Browser Helper Objects list.

I'm not really sure that we don't already have the tools at our fingertips to accomplish any of this.

(a)  Proper browser settings
(b)  The script-control program of your choice
(c)   The registry-monitoring program of your choice

Somebody give me the link to a site that will defeat all three of these (plus your firewall and AV program, of course), and then I'll believe there's a lack of protection somewhere. Pete

 

Pete: You are right in that those three things can all do something if you are willing to wait until you have already been hit or throw the baby out with the bath water. Correct me if I'm wrong, Checkout, but Checkout and my question involves not just preventing scripts period, but identifying malicious scripts immediately. All of the things you mentioned Pete takes an all or nothing approach, or can only take action after the registry has been revised. My question, and I think that of Checkout, is if there is something that can in real time quickly and as fast as possible upon connection to a scumsite, shut down the net connection with a warning, thereby allowing the ability to surf without shutting off scripts completely and still be warned before infection.

John

 

What Luv2bsecure said, doubled and with cherries on top.  Scripting isn't going to go away, but JavaScript, ActiveX et al are mere 4GLs.  Good parsing will sort the Good from the Bad and the Ugly.  

 

I must be missing something here, then.

RegProt (among others on here), does not let registry changes take place without your say-so first.

The same goes for Scriptrap (and definitely WormGuard, again, among others).

There is no 'baby-with-the-bathwater', 'all-or-nothing', 'after-the-fact' about it, that I can see.

I use all this stuff every day, it's protected me from anything malicious, and it hasn't cramped my surfing style at all.

I'm not getting it, I guess. Links to this kind of stuff, please? Pete

 

Re:  Browser Helper Objects list.

Oh, for Pity's sake, I typed S H I T and this forum's s/w translated it into "nuts"!  How pathetic!  Should I have said sh1t or cr*p?  Paul, for Pity's sake, let us be treated as adults!

Yes, you're missing something here, Pete.  What Love2bsecure and I (and, potentially, godzillions of other unwitting vicims) want, is something which stands between us and Scripting languages.  There's no point saying:  "turn off javascript" or "ActiveX" when it's increasing obvious that M$ is becoming more adept at imposing its Worldview than a certain German/Austrian housepainter (meaning nothing disparaging here, apart from the fact that Hitler was a ****).

Yes, I said it:  Hitler was a ****.  Controversial, I know.  Just saying "Hitler" is enough to make some people's blood boil.  Let's face it, he wasn't a nice bloke.**

(** In no way do I endorse his products or services.  But let's get over it, on account of he's DEAD.)

But the main point is, a system which will parse Scripts and differentiate good scripts from naughty scripts would be highly desirable.

 

one word: "heuristics"

this feild is being developed further everyday, but still has a long way to go. Detection can get incredibly complex, considering encryption of scripts ect.

PS: sorry Jan, yes it was you that recommended mailwatcher to me. And yes I had a hard time finding it. CA's site search could not locate it but google could. It was still there, but even if it wasn't, google caches pages.

 

Checkout,

You could have made your point well enough without making any reference to that certain person.
May I kindly (but urgently) ask you to refrain from that further.

 

Goodness.

Why is it, again, that questions can be asked nicely and information presented in a friendly way when Spy1, who I have tried to be friendly with, has to come along and stir things up. He seems to do this slyly by making it seem like he has all the answers and if you don't see it his way something is really wrong and the rest of us are fools. For example,

It makes it looks like, how dare a question be posed that, to him, already looks answered. In the next post,

See? We're all fools in the eyes of Pete. Can't we see? He says, basically, "PROVE IT! Show me a site where my 37 pieces of software won't protect me."

Sarcasm in, brings sarcasm out, Pete. Maybe one day you will learn that. Your post obviously ticked Checkout off as well as me, simply because of your "know it all" and "you are such fools" tone. What's up with that?

Then, Checkout gets a reprimand for mentioning in an offhand manner one of the great monsters of our times. Why should he not mention his name? Why make a nice but urgent request to not use his name? The man was a historical figure, he is now a generic symbol for evil. I was surprised at the post to him asking to self-censor future posts. Should there be a "historical figures that may be mentioned while posting" and a "historical fugures who may not be mentioned while posting here" list?

Don't blame Checkout (and don't blame me for this post). As far as I can see, blame Pete for, again, and I have seen it happen on several occasions, puffing out his chest and instead of being friendly and conversational has to be a ---------- well, maybe I should just say be jerky about things.

Posting a bunch of stuff jumping to Pete's defense will do no good for this forum. He has a problem with dealing with people in a friendly way and to defend him is just letting him know he can continue his know it all and "how dare you question me" attitude.

I thought Checkout and my question was a good one. Pete DID miss the point and yet turned it around to make US look like fools. That should be stopped. He's a moderator for Christ's (another historical figure) sake!

John

 

John and Checkout,

First, you both are absolutely no fools.
You both are more than welcome here, and your postings are very appreciated!

Now to that other matter.
First: I didn't want to hurt Checkout.
Maybe I shouldn't have posted what I did, maybe I was wrong. I believed the part of the posting by Checkout didn't serve any purpose; without it, it was clear enough what he posted. But as said, maybe I did wrong by posting what I did.
And yes, (and now the right English words fail me a bit, sorry) I might have sometimes too strong feelings about this. This might not be the right place to go deeper on that, but, eh, there are historical-family reasons for, eh, certain emotions.

 

Hi Jan,

I guessed that when I read your post. I'm very sorry if that it is an emotional thing for you to hear the name. I can imagine that chapter of history being painful, especially to those whose lineage was directly affected. At the same time, his name was not raised in any way but to associate with evil. That's why I said that and stood up for Checkout's right to say the name without being "called on the carpet." You don't have to apologize, certainly NOT. I am sure Checkout himself wouldn't expect that considering. Your saying you were probably wrong I'm sure is enough, no biggie.

Now Pete and his attitude? That's a different story.

John

 

Thanks John !

I didn't want to hurt you or Checkout, sorry!


I'm sure the other thing with Pete will be solved.

Jan.

 

Jan, I'm not hurt at all.  But we all need to lay this ghost to rest.  Mentioning a "certain person's" name is very common when using hyperbole.  Furthermore, I'm not insensitive to the many contributors here who are German.  Far from it, I've lived and worked in Germany, and experienced first-hand just how candid they can be about a "certain person" and the circumstances surrounding him.  And don't forget that my culture also bore the stains of that period.  Heinous and shameful acts were committed by our forefathers too.

Please, let us not go knee-jerking whenever his name is mentioned.  It's a subtle and pervasive form of censorship, and helps foster an atmosphere counter to open and free speech.

Finally, allow me this:  I love Germany and its people.  I had wonderful years there, and I consider the English and the Germans far closer - culturally and mentally - than the English and Americans.

That's all.  I certainly had no intention of bruising anyone here, even if unintentionally.  It's about time we all got over this fifty-year-old inherited sensitivity.

 

While I'm still in the saddle, I wish to mention that I have absolutely no problems with Pete.  Far from it.

 

Thanks Paul,
These words goes exactly the same for me.

 

That new version is now out.
http://www.definitivesolutions.com/bhodemon.htm
http://www.definitivesolutions.com/files/bhodmon1.zip
http://www.spywareinfoforum.com/downloads/bhodmn.zip