Why this mis-interpretation? Writing against web-security!

[polonus]

Hi malware fighters,

Sometimes you can smile at an article, sometimes it is just a mis-interpretation of the facts. I stumbled upon this article: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9015599&pageNumber=2
where NoScript and ABP are called unnecessary extensions for FF, better to be avoided. Off-course are they to be avoided by the people that want to sell you ads or malware that sustain ad-income. "" NoScript is too hard on the poor n00bs, and only for power-users and the paranoid", is their opinion.. I tell you here that I would not like to touch a browser without NoScript features nowadays, knowing what I have come to know about script-related malware and annoyances taht use script as the main infestation vector. They contradict their point there again further when they start praising NukeAnything as opposed to  ABP or ABP Plus (and they did not even mention the G-Updater of-course, they would dislike that even further, I guess). NukeAnything needs interaction just like NoScript, so in "their" view should be equally bad, but is not. Then I can understand why a website that relents on ad-income or a webmaster with aspirations would not like ABP to block all his free income at your expense. But I love it, and even have AdMuncher added. Sometimes when I have to use IE7 my eyes dazzle for thge things I am no longer accustomed to on a webpage.
No this is a biased article. I only commented on my two favourite extensions. Why do you think an article like this is written. Is not that the question that should be more on our minds than the content of the article?

polonus

[Marc57]

Hey polonus, I think this tells the tale.

"Obviously, we have some bias when it comes to ad-blocking extensions, as Computerworld is an ad-supported site. We also understand that these are very popular extensions. But if everyone blocked ads, how would sites such as ours continue to offer content free of charge?"

They're afraid of losing a few bucks.

[polonus]

Hi marc57,

But it is a misconception that a webbrowser as it is installed by default is a safe or rather say a secure browser. That is not the case. Why would people "in the know" not admit it. In the hands of the unaware any browser a la default could turn your machine into an adware spewing, malware ridden beast.
Sometimes I have the feeling like some parties do not want to alter this situation, because it suits them to leave it as it is. It is a known fact here that malicious script is the main vector of browser hijacking, malware, adware etc. But when there is an add-on that really matters in this respect, everybody in choir ccries wolf. They know darned well that an insecure browser leaves you a a prey for DirectRevenue and all of the spammers that try to clog the Internet. But they live hand in foot with the dark side only because of the gigantic money involved.
The sad thing is the newbies, unaware, and un-educated swallow their rethoric, because it is soild as expertise. They don't like peoiple to find out about the things that go on under the radar: tracking, profiling, earning money over the back of the user. One could say alas this should come to pass, because something has to pay to keep it free. OK, I agree be upfront about it, and don't put the meek at risk,

polonus

[OrangeCrate]

Just some guy kicking up dust, so that his articles get picked up (and he gets paid).

"Peter Smith is a Web developer and freelance writer with a special interest in personal technology and digital entertainment."

[Abraxas]

Hi polonus ,

I read this article from computerworld linked to another forum and was astounded at the inane comments about AdBlock , NoScript , plus Firefox addons in general . With JS exploits being built into websites maliciously as a growing threat this is bad security info about tools which can protect browsers .
Also it's one thing to download a Firefox addon , it's another to configure it wisely . 

Cheers 

[polonus]

Hi Abraxas,

Nice to find you on my side, more or less what I expected. I like to go further with a browser than where others dare going, so now I launched my Flock up with IntertypeAdjuster.java inside the components folder, just to see where it helps or flattens things out, looks promishing so far.... So I like to go in depth, and sometimes like with the firebug hole I can come up with a solution even to stop a gaping hole. Sometimes this knowledge is fear-mongering, like knowing Mozilla browsers are also vulnerable to the onUnload () hole, that still has not been patched for some time in IE6 and IE7, so surfers think they have left a dangerous site, while actually still there and a sitting duck. I worked NoScript now for a considerable time and it really secures users against malicious code infestations (vectors) (downloaded unseen and unheard by the victim if the embedded script is allowed to run). I was one of the first ones here to appreciate DrWebs online av hyperlink scanner for what it was, innovative. I can understand why some of these extensions are not brought aboard these browsers (Flock or FF), because their would be loud protests from webmasters and ad-vendors with the malcreants in their "slipstream". But the general users are entitled to get genuine information, not bogus dressed up as expertise.

polonus

[CharleyO]

***

If I could, I would want to block almost all ads because most of them are very stupid and/or have nothing to do with the product. But, as Marc57 points out, we would loose too many free sites.

But, promoting the non-use of browser security extentions is just dumb.   


***