IE hijacks whatever).*cough*

All that I want is to know WHEN, HOW, and WHY you were infected through Firefox. I would be happy with some names of the spyware that you got infected with. Anything. I mean, you are the one making the claim of being infected through firefox more then through IE. It was several months ago, so all I have is my memory of it. However, the only site reasonably "risky" that I visited was Newgrounds.com, which I am assuming was the primary source of spyware. Keep in mind however, that this was not during the time FF was vulnerable through Flash player.

Please point me in the direction where I claimed you were infected. Because I'm pretty sure that I never made claims about your computer -- except that you couldn't get "more" through fox instead of IE.Didn't feel like erasing parts of the post, so...obligatory response text to this section and a point in the direction of the first quote block.

....I'm sorry, but WHAT THE FUCK?!

You're the one who made the claim that you got more adware/spyware through firefox, when you used it and I called out your claim as bullshit! Now I am some retard?! Oh and somehow I am completely deluded into thinking that your going to buy a whole new computer --- What the fuck? Seriously, could you explain this reasoning of mine to... me? Because I'm kinda lost.Well, you've claimed that there's a definite possibility that I'm already infected because I use IE. It is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's entirely warranted, because you would simply dismiss any results I would get through testing it myself as corrupted, pointing out that I'm already infested from stuff through IE, and that none of my maintenance programs picked it up.

...You are deluded. To the extreme. All I asked was when, how, and why you were infected through firefox. Because you have been unable to make any statements regarding that, I will continue to believe that your statements are bullshit. And you are more interested in attacking me and dodging the explanation of your claims. Actually, you pretty much just went head on with "Thats a lie, you can't get spyware or adware through firefox." From there, you just went in and continued that stance until starting actually asking questions in the last post or two.

...Are you dense? Like really? SITES THAT CAN INFECT, HIJACK, or CORRUPT IE DO NOT WORK WITH FIREFOX. THEY NEVER HAVE, and NEVER WILL.Well, if they design it to work specifically for IE without going after any of FF's weaknesses, sure.

You've offered no evidence against me. Except to infer that I am a retarded moron. Oh, and to continue to dodge any of my base questions about when/how/why you were infected through Firefox.Infer? I said it outright. Any other statement I've made is true, and I've never dodged a question. However, I have explained to you that, by your own standards, it'd be impossible for me to test FF's security properly, but, whatever, you say potayto, I say potahto.

I don't believe I ever once mentioned being a mod. This was in reference to Basan. And it also does matter how 'clean' you're currently speaking to others, anyway (namely Neo on this one).

You're the one who is being unreasonable. You're the one who is completely ignoring me, instead you've felt the need to attack my posts, then outright insult me, and to now make outrageous statements on what I believe and think.

So you'll pardon me if I am confused.If you really need explanation of you ignoring my posts, pretty much every instance of me suggesting that you do the testing because you repeatedly suggested my FF was infected through IE was ignored entirely, or was responded to with a blanket statement regarding me lying, or not wanting to even try to prove it.

Funny, I was wondering the same thing of you, that is, of reading this entire post.

If you can twist this post into something strange and outrageous, please do. I'm actually, now, enjoying your posts. They are somewhat amusing since you have continually dodged any explaination about your own claims. But wait, somehow, I'm the one whos supposed to prove it. ^___^

-NeoYes, well, as you can clearly tell by my piece-by-piece responses to most of your posts(of course, I won't respond to you declaring that I'm an idiot that downloads random extensions, or got them through the Macromedia bug, which happened a while after my time in FF). Additionally, you can pretty easily tell by the number of times I've scanned through and found quotes of you contradicting yourself or saying something stupid that I've read through your posts.

However, if you truly wish to have proof, I'm going to download Firefox now and attempt to infect it without user acceptance. Since you apparently are agreeing that I'm clean now, it should be alright for me to test it.

Superiorwolf

09-02-2006, 4:06 PM

Nuts your computer probably really sucks and can't handle the awesomeness of FF

BroodKiller

09-02-2006, 4:22 PM

Geez, I am now somehow inclined to think that this discussion will eventually involve human casualties...web browsers always were, are, and will be hijacked, by this exploit or another. I just like the GUI of Firefox better, that's all :)

Dark_Soul74

09-02-2006, 5:05 PM

I've spent a few minutes so far attempting to get my FF infected without any user accepted items, and the only significant items I've found so far are an alarming number of tracking cookies. I must admit that Firefox is good at updating when flaws are found, and it is likely that the malware I got were from an old, patched exploit.

However, this still doesn't prove that FF is "invulnerable". Simply Googling "Firefox flaws" brings up a few links to various exploits FF has had.

mcflurry_1982

09-04-2006, 12:54 PM

However, this still doesn't prove that FF is "invulnerable". Simply Googling "Firefox flaws" brings up a few links to various exploits FF has had.
first evidence posted in the DS74, Modred, and Neo debate. i did the same search for internet explorer flaws and got more than double the amount of results. no browser is 100% secure but ff, for as new as it is, is quite secure and does realize and fix any mistakes quite fast. ie, on the other hand, has been around for quite some time and takes longer to fix mistakes. but when it comes to it, what browser u use is a matter of personal preferance and any evidence that a different browser is better/faster/whatever is up to the user to decide if the switch is worth it for them. now will the 3 of you (mainly DS74 and Neo) relax and stop flaming.

my gf and i use ff and for us it is the most secure and best browser

TimP

09-04-2006, 1:25 PM

i did the same search for internet explorer flaws and got more than double the amount of results. no browser is 100% secure but ff, for as new as it is, is quite secure and does realize and fix any mistakes quite fast.

Wait, so now the number of hits returned by a Google search is a research metric?

Basan

09-04-2006, 3:13 PM

Maybe they mean if you already installed an ActiveX control then it's allowed to run by default (not surprising), but ActiveX controls cannot automatically install themselves on a patched IE6.

If you Google for anything you're looking to prove, then certainly you'll find someone saying it regardless of its accuracy. Googling for "elvis is alive" will probably find a lot of sites that say he's alive but it doesn't make it true.

Yeah, I've had the base IE6 since my ol' 2K OS days... and even in XP (on SP1) it allowed'em to run hamock. :P Anyway, that default ActiveX auto-update you've mentioned being disabled is also a pretty recent thing (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=917425). :shiftyl: Please tell me on why that they couldn't have fixed it a looong time ago.

Edit add: And no, Google isn't a metric research ordeal but that it can assist ya a lot on your search that's undeniable. It fits to you to then wipe the results and see which are representative and which ones are not. (But you already knew that, although you didn't want to outright admit it.) ;)

Modred

09-04-2006, 9:02 PM

first evidence posted in the DS74, Modred, and Neo debate
Actually, I quoted and linked a bug report from the mozilla.org development pages. But I guess that doesn't count as evidence, since it is, after all, an official statement recognizing a bug and the extent to what that bug could do....there's no sarcasm in my voice as I type this...

TimP

09-04-2006, 9:26 PM

I'm talking about making conclusions based on the number of hits returned.

'internet explorer flaws' returns 5,200,000 hits.
'firefox flaws' returns 2,440,000 hits.

If you use data like that to draw conclusions, you're probably not contributing any useful information.

Dark_Soul74

09-04-2006, 9:54 PM

first evidence posted in the DS74, Modred, and Neo debate. i did the same search for internet explorer flaws and got more than double the amount of results. no browser is 100% secure but ff, for as new as it is, is quite secure and does realize and fix any mistakes quite fast. ie, on the other hand, has been around for quite some time and takes longer to fix mistakes. but when it comes to it, what browser u use is a matter of personal preferance and any evidence that a different browser is better/faster/whatever is up to the user to decide if the switch is worth it for them. now will the 3 of you (mainly DS74 and Neo) relax and stop flaming.

my gf and i use ff and for us it is the most secure and best browser
....and I guess that just because I said that I could easily Google flaws means that IE absolutely has to be compared in terms of search results? :/

It was in reference to how Neo repeatedly said that it was impossible to hijack FF, and how he did "research" and turned up nothing significant.

TimP sums up another point fairly well.

I'm going to try to test FF more extensively, but right now I've done nothing but a few minutes of casual browsing, since I've had very little time this weekend.