Tiny URL

Topic

New Reply

Hi all. I have used TinyURL occasionally over the past couple of years without any hint of trouble but just now I got a warning from Zone Alarm that it is a dangerous site as it has been known to distribute spyware. Can anyone verify this threat as this is the first time I have had such a warning. Regards SF

Reply | Quote

Replies

… I have used TinyURL occasionally over the past couple of years without any hint of trouble but …

This has been a lingering question in the minds of MANY people for several years. I used the site a few times in the past but don’t any more. Here’s a quote from a Google hit that goes back to 2004, so I won’t bore you with a link:
[indent]I have a little bot I use that creates tinyurls for me from the site. The other day I pasted in a link, I believe it was for the New York Times, into said bot. When I loaded the tinyurl, I saw some redir link pop up. I have ALL of my cookies as ‘ask first’. And up pops a cookie for ads.fastmedia.net. I asked a few people to verify this, and they, too, saw the page popup for a second and then redirection to NYT. ads.fastmedia is known for spyware. I have no doubt now that tinyurl is part of the spyware issue.
[/indent]So, “buyer beware.”

Reply | Quote

This has been a lingering question in the minds of MANY people for several years. I used the site a few times in the past but don’t any more. Here’s a quote from a Google hit that goes back to 2004, so I won’t bore you with a link:
[indent]I have a little bot I use that creates tinyurls for me from the site. The other day I pasted in a link, I believe it was for the New York Times, into said bot. When I loaded the tinyurl, I saw some redir link pop up. I have ALL of my cookies as ‘ask first’. And up pops a cookie for ads.fastmedia.net. I asked a few people to verify this, and they, too, saw the page popup for a second and then redirection to NYT. ads.fastmedia is known for spyware. I have no doubt now that tinyurl is part of the spyware issue.
[/indent]So, “buyer beware.”

Hello Al. How ironic that after reading your reply I checked with a recent free download of McAfee that monitors web sites before one logs on to them to verify if they are safe and lo & behold they regard TinyURL as A1 OK so what is a novice like me to believe? And oh yes Al, whilst I know this is off thread a little can you enlighten me about Microsoft Photo Manager; I have just had my “C” drive wiped and (unknown to me) the technician installed XP 2003 whereas I was used to 2002 which as you know had Photo Editor which I found dead easy to use but Photo manager NOT SO. Photo Editor offered various formats to save a cropped photo which made it easy to comply with the maximum size allowed by the Lounge but P M is less clear -to me anyway-. Is there a tutorial somewhere that I can peruse to get the hang of it?
Without searching the site I’m not sure whether I have already asked this question (if I have please pardon me) but seeing I found PE so easy to use I would be delighted to be able to use it again so is it possible to grab it from somewhere and install it again?

Regards SF.

Reply | Quote

can you enlighten me about Microsoft Photo Manager; I have just had my “C” drive wiped and (unknown to me) the technician installed XP 2003 whereas I was used to 2002 which as you know had Photo Editor which I found dead easy to use but Photo manager NOT SO.

Even though BigAl supplied the instructions on installing Photo Editor it would’ve been better to start another thread in the General MS Office forum. That way other Loungers can benefit from the thread and this thread would’ve stuck to one issue.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Even though BigAl supplied the instructions on installing Photo Editor it would’ve been better to start another thread in the General MS Office forum. That way other Loungers can benefit from the thread and this thread would’ve stuck to one issue.

Since I have magical powers on this board ( ), I split Al’s reply into a new thread here: MS Photo Editor or alternative (Office 2003) (Graphic Applications).

Reply | Quote

Hello Al. How ironic that after reading your reply I checked with a recent free download of McAfee that monitors web sites before one logs on to them to verify if they are safe and lo & behold they regard TinyURL as A1 OK so what is a novice like me to believe?

Don’t bother with the McAfee monitor. It’s useless. They don’t keep their info up to date, both positive and negative:
http://www.windowssecrets.com/2009/02/19/0…etesting-policy

I use SiteHound — I pay for one copy and use the freebie version on three other computers:
http://www.firetrust.com/en/products/sitehound
I have never experienced any surfing slowdowns with SiteHound and with the paid version you get automagic updates.

Or maybe try this, which was recommended in the Windows Secrets newsletter (with a few caveats):
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10777

Reply | Quote

Don’t bother with the McAfee monitor. It’s useless. They don’t keep their info up to date, both positive and negative:
http://www.windowssecrets.com/2009/02/19/0…etesting-policy

I use SiteHound — I pay for one copy and use the freebie version on three other computers:
http://www.firetrust.com/en/products/sitehound
I have never experienced any surfing slowdowns with SiteHound and with the paid version you get automagic updates.

Or maybe try this, which was recommended in the Windows Secrets newsletter (with a few caveats):
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/10777

As ever thanks for every response, seems the McAfee app is not worth the space it takes up on the HD even if it is minimal. Seeing I use Firefox as my browser I will ceratinly look at the last suggestion. Regards SF.

Reply | Quote

Seeing I use Firefox as my browser I will ceratinly look at the last suggestion.

Food for thought – Firefox rated most vulnerable web browser.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Food for thought – Firefox rated most vulnerable web browser.

Joe

WELL well well Joe. Just read the link and am surprised at this seeing I was strongly advised not long ago on this very lounge that Firefox was the best as it brought out updates within hours whereas IE (eg) was known to have sometimes taken many days. SO, despite the article saying one should not rush to change their browser, what do you suggest? Thanks SF

Reply | Quote

SO, despite the article saying one should not rush to change their browser, what do you suggest?

I would not rush to change your browser of preference. As long as you keep it updated, have a good set of security tools on your system, and have reasonable browsing habits you should be fine.

Just goes to show you what some competition will do. Just a short time ago with IE6 Microsoft had the worst security record by far. Now with IE7 (I’m sure IE8 is even better) it is much improved.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I would not rush to change your browser of preference. As long as you keep it updated, have a good set of security tools on your system, and have reasonable browsing habits you should be fine.

Just goes to show you what some competition will do. Just a short time ago with IE6 Microsoft had the worst security record by far. Now with IE7 (I’m sure IE8 is even better) it is much improved.

Joe

Thanks Joe. This site and you guys who help make it what it is, are a life-line for chaps like me groping around in this I.T. jungle. Sorry if this sound patronizing – that’s the last thing on my mind- but I thank the day when I somehow stumbled on the Lounge; How & when that was I can’t recall but I sure am glad I did. Thanks so SF

Reply | Quote

Food for thought – Firefox rated most vulnerable web browser.

The source document is: http://secunia.com/gfx/Secunia2008Report.pdf. It has three charts for browsers, which paint a rather mixed picture:

Secunia has logged the most vulnerabilities for Firefox, but the flaws that were disclosed to the public before a patch was available were fixed a bit more quickly on average for Mozilla than for Microsoft, and since Firefox does not host ActiveX controls (at least not directly), the overall browsing experience may involve less exposure than browsers that do. This is very difficult to judge from a bunch of numbers in isolation from real-world behavior.

Mozilla’s position is that the first chart compares apples and oranges, because only Mozilla expressly enumerates “internally” discovered security flaws.

In any event, the security flaws to really worry about are the ones that Secunia cannot track because the criminals keep them to themselves. We do not have good statistics on those.

Reply | Quote

The source document is: http://secunia.com/gfx/Secunia2008Report.pdf. It has three charts for browsers, which paint a rather mixed picture:

(Graphic removed for space saving)

Secunia has logged the most vulnerabilities for Firefox, but the flaws that were disclosed to the public before a patch was available were fixed a bit more quickly on average for Mozilla than for Microsoft, and since Firefox does not host ActiveX controls (at least not directly), the overall browsing experience may involve less exposure than browsers that do. This is very difficult to judge from a bunch of numbers in isolation from real-world behavior.

Mozilla’s position is that the first chart compares apples and oranges, because only Mozilla expressly enumerates “internally” discovered security flaws.

In any event, the security flaws to really worry about are the ones that Secunia cannot track because the criminals keep them to themselves. We do not have good statistics on those.

As always, many thanks for the various responses, VIGILANCE is the obvious discipline when it comes to on-line security. Thank you all again SF.

Reply | Quote

So should we Opera users give ourselves a pat on the back?

Ian

Reply | Quote

So should we Opera users give ourselves a pat on the back?

It’s so tempting to make a joke here.

I think the Opera folks do a good job with standards compliance, and I’m sure the developer community reports any flaws it finds to the company for fixing. But unlike more boastful or market dominant companies, I don’t know whether anyone has really targeted Opera to probe for flaws. Greater success may bring that unwanted attention down the road…

Reply | Quote

It’s so tempting to make a joke here.

Oh, go on. We’re all friends here!

Ian

Reply | Quote

So should we Opera users give ourselves a pat on the back?

Ian

Of course

Reply | Quote

Hi all. I have used TinyURL occasionally over the past couple of years without any hint of trouble but just now I got a warning from Zone Alarm that it is a dangerous site as it has been known to distribute spyware.

See these discussions – TinyURL and Anti-Spyware Toolbar | ThreatBlog & tinyurl.com blocked – WHY?? – ZoneAlarm Antivirus/Anti-Spyware – ZoneAlarm User Forum. Also see the criticism section at TinyURL – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It is not the site itself so much as it is the fact that you can be redirected to a malware site.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Hi all. I have used TinyURL occasionally over the past couple of years without any hint of trouble but just now I got a warning from Zone Alarm that it is a dangerous site as it has been known to distribute spyware. Can anyone verify this threat as this is the first time I have had such a warning.

Yes, people have abused this site, and will abuse all services that disguise the true destination address.

Can you trust any link on TinyURL? I think it depends on the source, and also on your computing practices. If you stay 100% up-to-date with patches for your browsers, all your plugins, and all your browser add-ons, and your security suite routinely updates itself, and you can resist fake dialogs and other temptations, then the threats from visiting unknown URLs, while not zero, are probably not a major issue for you. They usually are targeted at known vulnerabilities that have not been patched (trivial to exploit) and users that might believe “fake antivirus” dialogs.

Web safety is really going downhill. Soon we will need a complete rethink on the traditional model of openness. But not today.

Reply | Quote