Can I sue N-Case? Spyware Knocked Out My Comp Twice!

[j79zlr]

You can't sue the spyware companies because they usually state everything in their EULA [which noone reads]. When you install some software [usually p2p crap, or the god awful MessengerPlus] spyware can piggyback itself along with the intended software.

I've run Windows for years now and have never had a single spyware problem, you know why. I don't use IE, I update my Antivirus and Windows regularly. I don't install "free" software that I don't know about, it really is that simple.

I hate to say it, but if you get infected with spyware, it is _always_ your fault.

If interested: http://www.doxdesk.com/parasite/nCase.html

 

[American Zombie]

I have used IE for 10 years and never had a spyware/adware problem but I take the time to setup my security zones to setting other then default.

 

[NetRyder]

American Zombie, you're right. You can stay spyware-free with IE too...I know I did before Firefox (Phoenix back then) won me over, and my brother still uses IE6. I think the point that's being made above is that if you take the default installations of both browsers, the chances of acquiring spyware are higher in the case of IE, especially for new users and non-techies.

With that said, a Firefox user could still go ahead and install malware that's bundled with some junk application, and that would have nothing to do with the browser he's using.

Whatever you use - use care and common sense...that's all there is to it.

 

[j79zlr]

The main problem with IE is activeX, before you go off on me, read along. If you happen to get infected with Spyware via installing some rogue software, it can adjust your IE settings by make some simple regedits, which will then open IE up to a world of problems. Some CWS will modify the trusted IP and trusted sites zone to include some bad spyware sites. Now if you go to one of these sites on a compromised machine with IE, the ActiveX controls can download and install without any user intervention. That is exactly the reason I hate IE, there is no need for such a "feature" There should be no trusted zones.

 

[NetRyder]

I agree. I've never found a reason to add a site as a "Trusted Zone"
As you said, it probably gets abused more often than used.

 

[vivid_vibe]

Would the hosts file be bypassed by a registry mod made by some malware? Just curious, because I've been using IE for ages with no problems. Can't get used to Firefox, though I do have it installed.

vivid

 

[j79zlr]

Yep, it is another common malware trick. They can either modify the hosts file so that normal sites will get redirected to bad sites, like redirecting google to some other search site, or used in combination with the trusted zones. e.g. redirect google to a site in the trusted zone, and voila, more spyware.

 

[NetRyder]

Might also be a good idea to make the HOSTS file read-only then.

 

[Johnny]

Plus it won't take in any spyware. I can live without ActiveX support. When do you need that anyway?

I guess you don't do online banking, or go secure sites very often. If you are just using it for webmail, or, the basic look at me I am cool because I have internet mumbo jumbo then yes firefox is good. But when you want to do online baniking, or go to some other secure sites. Then Firefox is not for you.

Basically it comes down to a bunch of people listening to a 20 year old kid trying to tell them about security. it's a bunch of crap if you ask me. It is the same thing when Netscape was hot. Everybody used it, most business still use it. But in everyday cases of "normal" browsing you can't use it.

There are a couple of other things with firefox that are not right:

1. You can view more pages, yes, but, there are still some that don't look right. (Don't even tell me about the stupid standards, especially when 99.9% of the world don't give care about them)
2. Flash has a plain white background when is supposed to be transparent on some sites.
3. ActiveX - Without it you can't go to some secure sites and various media and video streamings don't work.
4. Expanding the size of video streaming that does work, don't work. The window stays one size and only the background expands.
5. Tabbed browsing is rough. You can't set it to open tabs with various things. You can use the middle mouse button, I am kinda getting used to this one. In fact I am liking it more everyday. You can also use the middle mouse button to close tabs also, double clicking on the tab bar works pretty good also. So I guess this isn't a bad thing.
6. Some flash don't show right. certian types of flash files show a white background when they are suppost to be transparent.
7. Page sizes are to big on some sites. Certian php scrips that call for a page size don't work.
8. Certian sites can not be viewed in firefox. When you go to them you get an error page saying that you need to have Mozilla or IE. They have a user agent extension for these, but that don't always work either.
9. Cookie Management - When you go to forums for example; you don't see notice that there are new threads when there are. It also don't handle recent pages and history right.

What I would like to see in this is "Smart ActiveX", those of you who have used bitdefender will know what I am talking about. What Smart Activex is, is where when you go to a website and it has activex there will be a pop up saying so. You will then get the choice to allow it or deny it. Whatever you choose will then go into a list of allowed or denied sites. It's basically the same principle as using a firewall to make a rule to allow certian programs to go threw or not. I think something like this will make the Browser a lot more acceptable and more people will use it ..

As said this is just a small list of things I can find wrong with it. When I find more I will post them. Also I am not trying to turn this into a firefox war, I am simply responding to a reply that was made to me ..

I don't really think it sux, I been using it for a while now. Testing the latest versions to see if there are improvements. They are improving it. But that will end when IE7 comes out

 

[NetRyder]

What I would like to see in this is "Smart ActiveX", those of you who have used bitdefender will know what I am talking about. What Smart Activex is, is where when you go to a website and it has activex there will be a pop up saying so. You will then get the choice to allow it or deny it. Whatever you choose will then go into a list of allowed or denied sites. It's basically the same principle as using a firewall to make a rule to allow certian programs to go threw or not.

Doesn't IE6 SP2 already do that (with the Information Bar)?

 

[j79zlr]

1. You can view more pages, yes, but, there are still some that don't look right. (Don't even tell me about the stupid standards, especially when 99.9% of the world don't give care about them)

I plainly doesn't visit sites that don't care enough about their viewers to atleast make them viewable in a web standards complaint browser. This is how MSIE is actually breaking the web, more on this if you want it.

2. Flash has a plain white background when is supposed to be transparent on some sites.

Never seen this, ever. Do you have an example site?

3. ActiveX - Without it you can't go to some secure sites and various media and video streamings don't work.

Any normal SSL enabled site does not require ActiveX. I also know of no sites that use ActiveX for streaming media, again, if they don't care enough about their viewers, then I don't care about them.

4. Expanding the size of video streaming that does work, don't work. The window stays one size and only the background expands.

Works here?

5. Tabbed browsing is rough. You can't set it to open tabs with various things. You can use the middle mouse button, I am kinda getting used to this one. In fact I am liking it more everyday. You can also use the middle mouse button to close tabs also, double clicking on the tab bar works pretty good also. So I guess this isn't a bad thing.

???

6. Some flash don't show right. certian types of flash files show a white background when they are suppost to be transparent.

You already mentioned this.

7. Page sizes are to big on some sites. Certian php scrips that call for a page size don't work.

This doesn't make any sense at all, again an example would be nice.

8. Certian sites can not be viewed in firefox. When you go to them you get an error page saying that you need to have Mozilla or IE. They have a user agent extension for these, but that don't always work either.

You already mentioned this, see #1

9. Cookie Management - When you go to forums for example; you don't see notice that there are new threads when there are. It also don't handle recent pages and history right.

Works here?


So basically, your only point is that there are companies who design their site intentionally to cater to IE users. This number is decreasing, fast, btw. Boycott and make the web a better place.

 

[zeke_mo]

You are my hero j79zlr

 

[Johnny]

I plainly doesn't visit sites that don't care enough about their viewers to atleast make them viewable in a web standards complaint browser. This is how MSIE is actually breaking the web, more on this if you want it.



Never seen this, ever. Do you have an example site?



Any normal SSL enabled site does not require ActiveX. I also know of no sites that use ActiveX for streaming media, again, if they don't care enough about their viewers, then I don't care about them.



Works here?



???



You already mentioned this.



This doesn't make any sense at all, again an example would be nice.



You already mentioned this, see #1



Works here?


So basically, your only point is that there are companies who design their site intentionally to cater to IE users. This number is decreasing, fast, btw. Boycott and make the web a better place.

I knew mentioning standards would bring someone to comment about how the web designers are stupid, or, don't care about their veiwers. Once again I am shown how someone don't understand that 99.9% of the world uses M$. So why would someone go by these standards ?? If these standards are so great and "Proper" why isn't there more said about them in other sites - And I mean in the respect of not saying that the designer is stupid or don't care. That is a childish reply and shows you don't get it, and that you are just going with something that you think is "cool". Time to wake up and realize reality here. Get out of the clouds. Show some real input, not some frivolous reply about how you think the designer don't care. Replies like that will just make me laugh.

I refuse to answer any of your issues for the simple reason that you seem to think that the only reason those sites don't work is because the designer don't care, and seeing that you don't care about them ? I don't care to reply to you. Besides if I want to hear all the childish mumbo jumbo about how stupid the designer are and such I will visit the firefox forum. I thought this was a more mature forum ..

 

[zeke_mo]

....................

 

[NetRyder]

Guys, we have had a lot of 'fun' with these Firefox vs. IE posts in the past (do a search, you might find them), and they usually don't end up being very pretty.

I think enough advise was given to the topic starter from both sides. Now it's up to him to decide what he wants to use. There is no right or wrong choice when it comes to hardware and software. People have different preferences - let's all respect that.

 

[j79zlr]

99.9% of the world does not use MS. It is a large percentage, but I believe it actually falls around 90%. 10% of the internet users is a lot. In fact I am typing to you from FreeBSD and Mozilla. Why? Because I find Linux/BSD to be a much better OS. I don't know what to tell you other than the designer must NOT care. I don't do this for a living, yet I can write my entire site up in gedit/notepad, and it is clearly and easily viewable by all users, regardless of their browser. Why? Because I check it to make sure it works. Why? Because I don't want to lose viewers because it doesn't look right in some browser. Did it take more time, sure.

 

[Zedric]

I guess you don't do online banking, or go secure sitesvery often. If you are just using it for webmail, or, the basic look atme I am cool because I have internet mumbo jumbo then yes firefox isgood. But when you want to do online baniking, or go to some othersecure sites. Then Firefox is not for you.

I do online banking, visit cookie dependant sites, webmail, secure webmail and all kinds of secure sites. All with Firefox.

As for the list, j79zlr allready took care of that. Firefox isapproaching 10% market share, not 0.1%. 10% is a considerable amount ofsite visitors. Standards are there so the system can work. Why HTMLstandards weren't more policed by the browsers from start I don't know,it should have been IMHO.

 

[Evil Marge]

I do online banking, visit cookie dependant sites, webmail, secure webmail and all kinds of secure sites. All with Firefox.

We also do online banking using Firefox without any problem.

 

[Johnny]

My point was that saying that the designer don't care is a typical answer for the mozilla community, that is not a answer. It is usually casted on the firefox forum when the person replying has no idea why the problem is happening. That makes it sound like it is all the desingers fault and not the program. When you say a statement like that it is like you are saying that the program is completely bug free and runs perfect, and the designer is the reason for the run off of problems. That is blarney is all I am saying ...

@ zeke_mo - I do not appreciate your tone.

 

[Dublex]

System Restore is a last resort.

I agree with this, but certain spyware is particularly nasty to get rid of(eg coolweb) and can end up swallowing up time and resources - dialers are particuarly bad as they can crunch you ASDL connection and send your computer to dialup / spam elysium in these cases I would use system restore.

The rule of thumb I follow is that if the spyware is known to be a minor case (we get some types all the time here at work) then we try zap it with anti-adaware software. If its something major, like coolweb, then its easier to swap out the machine than spend hours trying to rescue the registry and profile settings and use Hijackthis to disinfect the PC.

In Home PC terms, zap it once or twice with known anti-ad programs - if that fails, resort to system restore.