Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exporer vs mozilla firefox

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Exporer vs mozilla firefox

    I just switched to int explorer. My system now is not really mnice from a operating point of view. It seems to suck so much bulk mail compared to explorer?? Have you gentlemen found the same??

  • #2
    I'm not sure what you're saying. The browser you choose makes no difference in the amount of bulk mail (SPAM) you receive.
    Russ
    Master Floor Sweeper

    Comment


    • #3
      I was having a lot of problems with windows Internet Explorer and loaded firefox. that fixed IE and firefox works great. I have both of them and use them.
      It's only ink and paper

      Comment


      • #4
        I have used mozilla since it came out and have been very happy with it.It is really great since it got a working spell checker
        rarely if ever use IE anymore
        Glen
        Been there, probably broke it, doing that!
        I am not a lawyer, and never played one on TV!
        All the usual and standard disclaimers apply. Do not try this at home, use only as directed, No warranties express or implied, for the intended use or the suggested uses, Wear safety glasses, closed course, professionals only

        Comment


        • #5
          IESpell works well in IE, and integrates into most forum software pages.
          Russ
          Master Floor Sweeper

          Comment


          • #6
            I avoid MSFT products at every opportunity. FireFox from Mozilla (nee Netscape) or Safari from Apple for browsing, and Thunderbird for email are excellent tools. I do email systems as part of my job so know the value of Thunderbird quite well. I couldn't even do my job if had to use Outlook and Exchange.

            Comment


            • #7
              I find IE sludge software on the rare occasion I find some dumb ass web page that only operates under IE.
              Firefox and Thunderbird for me.
              BTW to whoever says your browser has no bearing on spam is wrong. It is the internal security provisions and handling of cookies that has a bearing on it.
              Mickeysoft software is a major target for the hackers and hence why you get less spam and security issues with M$ products.
              Cheers

              Craig
              Brisbane Australia

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by hdj80
                I find IE sludge software on the rare occasion I find some dumb ass web page that only operates under IE.
                Firefox and Thunderbird for me.
                BTW to whoever says your browser has no bearing on spam is wrong. It is the internal security provisions and handling of cookies that has a bearing on it.
                Mickeysoft software is a major target for the hackers and hence why you get less spam and security issues with M$ products.
                How do you figure cookies have a bearing on your email spam? Cookies can be "hacked" to find out that your cruising fishing sites and pop up an add for the latest crap gizmo, but explain to me how they add to spam? Even that, generally, requires that you already have a spyware "infection". The only way I can see that cookies could contribute to spam is if said spyware infection reads/hacks the cookies and sends that info to a spam monger. But that isn't just IE, the other browsers use cookies too, and are exploited the same way. It's a web site feature, not an IE exclusive feature. The fact that many spyware implementations are hard coded to look only for IE's cache isn't an IE problem, it's just economics. When they can get well over 90+% success rate just coding to exploit one browser, why bother with the others? Like the "no viruses on Macs" and similar empty arguments, it's really no harder to target their cookies, just not worth the effort for the bad guys. Hmmm, I can spend Nx100 hours to target Windows/IE and get 90+%, or I can spend the SAME effort and get less than 5%, let me think, which should I do???

                Or the IE "security provisions". What security provisions in IE have anything to do with SPAM? There is the zone based security, with nothing to do with SPAM. There is the popup blocker, which while not the best, works well enough for my needs, and has nothing to do with spam. There is the anti-spoofing stuff, again, nothing to do with spam.

                So how exactly does IE contribute to spam?

                And your last sentence makes no sense at all in the context of your position. Assuming you actually meant "without", how so?

                I use the net very heavily in my daily job as well as (obviously) for my hobby interests. I use IE and Windows and I have a cable connection that is on 24/7. And I've not had so much as a single AntiVirus or AntiSpyware product running in almost 2 years. Not one single infection, not one single problem. So tell me again how it's MS? The problem is users who insist on being oblivious to security. THAT is why MS ships Windows with settings so that everything "just works out of the box" rather than requiring the user to actually deal with security.

                Security and ease of use are ALWAYS directly opposed. With only a few simple configuration changes, my Windows OS is all but invulnerable to "infection". The only spam I get is due to sorry SOBs hacking web sites, or more often simply BUYING my address from sorry SOB companies who consider selling my info "free money". And even at that, I really get VERY little compared to what the polls indicate is the average. So, just like the Windows OS "vulnerability problem", I have to assume that the excessive spam contributing to that high average is largely due to user error. Things like posting it in clear text on some BBS, "registering" for every "free" service on the web, and so on.

                So, tell me again how vulnerable MS software is and how IE contributes to spam?
                Russ
                Master Floor Sweeper

                Comment


                • #9
                  what a coinsidence, i just put firefox on the computer at work today to fix ongoing ie problems that keep getting worse.

                  love it so far. i still had the old ie on that work comp cuz the new one w/ tabs TOTALY SUCKS. i HATE tabs!!!!(yes, i know they can be turned off, they are now on my home comp im using now) but, somehow, firefox has made tabbed browsing completley tolerable, possibly even preferable,but the jury's out on that one yet.

                  as far as spam goes, i had to jump through hoops just to get my e-mail to OPEN on that comp before, now it works perfectly.

                  firefox even looks out for me. when another program crashed and i has to restart, firefox asked me if i wanted to resume from where i was. ie always had me going through istory for 5 min to try and find the page i was on.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    +1 for Firefox. I might actually look at IE again when they get an AdBlock equivalent... oh wait, a corporate monster like MS actually building a browser add-on that BLOCKS annoying advertising for the end-user. 'aint gonna happen. Oh well, Firefox it is.

                    And, if you think Firefox is good, you should try Ubuntu. You might as well go all the way and just ditch the whole MS thing entirely. Every day, there are less and less "have to use Windows" tasks out there. Most people really don't need Windows anymore. There are real, decent, free alternatives.

                    David...
                    http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I just switched from IE6 to Firefox and I love Firefox!

                      Firefox is so easy to load onto a PC because the setup is just an executable program. IE6 had to be downloaded to each PC individually and I had a lot of problems with IE6 that went away when I switched to Firefox!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BadDog
                        How do you figure cookies have a bearing on your email spam? Cookies can be "hacked" to find out that your cruising fishing sites and pop up an add for the latest crap gizmo, but explain to me how they add to spam? Even that, generally, requires that you already have a spyware "infection". The only way I can see that cookies could contribute to spam is if said spyware infection reads/hacks the cookies and sends that info to a spam monger. But that isn't just IE, the other browsers use cookies too, and are exploited the same way. It's a web site feature, not an IE exclusive feature. The fact that many spyware implementations are hard coded to look only for IE's cache isn't an IE problem, it's just economics. When they can get well over 90+% success rate just coding to exploit one browser, why bother with the others? Like the "no viruses on Macs" and similar empty arguments, it's really no harder to target their cookies, just not worth the effort for the bad guys. Hmmm, I can spend Nx100 hours to target Windows/IE and get 90+%, or I can spend the SAME effort and get less than 5%, let me think, which should I do???

                        Or the IE "security provisions". What security provisions in IE have anything to do with SPAM? There is the zone based security, with nothing to do with SPAM. There is the popup blocker, which while not the best, works well enough for my needs, and has nothing to do with spam. There is the anti-spoofing stuff, again, nothing to do with spam.

                        So how exactly does IE contribute to spam?

                        And your last sentence makes no sense at all in the context of your position. Assuming you actually meant "without", how so?

                        I use the net very heavily in my daily job as well as (obviously) for my hobby interests. I use IE and Windows and I have a cable connection that is on 24/7. And I've not had so much as a single AntiVirus or AntiSpyware product running in almost 2 years. Not one single infection, not one single problem. So tell me again how it's MS? The problem is users who insist on being oblivious to security. THAT is why MS ships Windows with settings so that everything "just works out of the box" rather than requiring the user to actually deal with security.

                        Security and ease of use are ALWAYS directly opposed. With only a few simple configuration changes, my Windows OS is all but invulnerable to "infection". The only spam I get is due to sorry SOBs hacking web sites, or more often simply BUYING my address from sorry SOB companies who consider selling my info "free money". And even at that, I really get VERY little compared to what the polls indicate is the average. So, just like the Windows OS "vulnerability problem", I have to assume that the excessive spam contributing to that high average is largely due to user error. Things like posting it in clear text on some BBS, "registering" for every "free" service on the web, and so on.

                        So, tell me again how vulnerable MS software is and how IE contributes to spam?
                        You better get on to M$ and give them some lessons, they have wasted billions in security updates to IE and the various iterations of Windows apparently.
                        Cookies can contain lots of machine specifics like your email address that is how it contributes to SPAM.
                        You are indeed a lucky person to have avoided any malicious attacks given your apparent lack of protection...no firewall either??? Seems like russian roultee to me
                        Cheers

                        Craig
                        Brisbane Australia

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by deth502
                          what a coinsidence, i just put firefox on the computer at work today to fix ongoing ie problems that keep getting worse.

                          love it so far. i still had the old ie on that work comp cuz the new one w/ tabs TOTALY SUCKS. i HATE tabs!!!!(yes, i know they can be turned off, they are now on my home comp im using now) but, somehow, firefox has made tabbed browsing completley tolerable, possibly even preferable,but the jury's out on that one yet.

                          as far as spam goes, i had to jump through hoops just to get my e-mail to OPEN on that comp before, now it works perfectly.

                          firefox even looks out for me. when another program crashed and i has to restart, firefox asked me if i wanted to resume from where i was. ie always had me going through istory for 5 min to try and find the page i was on.
                          Download this add on, it lets you really customize the tabbed browsing to your liking https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1122







                          Originally posted by fixerdave
                          And, if you think Firefox is good, you should try Ubuntu. You might as well go all the way and just ditch the whole MS thing entirely. Every day, there are less and less "have to use Windows" tasks out there. Most people really don't need Windows anymore. There are real, decent, free alternatives.

                          David...
                          http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/20...for-masse.html

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by hdj80
                            You better get on to M$ and give them some lessons, they have wasted billions in security updates to IE and the various iterations of Windows apparently.
                            Cookies can contain lots of machine specifics like your email address that is how it contributes to SPAM.
                            You are indeed a lucky person to have avoided any malicious attacks given your apparent lack of protection...no firewall either??? Seems like russian roultee to me
                            Yes, the cookies often do contain sensitive info. But, in general, the only way to harvest them is to infect the computer. Once infected, your already screwed. And this applies to Firefox and IE *equally*. The *only* reason Firefox is safer in this respect (it uses the same cookies) is that IE is SO much more common that many exploits are hard coded to ONLY work with IE due to lazy/inept (actually, unmotivated; see previous post) hackers.

                            No need to give lessons. The majority (though not all) of security patches for IE have to do with running in the "default" configuration. That is, logged on as "admin", and having the whole internet running with "it just works" permissions. The short version (easy to explain) of what I've done is I *never* run IE with "admin" privileges, and I raised the default internet security level to a customized "high" with "Trusted Sites" set to customized "medium high". Then I add sites that I frequent, like this one, to "trusted". Net result is that even if I visit a "bad" site, it is unlikely to be able to do anything nasty since the VAST majority rely on scripting. Even if it is one of the exceedingly rare that exploit something like the (patched) image (codec) vulnerability, IE is not running as admin, so doesn't have the rights to change the system to any appreciable degree. There are still exploits that can succeed (priv elevation required first), but that is an infinitesimally small portion of the attacks out there, most of which are actually pretty pathetic and rely on ignorant (sometimes down right stupid) consumer mistakes.

                            And I do Security Consulting work, including with MS. Unfortunately, the "fixes" that would really work are never integrated because they impact usability and the typical consumer base would complain FAR more loudly about that than they do the security issues. Hence, the problem that is perceived to exist.

                            And BTW, I do run a router fire wall. But I stopped running AV crap nearly 2 years ago. Partly because most of it often seems WORSE than the infections (re Symantec, McAffee, etc.), making even fast systems slow and using terrorist tactics to force you to pay for updates and make continuing to use what you ALREADY PAID FOR impossible with the constant "your subscription has expired and your defs are out of date, so YOUR GONNA DIE IF YOU DON'T GIVE US MORE MONEY!!!" nag screens. On a bet (details elsewhere, search if you care) with a colleague (about whether Windows/IE was actually secure), I decided to apply what I *know*, and go AV free as a test. The test was a complete success and even when he goaded me into actually TRYING to get infected (visiting known bad sites, doing everything a user could do "wrong"), my system remained clean. So know, I'm not playing Russian Rullete...
                            Last edited by BadDog; 09-14-2007, 01:30 PM.
                            Russ
                            Master Floor Sweeper

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BadDog
                              Yes, the cookies often do contain sensitive info. But, in general, the only way to harvest them is to infect the computer. Once infected, your already screwed. And this applies to Firefox and IE *equally*. The *only* reason Firefox is safer in this respect (it uses the same cookies) is that IE is SO much more common that many exploits are hard coded to ONLY work with IE due to lazy/inept (actually, unmotivated; see previous post) hackers.

                              No need to give lessons. The majority (though not all) of security patches for IE have to do with running in the "default" configuration. That is, logged on as "admin", and having the whole internet running with "it just works" permissions. The short version (easy to explain) of what I've done is I *never* run IE with "admin" privileges, and I raised the default internet security level to a customized "high" with "Trusted Sites" set to customized "medium high". Then I add sites that I frequent, like this one, to "trusted". Net result is that even if I visit a "bad" site, it is unlikely to be able to do anything nasty since the VAST majority rely on scripting. Even if it is one of the exceedingly rare that exploit something like the (patched) image (codec) vulnerability, IE is not running as admin, so doesn't have the rights to change the system to any appreciable degree. There are still exploits that can succeed (priv elevation required first), but that is an infinitesimally small portion of the attacks out there, most of which are actually pretty pathetic and rely on ignorant (sometimes down right stupid) consumer mistakes.

                              And I do Security Consulting work, including with MS. Unfortunately, the "fixes" that would really work are never integrated because they impact usability and the typical consumer base would complain FAR more loudly about that than they do the security issues. Hence, the problem that is perceived to exist.

                              And BTW, I do run a router fire wall. But I stopped running AV crap nearly 2 years ago. Partly because most of it often seems WORSE than the infections (re Symantec, McAffee, etc.), making even fast systems slow and using terrorist tactics to force you to pay for updates and make continuing to use what you ALREADY PAID FOR impossible with the constant "your subscription has expired and your defs are out of date, so YOUR GONNA DIE IF YOU DON'T GIVE US MORE MONEY!!!" nag screens. On a bet (details elsewhere, search if you care) with a colleague (about whether Windows/IE was actually secure), I decided to apply what I *know*, and go AV free as a test. The test was a complete success and even when he goaded me into actually TRYING to get infected (visiting known bad sites, doing everything a user could do "wrong"), my system remained clean. So know, I'm not playing Russian Rullete...
                              You're arguing with a "fanboy" and just wasting your time with all those words above.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X