So far so firefox !

Thanks. I've printed it out what dog said...am not sure I'm competent to implement it.

 

i'm not at home at the moment, but while i remember, here's another eye-canyish extension Download Manager Tweak and i like Advanced Search Button it will search the page for a word/s you want to find and high light it. it is similar to a hot key combo. i used to use which would bring up a little toolbar which you could type a word in to and it will then high light. something like Windows Logo+F.
i also like DictionarySearch
here's another one. Select text and it's automaticaly copied to the clipboard. Like Trillian or mIrc -
https://addons.update.mozilla.org/e...ication=firefox&version=1.0&os=Windows&id=383

 

Hi Jayzzz,

In regards to the rendering problem, throttling down ~a little~ the FireFox Network Speed Tweaks, should correct the problem.

See this thread -> https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=64325 (Post #6)

HTH,

Steve

 

I tried the tweaks on mozilla 1.7.5 and it works better on it than firefox

bigc

 

Hi, Steve, and thanks for posting. I "throttled down" all the way to the defaults late this afternoon, except for leaving "network.dns.disableIPv6", true (I listened to my uneducated "inner voice" on that one...tell me if the voice lied, please?).

Somewhere along the way, after I got Spellbound to work (between your post and Ron's advice), I lost the ability to post attachments here. The option disappeared. I ran scan disk at ronjor's suggestion, and then ran "sfc /scannow", because I figured it couldn't hurt. I'm back to having the option of adding attachments again and everything here at Wilders looks normal.

[[I think I'm down to only one unaddressed post, which is related to IE/SPYAD and not critical, so I'm doing great! ]]

I appreciate your advice!
Joyce

 

So maybe for my purposes, and in my situation, it's not worth doing. Certainly didn't notice improvement like I noticed the glitch! Thanks, bigc!

 

Spanner,

I have spoofstick installed and the exploit also fools spoofstick.

 

Spanner,

The exploit is only for Mozilla / Firefox / Camino / Opera / Netscape 7x ... so why would you even mention IE, doing so does nothing but mislead others. What is the point of that? Are you trying to say IE is more secure because it's not vulnerable to this particular exploit? ... come on buddy, seriously; get real ... Don't provide misinformation, trying to confuse other members.

Steve

{Edit} Ps. Sorry for my rough tone, but things like this really piss me off! If this was an honest mistake, I do apologize.

 

Are there any extensions that work like WindowWasher?
When I close IE, WW automatically cleans up. That would be a nice feature for FF."

CCleaner can do this, but it's not an extension.
http://www.ccleaner.com/

dog,

"The exploit is only for Mozilla / Firefox / Camino / Opera / Netscape 7x ... so why would you even mention IE, doing so does nothing but mislead others."
"Sorry for my rough tone, but things like this really piss me off!"

This thread was STARTED BY SPANNER. Don't get "pissed off" or "offended" if someone points to a flaw in Firefox that is NOT in IE. This is not a place to get "pissed off", it's a place to share knowledge and ideas. Spanner was told over and over that IE cannot be made secure yet shows an area where it is MORE secure than other browsers.

Firefox is just a browser, not a religion.
P.S. I am using Firefox right now.

 

Ailric,

My being upset with Spanner has nothing to do with either IE or FireFox, it upsets me because he presents it as misinformation, which could confuse other members. The exploit doesn't involve IE at all, so of course it's immune to it. With that said, Then what's the point of Spanners statement, other than to misinform/confuse others. All browser/programs have weakness/exploits and they are patch according, this isn't in anyway intended as a Browser A vs Browser B type bashing. Furthermore, it's clear he didn't try the test with SpoofStick before suggesting it to members that it would prevent this exploit. It's great to give untested/uninformed advice isn't it. Sorry if that wasn't made clear.


Steve

Edit: Ps. Spanner I just read your post above ... I guess you still don't get it ... Please don't advise anyone anywhere, before you're sure you know what/why it is you're talking about. It's a disservice to everyone.

 

Folks....I'll ask you to Please stick to the thread topic and keep your personal differences\comments\attacks to yourselves.

Also....perhaps this is one of those times where interpretation of another members words are being misconstrued

Food for thought---> Have you ever noticed how easy it is to offend someone else online?

"I'm just a soul who's intentions are good. Oh Lord, Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"

 

Ailric is right if theres a security problem with firefox its good too know it,im sure happy to here about it and why wont everybody with firefox too?And bubba is right to why has dog not understood what spanner said?I understood it as it was said by spanner and i did that test at secunias on ie too as well as on firefox before i read about it on here.Spanner didnt say spoofsticks cures the bug he said it can help to prevent it.If i can understand that plain and simple why cant dog?If you go to mozilla and do a litle homework yourself on spoofsticks you will read what it says its suposed to do.It says it gives you a toolbar so you can see if the adress is the same as were you want to go or not.If it doesnt work proper thats not spanners fault is it and i havnt seen anybody else try give any help on this even you dog so dont atack some one just becose they do care about peoples and do give some info which was writen very clear to me.You were very rude to spanner and peoples dont like that.I will be reading more of this threads i like some of the things said by some of the peoples.

 

As I understand spoofing, I should be protected to the extent possible by my own habit of watching the address window [field?] as I move around.

Am I anywhere near correct?

 

Thank you!

So a malicious set-up would actually send you elsewhere while displaying the same thing in the window, though in this case, the top URL sent me nowhere. Firefox tells me to check the name and try again.

I think I may have mixed up spoofing and phishing, or understood it to be some combination of the two that may not exist.

Would you say everyone should have the added protection being discussed or that it's important primarily for those who go to sites with games, porn, music downloads, chat rooms, etc.?

Is it off-topic if I ask whether Firefox is known to need any other extras beyond the basic installation to be secure?

 

Hi jayzzz,

No, this thread seems to be covering several Firefox issues, so ask away...
I would go for the added protection, no matter what surfing habits I used.

Dan

 

Hey Spanner,

Thanks for the info on the ad-block filter. Easy fix and seems to work.
When I click on the test link at Securia nothing happens.

Dan

 

This thread gets more interesting every day.
I know there are the Mozilla forums for FF, occassionally the responses I get there are a little off putting. Often I get the feeling that dopey Winlusers and ex IE converts are tolerated rather than encouraged.

What about a FF forum here?

LWW and MrP: do I have to include the forward slashes in the adblock workaround of the spoofing problem.?
I get a message in the FF window asking "do you really know what youare doing"

Answer: sometimes a bit!!


I have also read that these bugs have been addressed. True?
I tested my version Of FF on the Secunia page and got the spoofed redirect.

I have been following some of these issues here: http://www.mikx.de/ and at Secinia as best as I am able, and as I read, some of these issues have been adressed on the bugzilla pages. If so do we need to dl new "nightly" versions of Ff, accept updates as they come or just wait for FF1.0+

Soory if this post is a bit confused. Have been working v.hard lately and thought processes might need defrag !
Not counting effect of being somewhat out of depth. Heh.
Not drowning yet, still just waving

 

Typo... should be "C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" /Prefetch:1

Mike

 

Hmmm...

In FF, Right-Click Properties on either link looks OK.

But, in IE6 (XP/SP2), the first/fake link shows the problem!

Mike

 

Also in IE (XP/SP2) I get an Error if I click on the fake link.

(Sorry for 2nd post, I think I'm only allowed one image per post?)

Mike

Edit... sorry for the HUGH image.

 

Longboard,

I just copy/pasted the filter /[^\x20-\xFF]/ as is and it works for me.

If I click on the fake link with FF nothing happens.

Dan

 

Thank you, Dan. I just downloaded it and will shut down. Will likely reboot for good measure.

Do my HOSTS file, IE/SPYAD, Enough is Enough, SWBlaster, etc., do anything, at all, in FF? Of course, I'll keep them current in any case because sometimes IE is needed...

 

It seems to work for me, too. I copied and pasted as instructed, even though it suggested not to w/o knowing for sure what it was. I figure I had it on good enough advice not to need to know more.