Computer newbies: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by LarryD - 1/6/04 3:54 AMI don't understand this, and I'll bet you don't either http://www.safecenter.net/UMBRELLAWEBV4/ie_unpatched/index.html , but this is why you should consider NOT using Internet Explorer.
Currently there are 23 UNPATCHED vulnerabilities.
This list is available to anyone with a computer.
This list serves as a road map for any trojan, worm or virus writers and hackers.
Simply put, the bad guys know where the vulnerabilities are so they can easily tailor a virus, worm or trojan.
Did you hear about the BLASTER WORM last summer?
Alternative?? http://mozilla.org
Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***
by ozos - 1/10/04 10:10 PM In reply to: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by LarryDyeah, internet exploerer does have some vulnerablities, but any computer on the internet IS AT RISK it doesn't matter what you use, simply put IF YOU ARE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET, YOU CAN BE HACKED so i dont know why you are freaking out over such knowledge, also a firewall may be a consideration, at least it helps and if you dont want to have the chance to get hacked or get a virus,
you have 2 options
1. dont use the internet
2. dont buy a computer and type all your stuff on a word processor and get e-mail on a mail station
also, most hackers wont just hack any old computer, they usually have some sort of purpose, to change grades to steal files of value (like $4,000 operating systems, basic windows XP costs about $200) or they want to mess something up, like health records, insurance or stop light control as in the movie The Italian Job (good movie)so i would suggest that there is no way to have a 100% safe guarantee that you cant get hacked, unless you spend about $5000 on firewalls (the actual device ones, not the programs) and other saftey utilitys otherwise just realize that the web is a risk, you just have to be smart about it.
I think you are missing (part of) the point
by LarryD - 1/11/04 2:48 AM In reply to: Re:***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer*** by ozosUsing any computer online (like driving) is a risk.
Switching browsers to a more secure browser would be the equivalent of switching to a safer car.
As long as these vulnerabilities exist, any browser that doesn't have these vulnerabilities would be consider safer.
I posted here to educate computer users that there are risks with IE and that they have a choice. Many do not know that choices exist.
Obviously this post was not intended for someone like yourself.
Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by ozos - 1/11/04 4:18 PM In reply to: I think you are missing (part of) the point by LarryD"Using any computer online (like driving) is a risk."
NO DUH!!!!
but, I am not sure why this is such a great shock to you, you don't need to be stating all of the vulnerabilities just because you don't understand them. Also, since this is a newbies page...I really wonder what effect you just made in lives of these people, oh yeah I thought this page clearly states no advertisement. Your article seems to be trying to get people to move from IE 6.x to something like Mozilla 1.4 or Netscape 7.2 (they are basicly twins)
but just because IE isn't the safest program in the world, not everyone wants to drive a volvo, I dont know why you want everyone to download Mozilla...
Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by gearup - 1/12/04 6:50 AM In reply to: Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by ozosThe truth of the matter is IE is a poor imitation of Netscape which exists only because some Judge thought that if a different language was used to write it it wasnt an infringement on the Netscape copywrite.
As to other browsers one good reason to use them is that they are not interwoven with Windows but are free standing (more or less) programs. Which means that a browser glitch is just a browser glitch and does not mean an OS crash will follow. Plus the other browsers which are available are faster,take up less space and o yes...they are more secure!
Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by Acaykath - 4/23/04 6:03 AM In reply to: Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by gearup"The truth of the matter is IE is a poor imitation of Netscape"
Of course you are missing the fact that IE actually loads web pages correctly and supports things like HTML 4.0 and CSS which NO version of netscape or mozilla does. Obviously there must be some code difference.
Personally I like some of netscapes functions like the add blocker and tabs so I use avant browser (IE's compatibility and netscape's additional features) which is an addon to IE. It also offers Additional security that can protect you system from many of these security threats. There are other options too but I wont go through an entire list of applications.
Use whatever browser you want based on what features you want in your web browsing experience. All of them have vulnerabilities. Most people only need a good virus shield and a little common sense to protect themselves. If you are afraid of hackers then get a decent firewall, changing browsers is not going to protect you.
Re:Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by josir - 4/23/04 6:42 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by AcaykathHi Acaykath,
could you suply just ONE example of HTML 4.0 and CSS that Mozilla does not support ?
Thanks in advance,
Josir
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by Acaykath - 4/23/04 6:51 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by josirwww.geocities.com/acaykath
Look and compare...
-Scrollbar color
-Table Attributes
-etc...
There are many differences, some are barely noticible while others ruin the look of the site.
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by Peter Reaper - 11/26/04 12:46 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by Acaykath>> could you suply just ONE example of HTML 4.0
>> and CSS that Mozilla does not support ?
> www.geocities.com/acaykath
LOL. That page has 104(!) HTML errors and numerous CSS errors:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.geocities.com%2Facaykath
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=www.geocities.com%2Facaykath&usermedium=all
The reason it may work in IE is that it was aparently programmed using MS's proprietary code. It's like saying "Hey, Mercedes sucks because my Yugo seats don't fit in it." :-P
To those who say "nothing is absolutely safe, therefore everything is equally unsafe", I say: do you use contraception during sex? Do you not look before crossing the road? There's "unsafety" involved no matter what you do, so why bother?
The point is that Firefox is SIGNIFICANTLY safer than IE.
It's your choice. Mine is Firefox.
http://www.GetFirefox.com
Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by droy99 - 11/26/04 8:48 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by AcaykathThe security thing is only 1 aspect for choosing a browser. The security problems can be kept in check by, using a firewall, virus scanner, spyware scanner and keeping them all updated. Since I am blind, I need to use speech to run my computer. At this time, IE works much better for me than the other alternatives.
Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by eavery - 4/23/04 9:08 AM In reply to: Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by gearupThe biggest problem we have is that IE was created by Microsoft. Not just that it most likely stole the technology from Netscape to make a shoddy copy of Netscape, but because Microsoft does not fully document its Windows api component capabilities. That and the fact that all Windows api components appear capable of sending and receiving "messages" without any way for the user to know what is going on. The possibility exists that the folks at Microsoft may decide to just bore into any computer connected to the Internet to view or change things for any reason.
This happened to me when XP was initially--released: within a week, my Windows 98 computer started behaving like 2000/XP. My previous wallpaper setting began to appear during the boot process (a markedly Windows 2000/XP behavior). This is because any non-XP computer that a Windows XP server encountered was altered by the XP server. This activity was documented on some websites at the time with the excuse that XP needed to be able to interface with previous versions of Windows. But I was not warned about what Windows was doing, nor given the option to decline the alterations an XP server made to my system. XP changed my operating system, and to what ends I still do not know. But it made the change unbeknownst to me--and more importantly--without my permission.
Those of you techs afraid to speak against Microsoft lest you lose your certification are the only ones I ever see who publically miminize this problem--and are usually the only ones who heatedly support Microsoft's claims against its detractors. But if you cannot see the danger to yourselves and your companies with this predilection of Microsoft to up and alter non-Microsoft computer systems at will and with no regard for asking the end-user's permission, then you have no place in any reasonable discussion on Microsoft products--at least in my mind. It would be different, of course, if Microsoft wasn't so draconian in its certification policies, nor embroiled in so many technology theft disputes (lawsuits), and if it was more interested in compatibility as a means to better computing environments and as a means to greater company profits. Sadly, there are certain realities to consider here.
The real danger of using IE is that it could be the point of centralization for Windows (api) messaging (at least, related to api component messaging to and from other Windows systems connected to the Internet). After all, IE components are not fully documented--Microsoft never actually complied with the judges order to completely document Windows api functions, so who really knows whether or not IE doesn't fulfill this role?
Which means that Microsoft, or any other company that knows how to exploit even some of the undocumented api functions of IE could use IE to obtain information from your computer without your ever knowing about it. Do you really want your competitors to see the new software you are engineering, or read your corporate network security plans--do you rally want to support a product that may be the main reason your computers are sabotaged by internet viruses? Stand-alone browsers such as Netscape offer an additional and important level of protection, because they are stand-alone products which are not designed to be specially integrated with Windows. But also because non-Microsoft products are often better, more stable and secure products anyway.
But even if it is not a likelihood, it would be safer to use a stand-alone browser and not IE because IE is vulnerable to attack from without (no sane person can argue against this point): remember, its api components are NOT fully documented or made available by Microsoft. This may be a good reason for the PC industry to shift to Linux operating systems, since Linux-based programs' sourcecode are usually readily available (the benefit of being based on an "Open Source" theory of development which Microsoft will most likely never really embrace).
Failing that, there is a company that removes or separates middlewear like IE from the different versions of Windows (LitePC.com). This may offer some protection against the problems of IE, but not all of them. IE is a shoddy product, and its api components were developed by Microsoft to be integrated closely (too closely?) with Windows. It is probably best to separate IE from Windows and use another browser instead. This is what I did with Windows 98 (which immediately became faster and more stable) and I will do it again someday with Windows XP.
Re:Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by risingstaruk - 4/23/04 11:01 AM In reply to: Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by eaveryyour suggesting everyone use linux? have you actually used it before? hardware support is poor, drivers that do exist usually have less features than their windows cousins and are somewhat buggy, the software available for it just plain sucks. there is a reason most people use windows and thats because at the moment, it is the best... the only people linux actually suits are people who want to make modifications to how the operating system they use works. considering less than <1% of the population can actually make said changes, linux is pretty much useless to the general population. also a properlly configured win2k or win nt set up is more stable than linux, the only advantage linux has it that it is free...
Re:Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by johnnophillip - 6/20/04 5:38 PM In reply to: Re:Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by risingstarukOk points
a) There is no "win xp server", windows 2000 server perhaps and ive never heard of anything like that happening, perhaps the network administrator upgraded the computer you were using from windows 98 to windows 2000 or windows XP?
b) this sounds like a typical comment from a linux fanboy still harping on about problems that were solved with the release of windows 2000 / A computer phobic luddite who relies on tinfoil hats to protect him or herself from "mind warping radiation released by computer monitors as part of a microsoft / US government mind control plot"......i am being sarcastic
c)if you are using DSL/cable use a router (masks your computer from the rest of the internet), install a software firewall (zonealarm etc) and use antivirus (avast!, norton, macafee) and install a spyware checker (ad-aware etc)
Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by thepan123 - 4/23/04 2:52 PM In reply to: Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by gearupI agree. IE is good and has it's use. Frankly, I don't like IE and will only use it in a business setting or when a web page doesn't support the browser of my choice. Have several thousands of $$ invested in Mircosoft Training manuals and having learned what I have and all the Hot Fix Patches that Bill comes out with....I don't touch IE with a stick unless I have too. I very seldom get a worm and if I suspect, I scan or send the file to yahoo and let them scan it. I use a router and a hub plus a firewall. Sure, I have problems with Netscape...but I can control them.
Re:Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point
by TerryT - 4/23/04 4:27 PM In reply to: Re:Re:I think you are missing (part of) the point by gearupBeta is a better video tape format than VHS in picture quality and tape longevity. But there is a time when we must "go with the flow" and adhere with defacto industry standards.
Netscape was once my preference as well, but the AOL and Time-Warner mergers fed Netscape suicide pills.
Netscape still has a place in the Linux world, but the war is over in the Windows world where most of us live. This is espescially true when all of my business clients are running Windows, MS-Office, and IE. They demand compatible file interchange.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
%20the%20point%20-%20CNET%20Computer%20newbies%20Forums&srcUrl=http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?messageID%3D222021){kind=small}