Jump to content

My browser kicks your browser's fanny.. :)

ShyWriter

By ShyWriter
in General Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

DarkSnakeKobra

DarkSnakeKobra

Posted
Posted
Opera 10.63 and Opera 10.70 (which will never make it out of weekly builds, due to the shift to Opera 11 and extensions). There's only one other browser that doesn't have extensions (and doesn't use Gecko, but that's probably not a prerequisite for the rest of you). It's called Arora, and it's not very actively developed (not many features), so I don't use it.

I've tried Arora which isn't very good. How about Safari? Is that good?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShyWriter

ShyWriter

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Whenever an extension installs in IE it always turns them on. Granted Opera's implementation is probably more secure, but what's to stop it from being abused? Mozilla hasn't been able to do it, and they've been doing extensions for more than 8 years.

I know that a lot of security experts like Firefox, and use extensions, but I consider the mere presence of the feature to be a huge security vulnerability.

I used Lynx, in the old, old days, then went to Netscape when it was the king-of-the-hill until IE4 or 5 came out and Netscape irritated me for some forgotten reason. I went back to Mozilla when Firefox 2 or similar came out. I've tried Opera and the rest but I *like* that Firefox has extensions in that people that want JUST a browser can have one and people that want to be safer can add extensions like NOSCRIPT, ADBLOCK PLUS, etc, et al.. OR convenience, like SPEED DIAL, EMAIL PLUS, SECURE LOGON can have it.

With the other browsers you have to take what comes with in most cases; in Firefox you can use a few condiments to spice up the dish. :)

Not a fanboy Arthur; just a satisfied customer. *wry grin*

~Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShyWriter

ShyWriter

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm biased against Apple. :)

And doesn't it have extensions now too?

I've been biased against Apple since my BBS SysOp days and hardware costs three times more than PC type of same use. I've used them all and I like where I am today. Wish I still had all my Apple stock from $18/share days in '97, but hate everything they've been since. It's just personal.. :)

~Shy

Link to post
Share on other sites
mountaintree16

mountaintree16

Posted
Posted
No, you can turn extensions off any time you want. The problem is that as soon as something installs an extension, they have been turned back on. Opera used to be mostly immune to this sort of hijacking (UserJS and UserCSS were mildly exploitable, although not from within the browser), but now it will be just as vulnerable as the others.

Thanks :)

I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. The security risk with extensions, then, is that a malicious website could potentially install an extension even if you have turned off extensions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSnakeKobra

DarkSnakeKobra

Posted
Posted
Thanks :)

I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. The security risk with extensions, then, is that a malicious website could potentially install an extension even if you have turned off extensions?

Probably. Firefox asks to install, but who's to say it can force it? There is no kill switch for extension.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
mountaintree16

mountaintree16

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the clarification. :)

Well that just sucks.

I know Java installs an extension on FX for it's usage. Other than that I don't use extensions and I don't even have Java installed anymore on my machine.

I am really liking Opera too -- been using it a lot lately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShyWriter

ShyWriter

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Yes.

I respectfully disagree Arthur. The way I have my system set up, I'd have to turn ON or APPROVE 3 actions on MY side before a website can install an extension/activeX/whatever from their side. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.. :)

~Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
GT500

GT500

Posted
Posted
I respectfully disagree Arthur. The way I have my system set up, I'd have to turn ON or APPROVE 3 actions on MY side before a website can install an extension/activeX/whatever from their side. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.. :)

You do realize that some browsers (Internet Explorer specifically) have had security vulnerabilities in their code that handles displaying PNG images that allowed not only executing code, right? Granted that's an old one, but it's always possible that such a thing could creep up again in the future, and in more than just one browser. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShyWriter

ShyWriter

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You do realize that some browsers (Internet Explorer specifically) have had security vulnerabilities in their code that handles displaying PNG images that allowed not only executing code, right? Granted that's an old one, but it's always possible that such a thing could creep up again in the future, and in more than just one browser. :)

Yeah.. As long as we have all those sneaky bast*rds out there writing malicious code and figuring out new ways to screw with the common man (woman) they'll always be a few steps ahead of the software writers, Arthur. ONE of the things I like about some of the user-supported, open-sourced "off-brands" is those problems get fixed VERY quickly; a day or two, while lumbering giants like M$ take weeks to fix simple vulnerabilities in their name brand stuff.

And one of the reasons I've stuck with POCO MAIL (dropping Eudora and Outlook Express.. and now Windows Mail) so long (I was a beta tester too) was that it doesn't use an IE or Mozilla type engine to display HTML emails; it has its own engine to handle that task.

~Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
YoKenny1

YoKenny1

Posted
Posted
And one of the reasons I've stuck with POCO MAIL (dropping Eudora and Outlook Express.. and now Windows Mail) so long (I was a beta tester too) was that it doesn't use an IE or Mozilla type engine to display HTML emails; it has its own engine to handle that task.

I'm cheap and will not spend $39.95 US ($43.25 CAD) on POCO MAIL. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSnakeKobra

DarkSnakeKobra

Posted
Posted
Yeah.. As long as we have all those sneaky bast*rds out there writing malicious code and figuring out new ways to screw with the common man (woman) they'll always be a few steps ahead of the software writers, Arthur. ONE of the things I like about some of the user-supported, open-sourced "off-brands" is those problems get fixed VERY quickly; a day or two, while lumbering giants like M$ take weeks to fix simple vulnerabilities in their name brand stuff.

And one of the reasons I've stuck with POCO MAIL (dropping Eudora and Outlook Express.. and now Windows Mail) so long (I was a beta tester too) was that it doesn't use an IE or Mozilla type engine to display HTML emails; it has its own engine to handle that task.

~Steve

Where would be without those "friendly" people?:) MS just screws around all day and doesn't do anything about it. You're relying on a monkey to do things for you. :)

I use MS Outlook 2010 Pro(64 Bit edition), but it has a lot of problems with sending/receiving mail. Wondering if Evolution or Thunderbird would be better(or WLM).

Link to post
Share on other sites
TerryFP

TerryFP

Posted
Posted

Just to add that I have other browsers and use them regularly,apart from IE 8,that one is just gathering dust on my desktop!

So,Firefox 4, Opera,Safari,Chrome and Maxthon3 work very well for me,but FF4 is my 'goto' guy as far as browsers are

concerned.

To pick up on the email point made by the previous posters, Windows Live seems to do everything I need. TalkTalk ( formerly Tiscali) has a really awful email system with very little control offered to the user.

At least Hotmail gives you the full monty: spam blocker,phishing filter etc..

Agree on all the issues raised regarding the mighty MS but it's a sad and common denominator among many super companies,they do cr@p on the little guy and the little guy has to

say 'thanks for the hat'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSnakeKobra

DarkSnakeKobra

Posted
Posted
@Buttons

Thunderbird is much better than Outlook and Windows Live Mail with regards to the sending/receiving errors. Thunderbird just works, and beautifully.

I use Tbird previously. It was okay, but not downloading my folders really turned me off. WLM was okay too, but it worked miserably with gmail. Really kind of picky I guess.:D Evolution(Ubunt client)was more or less of Tbird.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.