Is RealTime Antispyware Protection needed with FireFox?

I have not tested it my self yet, but doesnt IE7 have something called "safe mode" where everything dangerous is disabled so it will act like FF with noscript? Like javascripts, user rights set to low and so on?

 

I read about this IE7 "safe mode" before IE7 was released. But I still cannot figure out how to invoke it.

 

What about using Arovax Shield for Cookies, or Cyberhawk for Unknown Threats along with NoScript?

 

can't you just disable java?

 

accessories and in one of subfolders there it is internet explorer safe mode for IE7.
lodore

 

I'm using AVG ISS, but as AVG Anti-Malware by custom uninstalling Firewall. Instead I have ZA Free Firewall because it is more informative. My question now is, do I even need the Anti-Spyware Component installed if I'm using Firefox with NoScript? It seems to take up a lot of memory, and from what I understand never catches anything in RealTime. The actual AVG Anti-Spyware program by itself is fuller and more featured, and does at least find things during a scan. It just seems to make more sense to use ZA Free and AVG as the Pro version of the Antivirus, and maybe Arovax Shield or Cyberhawk for added peace of mind. Both softwares use much less memory, and may be a better choice to use with Firefox.

 

Just a side note. Since SuperAntiSpyware like AVG Antispyware never seems to find anything during a scan, is what leads me to believe you don't need RealTime AS with Firefox.

 

Yeah, but I still like the idea of a Behavior Blocker like Cyberhawk. The thing is though, I wonder if CH would even be needed with Firefox and Noscript?

 

I run a similar setup to you where i only use the av+as part of avg iss. It does use more memory but there no noticeable slowdown. If you have sufficient memory then i would keep the as component, just in case something gets thru.

 

Yeah I don't notice any slowdowns either farmerlee. It's just I thought using Cyberhawk instead of the AVG Antispyware Component, would not only reduce memory usage, (CH was around 10MB on average with it's two processes running, where AVG is up to 36MB) but also be a better and more realistic form of protection with FF.

 

Gotta ask this again since I just received some info in the Other Antivirus forum here in Wilders from the thread about if AOL AVS is better than AVG Ant-Malware. It seems someone there claims you cannot get infected by using Firefox. I'm starting to believe them, but I would rather have an excuse to hold onto my Security Software. So if anyone can read what was claimed in that post and report either there or here why any of us do need RealTime Protection with Firefox, it would save me a couple of uninstalls. Then again if it can't be proven that we need RealTime protection with Firefox, it would probably help me with my Wilders Security Forum obsession.

 

Hello,

duke, you should use your real-time AS or whatever because you love security and it's fun for you. You should NOT use your real-time AS or whatever because you live in fear from some unknown danger.

Attitude 1: fun and joy - and a chance to learn new things.
Attitude 2: fear will paralyze you, rendering your wit useless.

Do not ditch product A or B because it is 'unnecessary.' Ditch it because you feel you do not want to use it, for whatever reason, not because market pressure or such compels you into doing it. Because if that's the angle, you can sleep warmly at night.

Knowledge is the key here. You need to understand how things work. Once you do that, you will not need to ask the question you did. You will know the answer for yourself, based on things you have learned AND the experience you accumulated.

Mrk

 

Mskvonic. The reason I use different security programs is not because I live in fear of some infection, but for the fun. It is the fun however that is occupying way too much of my time. This will stop now though, simply because if I have learned anything I have the power to make it so. I thank you for your part in this however, as you have helped me understand even more that the obsession was taking some of the fun away. Take care and thanks again.

 

Version 2.0 of Spyware Terminator will have a shield for Firefox. I'd excited to see how this will turn out.

 

I have been anti-spyware free for over a year. Firefox w/ NoScript has been bullet-proof for me and I've tested it at both test and real-world sites. Even the Firefox exploits that have been touted as dangerous are stopped as long as javascript can't run. The only point of real-time anti-spyware is to stop exploits from coming in through your browser. NoScript does a better job of that over anti-spywares any day.

It also lets you only turn on javascript from only the web site your at, so you can filter out the crappy javascript ads being promoted from 3rd-party sites.

 

I love noscript.

 

Just wondering if it's possible to run PrevX1 and Cyberhawk together or would there be conflict?

What do people think?

 

I love NoScript, too, and use it, but there are several sites where I allow javascript... sites I trust and use often... but I wonder if this doesn't open a door. You never know. So I keep AVG AS active just in case. Never had a hit yet, though. Weekly scans (using a variety of products) are always clean.

Dan

 

I'm not too clear about the following and I'd like someone to inform me.

In the interests of security, is it better to disable Java and JavaScript or if I'm running NoScript (which I am) does this filter out the potential ill effects of hostile sites which misuse Java and JavaScript to install malware on my computer?

 

Hello,

Even if you use java / javaScript, you should not be exposed to any potential exploits while using FF. I know there is not a single documented case of a drive-by that works in FF. None. Prove me wrong please.

The rendering of the java code is done via java runtime engine installed on the computer. This software is what you should keep up to date. Sun Java is configured to run its processes with reduced privileges, a sort of internal sandboxing.

Javascript is rendered directly inside the browser. FF is immune to javascript thingies. A few PoC thingies show up once in a while, a few people get a nice subject for their MSc or PhD dissertation, but nothing more than that.

Yet, if you wanna feel secure, you could use the Noscript to whitelist trusted sites. More than security, you will find that lots of sites will load faster without bloated script junk, but some others will not function correctly because most people are not talented enough to write good html + css and use server side scripting to do decent work of their websites.

Mrk

 

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html

 

The person who runs this site has been proven years ago to be a scumbag. He used to run around all over various forums using different names hijacking/trolling threads making disparaging remarks about Firefox. He eventually was tracked and banned from most of them.

The funny thing is, some of the "myths" he lists have never been claimed by supporters of Firefox and and the rest of his arguments are irrelevant or have been easily disproved.

His sole purpose for the site is to get advertising money from hits on it. He has an agenda that involves bashing Firefox. If you actually look through the list, you can tell what a bunch of Barbara Streisand (B.S.) it is.

Some of his myths are "Firefox uses less memory than IE" and "Firefox loads faster than IE". Never has any developer or intelligent supporter of Firefox made these claims, yet this knucklehead lists them as if they are the gospel truth believed by Firefox users. (What a dillweed!)

 

FF with Noscript is indeed a fine protection but to make it near on invincible I run them through Sandboxie with no slowdowns or issues.

And then I am usually in PowerShadow mode so I don't feel there is a need for any realtime blacklists here.

I do an infrequent online scan every now and then with Kav or similar which never find anything to worry about.

That FF myths site, is it run by Mastertech?

 

Hello,

Welcome sky_dynasty, Mastertech et al.

Pointing to your site is NOT a proof of what I asked for.

Proof would be:

Here's a piece of code. Copy paste it to your notepad. Save as html.
Open this file with FF. You get pwned. QED.

No. There's no such proof, because no one can provide one. Except that Secunia lists oh-so many MSc subjects for your enthusiastic software engineers.

While you are at it, you should read about the new vulnerability in mouse cursor that affects IE but NOT FF. Oh, how insecure the FF is.... oh oh... wait! It's the MS cookie that got buggered once again...

Mrk