Is it time for me to move onto Firefox and not IE

[Deleted User]

aliEnRIK wrote: »

On at least 6 occasions im aware of, noscript has prevented my machine from being infected but IE let them through no problem

So the 'potential' might be there. But the realistic facts are quite different

Don't you disable UAC (which disables Protected Mode in Internet Explorer) rendering one of the major security advancements in Windows Vista onwards which was implemented to mitigate the threat from exactly that type of attack is unavailable?

busenbust wrote: »

No way on earth would I suggest anyone use IE; comparatively lax in security, an easy target and an interface that is disorganized. Like I say, some things MS do very well (W7 :cool:) but never IE. It's almost as if MS have given up hope on IE. Perhaps no bad thing

If by "comparatively lax" you mean having better security features, features that Mozilla themselves unable to implement into Firefox, then yeah they must be. Not to mention Firefox has no security model for extensions at all, especially when you take into consideration all extensions are full trusted and executed in a privileged zone which enables easy interaction with the O/S. Microsoft inadvertently demonstrated how extensions can be added to Firefox without the user being aware, so there's significant risk through that avenue.

aliEnRIK

anewhope wrote: »

Don't you disable UAC (which disables Protected Mode in Internet Explorer) rendering one of the major security advancements in Windows Vista onwards which was implemented to mitigate the threat from exactly that type of attack is unavailable?

Yes, because I dont want my computer to stop and 'think' about what its doing for several seconds when it should react instantly. HOWEVER, this has also happened on computers with UAC on

busenbust

anewhope wrote: »

Don't you disable UAC (which disables Protected Mode in Internet Explorer) rendering one of the major security advancements in Windows Vista onwards which was implemented to mitigate the threat from exactly that type of attack is unavailable?



If by "comparatively lax" you mean having better security features, features that Mozilla themselves unable to implement into Firefox, then yeah they must be. Not to mention Firefox has no security model for extensions at all, especially when you take into consideration all extensions are full trusted and executed in a privileged zone which enables easy interaction with the O/S. Microsoft inadvertently demonstrated how extensions can be added to Firefox without the user being aware, so there's significant risk through that avenue.

No way on this hellish earth will I be using IE:eek:

:rotfl:

[Deleted User]

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Yes, because I dont want my computer to stop and 'think' about what its doing for several seconds when it should react instantly. HOWEVER, this has also happened on computers with UAC on

UAC elevation prompt delays fall into two categories.

1). An entirely black screen is a caused by a GPU driver issue.

or

2). Signed binaries being verified. The benefits outweigh the delay, although obviously the larger the file is the longer this delay is going to be. Competent developers should be aware of the workarounds to this that still offer the same protection but minimise the delay to the user.

jbreckmckye

On the matter of Firefox's performance: using the UPX Executable Packer can make a real impact on speed. I'm told that running it on Win2000 compatibility mode can make a difference too, though I'm a bit skeptical.

Alternatively, use K-Meleon, a stripped-back fork of the Firefox project.

spud17

DatabaseError wrote: »

.and I don't restrict my browsing to 'safe' sites, quite the contrary, at times, I visit sites which are traditionally known for being on the darker side of the internet, yet my PC remains clean and my AV never triggers

Agree, I have occasional strayed over to the supposed 'dark side' purely for research purposes.

Never had anything, but a few years back Avast stopped a downloader trojan from an innocent top of list Google search result.

Also, while I realise more people use them, Facebook and Hotmail feature prominently on this forum, as sources of infection.

It's obvious, if you're out to cause problems, you go for the easiest target.

People I work with think I'm mad when I mention the 'dark side', yet they are the ones who are always getting infections.

For everyday use I have Firefox/Noscript and Linux Mint, I never worry, especially as I don't use either Fakebook or Hotmail.

aliEnRIK

anewhope wrote: »

UAC elevation prompt delays fall into two categories.

1). An entirely black screen is a caused by a GPU driver issue.

or

2). Signed binaries being verified. The benefits outweigh the delay, although obviously the larger the file is the longer this delay is going to be. Competent developers should be aware of the workarounds to this that still offer the same protection but minimise the delay to the user.

I couldnt care less what the reason behind it is, its switched off and its staying off

shevavironx

yes immediately move to firefox/chrome/safari which ever you prefer if you like security and a better browsing experience!

Speaking from being in 2/3rd line IT support for some 14 years!

asininity

I'd say swr iron, chromium, arora, safari, firefox or opera if you like you privacy. Chrome not so much.

DatabaseError

anewhope wrote: »

&c....

Not wanting to nag, but you suggested I was a fool for using firefox, I did ask for a credible link to back up your assertion....and you've been back and answered others...
Obviously "pictures or it didn't happen" wouldn't be a relevant comment here...but I hope you get the idea, you should have something to back your argument, or just say "in my opinion..."