Tests and other Media topics

[polonus]

Did firefox developers give in to advertisers (and malvertisers) taking some features out of the browser,
read: http://stopmalvertising.com/security/changes-in-firefox-23-get-the-disabled-options-back.html
Can be adjusted back to previous default settings via this extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/settingsanity/
Is firefox also going to be an ad-launching browser rather than a browser taken out of the hands of the general user that likes to tweak it and use script-blocking and ad-blocking?

polonus

[bob3160]

Could it be that Firefox want's to survive financially

[polonus]

Hi bob3160,

As long as I can work ABP together with NoScript and RequestPolicy in the browser I feel secure. A lot of the "a la default users" won't work a browser to their personal settings (secure) or do not know how to do this or find it "a drag". I  have no problem with the "poor" adscript developers to earn a honest slice of bread and butter (even a piece of cake once in a while), but I do not want malvertisers and malcreants (SEO click fraud malsite redirectors) to be able to play their foul games because the browser went advertiser friendly by default now.
That is why I rather use Chrome now with additional extensions over fx oruse my personal flaw of an updated version of flock socio-browser (left by developers and therefore more secure with NS and RP installed and essential code added)...
Also read: http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill  link article author = Alex Limi

Damian

[polonus]

Is this firefox extension a good idea or not? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/http-nowhere/
This is to block unencrypted web traffic for added security.
Or is it just as with https everywhere that the avast shields may not scan this unencrypted traffic and therefore the use of it is not advisable?

Anyone to comment?

polonus

[bob3160]

Is this firefox extension a good idea or not? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/http-nowhere/
This is to block unencrypted web traffic for added security.
Or is it just as with https everywhere that the avast shields may not scan this unencrypted traffic and therefore the use of it is not advisable?

Anyone to comment?

polonus

So you're supposed to create a whitelist of acceptable unencrypted sites Enjoy, not something I intend to slow my system down with.
avast! already checks all these "unencrypted" sites so why add a man in the middle to make life more complicated.

[polonus]

Hi bob3160,

Thanks for your comment. I hope DavidR could come up with some similar opinion of this extension and why he would not use it.

Damian

[!Donovan]

Hi Polonus,

I believe that websites shouldn't be "blocked" due to the use of http, even if part https.

~!Donovan

[DavidR]

Hi bob3160,

Thanks for your comment. I hope DavidR could come up with some similar opinion of this extension and why he would not use it.

Damian

This could be a real pain in the backside blocking http content unless you specifically allow it. So it is forcing the user down the https route, by whatever means (probably having to use http everywhere) otherwise the user would be blocked from lots of site, a pain.

I don't know if this may also give the user lots of mixed content errors seen many times in these forums.

I don't think that forcing https (or blocking http) makes you any safer, so it means your traffic is encrypted, but that doesn't mean safer. You all know my feelings about that as currently it means that the web shield can't protect you. Just because a connection is https doesn't mean you can't get infected, just the reverse as you lose some of the avast protection.

####
Now I know avast are looking at ways to be able to have https traffic scanned, not just http. When this comes to fruition, then forcing https isn't such an issue.

But even then this add-on would be a pain in the backside, a little like some feel about NoScript but much more severe as it would be blocking http, crazy.

[polonus]

Hi DavidR,

Agree with you and bob3160 here, https only or http nowhere are inferior solutions as we compare this to the combination of the no script and request policy extension, where we still have the complete avast! Shields protection against http malcoded content ((obfuscated) malscripts, malicious iFrames and various malicious redirects, backlinks to drive-by-malware). Additionally users have google safebrowsing, pre-scanning guidance, so in order to get infested you have to ignore warnings and this could be qualified as "unwise" user intervention. Https only and http nowhere extensions never helped against the PEBKAC problem as the main cause of malcode getting onto computers and peripherals,

polonus

[polonus]

For instance this extension may not protect against mouse snooping here: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/08/isp-sky-broadband-uk-says-no-need-to-worry-about-sessioncam-snooping.html
Anyway NoScript was able to detect and eventually stop/block this alleged privacy invasion. (SessionCam, ClickTale used by British providers to analyze user interaction with/on certain websites)

polonus

[bob3160]

For instance this extension may not protect against mouse snooping here: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/08/isp-sky-broadband-uk-says-no-need-to-worry-about-sessioncam-snooping.html
Anyway NoScript was able to detect and eventually stop/block this alleged privacy invasion. (SessionCam, ClickTale used by British providers to analyze user interaction with/on certain websites)

polonus

In order for NoScript to help, you first need to know how to use it and, you need to know when not to bypass it.
Something most users don't know and therefore, NoScript is a great tool for the knowledgeable user but most novices,
simply hit the allow button. 

[DavidR]

There are many things that require some user knowledge, but some would say they have to have some knowledge to even find out about these tools/add-ons to start with.

NoScript isn't that complex, the complexity comes on sites that have a myriad of content from 3rd party sites. But like everything else in life you have to put in some effort to get results.

[bob3160]

There are many things that require some user knowledge, but some would say they have to have some knowledge to even find out about these tools/add-ons to start with.

NoScript isn't that complex, the complexity comes on sites that have a myriad of content from 3rd party sites. But like everything else in life you have to put in some effort to get results.

The one good thing is that you're blocked from an immediate infection if NoScript is active. The remainder is up to you, your other protection and some luck.

[polonus]

Hi bob3160,

Main site links aren't mostly the problem or the site must be malicious by intent. In most cases it is unchecked injected content or redirecting external (third party) links and iFrames that will abuse the vulnerable computer. As you said google safebrowsing and otherrs already block the main bulk of known malicious links. I think the users which have all the avast shields up and running and also checked their software through the avast software updater will become rare victims and then only if they venture out where dangers are luring (pr0n, hacks, cracks, pirated and illegal content), so going to the Interweb's back alley where cybercriminal and friends are known to be active. A grain of common security sense will prevent you better against malware infections than ten tons of protection, at least that is known to us by experience,

polonus

[polonus]

Interesting real-time data to identify the global regions with the greatest attack traffic
-> http://www.akamai.com/html/technology/dataviz1.html  (source akamai technologies)
also available as app: https://itunes.apple.com/app/akamai-internet-visualization/id502695146?mt=8

polonus