Firefox and !#%&!! Attack site Warnings

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by dw426, Jan 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Ok, I've just about had it with Firefox over the last couple of weeks. Their attack site warnings are getting out of control. I know that legit sites can sometimes be compromised, but there are WAY too many FPs lately with this thing. And what's even worse, I can't seem for the life of me to bypass the damn block. "Ignore warning" does jack, I click it, sign in to my forums, and get kicked right back out with an "attack warning" and find myself signed out and completely blocked again.

    This is starting to piss me off big time. Warn me, fine, but when I click ignore warning, leave me the hell alone and let me continue! *starts eyeing Opera, regardless of lack of extensions*
     
  2. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Nevermind, I turned the useless thing off in preferences.
     
  3. HURST

    HURST Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,419
    I did that the first day... I don't need a browser telling what site I can visit and which I can't...
     
  4. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    After my initial hair-pulling rage, I can understand why it's there. However, I hold the belief that the method of pulling bad sites off of a database (especially Googles, I think that database gets re-checked maybe every 2 weeks?) is ineffective. It's like having a huge Host file in your browser, and we all know by now Host files are useless themselves these days. In any event, that sucker is turned off and won't be coming back on.
     
  5. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    First thing i did too. Disk activity was too much for me.
     
  6. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,698
    Pedro, I did not notice any untoward disk activity ... Can you elaborate?
    Mrk
     
  7. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    Regardless of what browser is used (they all seem to have this "feature"), it seems to be a potential privacy breech to have virtually every URL you visit sent somewhere on the internet so that it can be determined to be naughty or nice.
     
  8. Pedro

    Pedro Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,502
    Perhaps it was the first versions only, but i remember Iceweasel/Firefox 3 doing that upon what i think was updating the database. I don't know why i have such aversion to disk activity, but i do :p
     
  9. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543

    Not so much a privacy breach as a pain in the behind. You want to help users be more secure, awesome, but don't try to do it using some scanning computer that builds a database that's outdated 2 hours after the results come back.
     
  10. tlu

    tlu Guest

    This is certainly not the case - you should read http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/phishing-protection/ before spreading such allegations.

    In addition it's easy to block Google cookies with one of the numerous cookie managers available.
     
  11. AKAJohnDoe

    AKAJohnDoe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Posts:
    989
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    I stand corrected for Firefox's implementation.
     
  12. FiOS Dan

    FiOS Dan Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Posts:
    86
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, CA
    May I ask why you feel that Hosts files are useless?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.