Author Topic: firebird  (Read 10939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

steve77

  • Guest
firebird
« on: November 23, 2003, 02:35:26 AM »
Hey i was just wondering whether 'script blocking' works with mozilla firebird. I notice when i open IE i get a slash screen, but not with firebird - even though the mozilla checkbox is ticked in my settings.

Offline Lisandro

  • Avast team
  • Certainly Bot
  • *
  • Posts: 67235
Re:firebird
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2003, 03:01:40 AM »
Steve, could you tell me a little bit more from 'firebird'. I am a IE user and could not help you too much, unless you explain the features of Mozilla browser.
Anyway, wellcome to the foruns  ;)
The best things in life are free.

denro

  • Guest
Re:firebird
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2003, 05:01:27 AM »
It was on the Mozilla (Firebird) forum that I first heard very positive comments on Avast.  Mozilla Firebird is built off the Mozilla suite code and is an excellent browser, much better than IE in my opinion, and certainly more free from popups and security penetrations.  Mozilla mail is better and safer than Outlook Express and uses a Bayesian spam filtering system.  If you like alternatives to the big two or three antivirus programs that are better than the "big ones", you will probably like both Mozilla and Mozilla Firebird.  Avast and Mozilla seems a rather natural pairing.  More at a help page:  
http://texturizer.net/firebird/features.html


Culpeper

  • Guest
Re:firebird
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2003, 05:12:53 AM »
Yeah, I've test Firebird.  It's a stand alone email client.  I think it's great.

denro

  • Guest
Re:firebird
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2003, 06:07:04 AM »
Firebird is the browser only, no email client.  It is a standalone version with some enhancements of the browser part of the mozilla suite which includes browser, email, web page composer.  The standalone email program, based on Mozilla, is Thunderbird.  IMO, Thunderbird is not as polished as Firebird.  They both are technically still in development, but Firebird 0.7 can duke it out with IE 6 any day.

Offline Lisandro

  • Avast team
  • Certainly Bot
  • *
  • Posts: 67235
Re:firebird
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2003, 03:16:12 PM »
Thanks denro for your explanations. I cannot be sure of Script Blocking behavior into Firebird. Anyway, as a part of Mozilla suite, seems to work with it.
avast! team must say something about...

For script security, I strongly suggest you take a look at:
WSH Anti-Polymorphism Patch Prevent Windows scripts (.VBS, Java) from being able to read/write themselves, to avoid infections by advanced worms. Info can be found here.
AnalogX Script Defender Intercept requests to execute most common scripting types, configure it to intercept new script extensions. For me, the best one!

ScriptSentry Alerts if a script might harm your system; prevents against malicious scripts in ShellScrap/HTA files. Specify which scripts should be allowed to run yourself. Does not work well in my system...

If you want, you can add the following extensions on your Stardard Shield settings: .VBS,.VBE,.JS,.JSE,.HTA,.WSF,.WSH,.SHS,.SHB
Although, it's not the same as the Script Blocker. The script blocker scans scripts executed by your browser on HTML pages. Generally, these scripts should be run in a "safe environment" and should not be allowed to get outside and infect your computer. However, some browsers (you know which ones I mean) contain bugs - and some viruses exploit them - such as VBS:RedLog for example. If you have an older version of IE without the necessary patches, viewing an infected HTML page will infected your computer. With the Script Blocker, the infection is avoided. You may even add HTM* to the list of extensions... but still, it will not emulate the behavior of the Script Blocker. The provider (Standard Shield in this case) will scan the files when loaded from disk - however, if the infected files will be loaded and executed directly from web, they will not be scanned - that's what the Script Blocker is for.
The best things in life are free.

steve77

  • Guest
Re:firebird
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2003, 06:14:15 PM »
Thanks for the info, i don't know alot about firebird myself, someone recommended it to me and a downloaded it yesterday to try it out, but i noticed that the splash screen did not appear and i can only assume this means that the script blocker is not operating in firebird.

To be honest i have had a couple of problems with viruses before i switched to avast and i am unwilling to take any risks...think i will just stick with IE for now!

Cheers

denro

  • Guest
Re:firebird
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2003, 06:40:10 PM »
The WSH polymorphism patch mentioned above is for Win 95, 98 ONLY.  The patch predates Win XP and should not be useed on Win XP or 2000.  (Note to that effect is in the second informational link.)  I understand the reasoning behind Steve77 decision to stay with IE, but if he is running XP, then IE will be far more vulnerable than Firebird to malware.  This was the first time that I ever heard suggested to stay with IE for safety, those who switch to Firebird or Mozilla are in part doing so for the greater safety.

steve77

  • Guest
Re:firebird
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2003, 06:50:36 PM »
I would agree completely denro, i do not think IE is the way to go, especially given the fact i am running XP, even though it is fully patched, i am not confident in it.

Can i ask for your opinion then denro? Do you believe it to be safer to go with firebird without the avast script blocker protection? If so what antivirus precautions should be taken? Perhaps to use the AnalogX Script Defender mentioned by technical? Would this be sufficient?

Opinions/advice from all greatly appreciated.

denro

  • Guest
Re:firebird
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2003, 12:30:41 AM »
Steve77, if you don't use IE because of its security flaws, then Mozilla and Mozilla firebird are probably the best alternatives.  (They are better browsers in terms of features anyway, IMO).  Some of the other alternatives are not reallay alternatives to IE at all because they sit on top of IE, use its underlying engine and are as vulnerable as is IE.  What I am doing is using Firebird / Mozilla mail, with the avast resident protection for files set to high so that files modified or created are also scanned.  Even if avast is not script blocking Firebird, I still am more confident in Firebird & Mozilla than in using IE with the avast script blocking.  The best would be if avast programmers extend the script blocking to Mozilla and Mozilla Firebird.  Afterall, Netscape is now defunct.  The code from netscape long ago branched into Mozilla, and Firebird is built on top of Mozilla.  Firebird and Mozilla put a premium on W3C and Html4 compliance.  Mozilla/Firebird at the very least should be considered the "other standard browser" on which anti virus programs should work smoothly, if Netscape was once considered the "other browser".  

Offline Lisandro

  • Avast team
  • Certainly Bot
  • *
  • Posts: 67235
Re:firebird
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2003, 02:30:48 AM »
The WSH polymorphism patch mentioned above is for Win 95, 98 ONLY.  The patch predates Win XP and should not be useed on Win XP or 2000.  (Note to that effect is in the second informational link.).

Strange indeed... I run this file today and I have a Windows XP SP1 fully updated... Windows did not show me any alert or error. On contrary, it told me the patch was applied  :-\

Is this another MS joke?  ;D
The best things in life are free.

Offline Lisandro

  • Avast team
  • Certainly Bot
  • *
  • Posts: 67235
Re:firebird
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2003, 02:33:14 AM »
Can i ask for your opinion then denro? Do you believe it to be safer to go with firebird without the avast script blocker protection? If so what antivirus precautions should be taken? Perhaps to use the AnalogX Script Defender mentioned by technical? Would this be sufficient?

Although I use IE, I think Mozilla (Firebird) with Script Defender will be safer than it. I think it's enough protection for Scripts (but don't forget to write all the extentions mentioned and try to update the application frequently...)  ;)
The best things in life are free.

Hornus Continuum

  • Guest
Re:firebird
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2003, 11:59:17 AM »
Denro,

Quote
The WSH polymorphism patch mentioned above is for Win 95, 98 ONLY.

While the parent page does state that the patch is for Windows 95, Windows98, and Windows ME only, this is a quote from the DiamondCS web page where you can download the patch:

Quote
Who should apply this patch?
Anyone using Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP with Windows Scripting Host installed (it is on most systems). You can find the primary WSH executables in your System or System32 directory as files named wscript.exe and cscript.exe. If you are an extensive user of Windows Scripts and your scripts utilise the ScriptName() or ScriptFullName() functions, you may not want to install this patch on your development machine(s).

Regards,
Hornus
« Last Edit: November 24, 2003, 12:01:39 PM by Hornus Continuum »

Offline Lisandro

  • Avast team
  • Certainly Bot
  • *
  • Posts: 67235
Re:firebird
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2003, 03:59:42 PM »
Denro,

Quote
The WSH polymorphism patch mentioned above is for Win 95, 98 ONLY.

While the parent page does state that the patch is for Windows 95, Windows98, and Windows ME only, this is a quote from the DiamondCS web page where you can download the patch:

Quote
Who should apply this patch?
Anyone using Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP with Windows Scripting Host installed (it is on most systems). You can find the primary WSH executables in your System or System32 directory as files named wscript.exe and cscript.exe. If you are an extensive user of Windows Scripts and your scripts utilise the ScriptName() or ScriptFullName() functions, you may not want to install this patch on your development machine(s).

Regards,
Hornus

Thanks Hornus. I'm glad to see I was not crazy applying the patch  8)
The best things in life are free.