Computer issues

[Grim]

Grim, what makes FF more secure? IE7+ has way better security built-in, at least on Vista and Win7. It runs in a sandbox, so anything in a page can't access anything on your PC. If you do happen to install something bad, it needs your explicit permission before it can modify anything out of your user space.

Back when it was Firefox vs IE6, Firefox blew it out of the water. IE had lots of security vulnerabilities that Firefox blocked. But since IE7, those vulnerabilities have been closed. The only advantage these days to running Firefox is the large add-on community.

Chrome is fast for Javascript, but that's about it. And Google uses it to track your browsing. No thanks.

There are still lots of vulnerabilities in IE7+. Also, You can run any other browser on a non-system drive, which means any content that gets downloaded stays off the system. 7 has good security but the others still have better security if only for the way IE interacts with the Windows kernel. In addition, not much malware will terminate firefox.exe, so it's handy to have there. (Almost all infections will terminate iexplorer.exe or modify it's related reg keys.)

[Grim]

That's good to know, not that i put much stock in ms for security, lol, but that's cool.
I haven't used IE in forever, and i'm still holding out on going to win7 win8 win10 whatever till xp just plain won't work anymore, lol. I don't like what they've done with windows at all as far as interface and usability, unless they make it more open and moddable which i doubt, i'm on xp indefinitely. I haven't payed any attention to win7 other than seeing it on others pc, looks like vista no thanks.

Win 7 is MUCH better than Vista in performance and features. XP is still not secure and is restricted to 32-bit. If you have 4gb RAM + Then you should get 664 bit Windows 7. If you have less than 4gb you can stay with XP with no significant losses.

[Grim]

The last big trojan and virus i did get i had to use all three each found stuff the other did not, as well as hijack this - it was a bitch, so i've just kept them all installed since then. Usually a single good anti-vir will be enough, but if something gets past and doesn't reveal itself right away it can let other stuff through. I can tell you from multiple experience each of those programs can root out stuff the other may not, i've used them while cleaning up on other people's computers as well for the same reasons.

A good, paid, single AV will be enough. I use Kaspersky Anti - Virus and have MBAM for any misc. scanning.

SUPER's databases have become lackluster, and MBAM blows the both of them out of the water for scanning. I am not sure when you were infected but things must have changed since then.

[Trem]

A good, paid, single AV will be enough. I use Kaspersky Anti - Virus and have MBAM for any misc. scanning.

SUPER's databases have become lackluster, and MBAM blows the both of them out of the water for scanning. I am not sure when you were infected but things must have changed since then.

maybe i don't know probably 3 years ago,...at the time there were a bunch of trojans going around it seemed, i got one or more at once my dad got some, a friend..basically the same ones or similar they attached to explorer, startup really bitches to bugger out it was a bitch - it took all of those programs and a bunch of straight registry searching by hand to rid of it all.
I know on sites like major geeks ect i've seen em have people download and run a many av's in a setting including what i stated, so it's not uncommon, and you would probably too if you thought you got rid of something with your one av, and then ran another only to find more shit, right?
But since i haven't had any worries in so long i don't really know or care, they're just on my drive and i run em all maybe 2 3 times a year and will continue to.
Although nothings really even gotten past browser and no-script to even make avast have to do anything, and i don't download much shit.

Incidentally MBAM and Super are two different things, MBAM isn't finding spyware, and Super isn't finding Viruses i think that's why i had initially gotten them, now it's just more of a habit, if MBAM does now, i don't pay attention, i just run em.

[rjohnstone]

There are still lots of vulnerabilities in IE7+. Also, You can run any other browser on a non-system drive, which means any content that gets downloaded stays off the system.

Drive location is irrelevant. A virus either has access or it doesn't. Location is meaningless.

7 has good security but the others still have better security if only for the way IE interacts with the Windows kernel. In addition, not much malware will terminate firefox.exe, so it's handy to have there. (Almost all infections will terminate iexplorer.exe or modify it's related reg keys.)

IE 7 and above does not interact directly with the kernel. Never has.
IE 7 and higher on Win Vista and 7 are isolated. I've had FF crash and burn more time than I care to count.
It's gone from my PC's and I'm back to IE 8 and IE 9 Beta.
UAC prevents the installation or modification of any system files. You're explicitly asked BEFORE any action is taken that could potentially harm your system.
Any moron who disables UAC deserves to have their system hacked.

[Grim]

Drive location is irrelevant. A virus either has access or it doesn't. Location is meaningless.


IE does not interact directly with the kernel. Never has.
IE 7 and higher on Win Vista and 7 are isolated. I've had FF crash and burn more time than I care to count.
It's gone from my PC's and I'm back to IE 8 and IE 9 Beta.
UAC prevents the installation or modification of any system files. You're explicitly asked BEFORE any action is taken that could potentially harm your system.
Any moron who disables UAC deserves to have their system hacked.

Indeed a VIRUS's location is irrelevant, due to the spread, but for a misc. piece of malware having is separate from the system drive is extremely useful.

I'm aware IE doesn't directly interact with the kernel, almost nothing does, but if you think IE is less vulnerable than a 3rd party browser you need your head examined.

UAC doesn't directly prevent hacking, and it is possible to install even with it on, but it does practically reduce any chance of infection to trojan horse only. Which, ironically, isn't much help at all. It's the whole dancing pigs debate all over again.

[rjohnstone]

Indeed a VIRUS's location is irrelevant, due to the spread, but for a misc. piece of malware having is separate from the system drive is extremely useful.

How is it useful?
Show me one benefit.
Drive location is totally irrelevant. Trojan, Virus... doesn't matter what drive it's on.
If it's on a drive in your PC, you're infected.
windir, System Root and System Drive environment variables cannot be hidden. They must be known system wide or your PC will not function.
Any first year programmer knows this. Your system drive exposed the moment you boot up.


As for vulnerabilities, Firefox 3.6.10 already has 13 new ones and it's been out how many weeks. Unpatched.
The more common 3.6.2 has more than 50. You have to go to 3.6.10 to be somewhat safer.

Google Chrome has nearly 80 and the current version has 7 new ones in the last two months. Unpatched btw.

IE 8 has 62 of which all but 4 or 5 have been addressed.
So again... tell me who is more at risk.
Also, the ONLY UAC hack that is out there to bypass UAC, still gives you a warning that it's about to be bypassed.
Not a legitimate hack if it tells you it's doing it.
Social engineering is the only way to get around UAC.

[Grim]

How is it useful?
Show me one benefit.
Drive location is totally irrelevant. Trojan, Virus... doesn't matter what drive it's on.
If it's on a drive in your PC, you're infected.
windir, System Root and System Drive environment variables cannot be hidden. They must be known system wide or your PC will not function.
Any first year programmer knows this. Your system drive exposed the moment you boot up.


As for vulnerabilities, Firefox 3.6.10 already has 13 new ones and it's been out how many weeks. Unpatched.
The more common 3.6.2 has more than 50. You have to go to 3.6.10 to be somewhat safer.

Google Chrome has nearly 80 and the current version has 7 new ones in the last two months. Unpatched btw.

IE 8 has 62 of which all but 4 or 5 have been addressed.
So again... tell me who is more at risk.
Also, the ONLY UAC hack that is out there to bypass UAC, still gives you a warning that it's about to be bypassed.
Not a legitimate hack if it tells you it's doing it.
Social engineering is the only way to get around UAC.

I have a degree in Computer Science, thank you.

I never said you weren't infected if it wasn't on the system drive, but if a Trojan has piggybacked into your D:/ drive, you can always wipe that drive clean and retain all important files you may have on your C:/ drive without reinstalling Windows.

I just said social engineering is the only way around UAC.

[rjohnstone]

I have a degree in Computer Science, thank you.

I never said you weren't infected if it wasn't on the system drive, but if a Trojan has piggybacked into your D:/ drive, you can always wipe that drive clean and retain all important files you may have on your C:/ drive without reinstalling Windows.

That's nice you have a piece of paper to hang on a wall... I have one too.
You wanna compare cock size next?

I've been doing this shit for nearly 20 years.
A well written trojan or virus will install in the correct location regardless of browser cache location.
You're betting a lot on hoping a piss poor programmer wrote whatever bug you've just received.
I've found that many will install themselves on the system drive as intended, regardless of the alternate drive method.

[Twitch]

Win 7 is MUCH better than Vista in performance and features. XP is still not secure and is restricted to 32-bit. If you have 4gb RAM + Then you should get 664 bit Windows 7. If you have less than 4gb you can stay with XP with no significant losses.

Technically, there is an XP 64-bit Pro version, but was never real popular and only lasted to SVC Pack 2. Was more of a practice run for MS to do a 64 bit OS. As to Trems waiting for 2016 to roll around, 7 is great and very aesthetically mod-able and is every bit as reliable as XP in my experience (had 7 for a year now on 3 different machines). I deal with XP, Vista and 7 on a daily basis at work, and theres nothing like Vista except Vista. Maybe go buy a laptop with 7 on a 90 day return policy at some big box store and try it out. You dont like it, return it. Ill never go back to XP unless I get PC too old to run 7.

[Predator1]

Well, I just did what was suggested and the proxy box was not checked. Someone also suggested checking the IP address and that it should start with 192.168 and well it doesn't. It starts with 169.254? What do I do now?

[Twitch]

You can PM me and I could call you.

[Grim]

Technically, there is an XP 64-bit Pro version, but was never real popular and only lasted to SVC Pack 2. Was more of a practice run for MS to do a 64 bit OS. As to Trems waiting for 2016 to roll around, 7 is great and very aesthetically mod-able and is every bit as reliable as XP in my experience (had 7 for a year now on 3 different machines). I deal with XP, Vista and 7 on a daily basis at work, and theres nothing like Vista except Vista. Maybe go buy a laptop with 7 on a 90 day return policy at some big box store and try it out. You dont like it, return it. Ill never go back to XP unless I get PC too old to run 7.

The 64 bit version of XP has virtually no drivers available for it, nor programs.

[Twitch]

Im not gonna argue with you grim, Pred, if you want some free tech support, PM me your number and Ill help you out.

[Sharkfin]

Well, I just did what was suggested and the proxy box was not checked. Someone also suggested checking the IP address and that it should start with 192.168 and well it doesn't. It starts with 169.254? What do I do now?

That's APIPA...