Replies

Hello,
I have JRE 6, update 18 on 2 systems. My Windows Vista 32 bit system is running Firefox 3.5.9. My Win 7 netbook is running Firefox 3.6.3.
On both systems, Java will not update. When I try, Java tells me that I have the most recent update.
On both systems Firefox has disabled certain Java plug ins stating that they cause stability issues. Also on both systems, I am not able to access videos on a joke website I like to go to.
THere are quite a few Java plug in’s in Firefox, most are enable. The ones that Firefox has disabled I have left disabled.
I think it’s a problem with Java and Firefox.
Hope this helps?

Actually, those are security issues, not just stability issues. The download site for the current Java JRE (which can also install the Firefox plug-in) is:
http://java.com/en/download/manual.jsp

Once you Save this update installer (to your Desktop, I recommend) you can just run it like any program installer. It will usually just install, removing any recent updates you no longer need. Then reboot your computer and you should be good to go.

-- rc primak

I have used free AV in the past (and still use it for a lot of my customers). I have used AVG free a lot, however, several of my customers have been hit with scareware with AVG free installed and up to date. I have been moving some to Microsoft security essentials which seems to have somewhat lower overhead than AVG.

I have run Norton internet security 2009 for about 6 months on my home machines and Symantic Corp antivirus on some of my corporate customers. I have also run Symantic endpoint protection on some of my Corp customers. I have been pleasantly surprised with the improvements symantec has made on there antivirus software in the last 2-3 years.

Glad to hear Norton/ Symantec works so well for you.

As for AVG Free, that program has no rootkit protections, and in itself it has no firewall. Both issues are involved with “scareware” or fake AV infections. I switched from AVG to Avast partly to get better rootkit protections.

As to the OP, I tried Norton 360 version 2, and found it immediately blocked Firefox from updating or even uninstalling any of its add-ons. Norton tech support in India wanted $99 to tell me that there was no problem with Norton 360, and that I could not make any exceptions or special rules for the product. I dumped it on the spot, having gotten it with a rebate at a net cost of $10. I will never use Norton products again, not because they do not perform well, but because getting support when you need it is nearly impossible, and they try to escalate every issue into a paid incident.

If you never have a technical issue, Norton products are practically carefree and very effective. But if anything ever goes wrong… watch out!!

I’d like to give my take on why updates are so important, but that was just a side-issue in this thread. Let’s stay on-topic, folks. Thanks.

-- rc primak

These observations may seem a little off-topic, but the core is about how to maintain browser security, when information providers use other (cross-site) providers, with no online acknowledgment that they are doing so. As an example, the online.wsj.com website seems to be changing some of the other providers that they use. When IE8 is locked down according to decent security practices, the result may be that some features of online.wsj silently fail to work. Under FF w/ NoScript, one can more easily detect what WSJ has gotten up to, and take corrective action.

From a different angle, when features stop working, it is sometimes not clear whether the action was intended by the information provider, or accidental. This morning, online.wsj.com started blocking new comments from one subscriber. Even the most innocuous sentences seemed to be blocked as “Does not meet Community Standards”. Whatever the issue was, it cleared up after an hour or so. How is a user to know whether they have violated some standard, or run afoul of the shifting (quick)sands of technology?

If you are running NoScript, any site which doesn’t like the add-on will probably flash you a message saying so, or redirect you to a “oops!” page. The message will say that you need to enable Javascript to continue. If the problem is server-side, try back in an hour or two, or at most a day or two. Most rules violations result in an e-mail notice within a day or two. If you are running Firefox with NoScript, you are doing things the right way, IMHO. But WSJ does not like NoScript, as it can be used to block ads, and Rupert Murdoch (owner of WSJ) really hates it when users block his ads.

And the issue of user safety vs. web site usability is definitely not off-topic here in The Lounge! Several of us are struggling with sites which are taking countermeasures against users of AdBlock Plus and NoScript. Unfortunately, there are no clear-cut answers here. Sites need to make money, and they make money by displaying ads. But hackers send out malicious ads and scripts, so it is not safe to always let ads display. Something needs to be done to resolve this issue — but what?

-- rc primak

A more traditional definition of SQL injection is that an attacker sends a dangerous query to the back end database. What you’re describing sounds a bit more like a cross-site scripting (XSS) problem, where the page has been compromised because the site replays third party content without effectively scrubbing it. I suppose that could be accomplished through a SQL injection attack on the server.

Cross Site Scripting can be largely thwarted in Firefox by using the NoScript plug-in, and being very careful as to when and where to allow a few necessary scripts to run. It takes a bit of practice, but there are very few sites which will not run with most of their scripts disabled.

And in answer to the VM suggestion, this would almost insure that no updates would ever be applied to the underlying OS or software and plug-ins. Which actually raises the risk of a successful infection. Sandboxing has its places, but Windows security is not one of those places.

-- rc primak

And one of the points of my post was another member here who insists that all anti-malware programs who pass a series of tests are equal.

I think I resemble that remark! I did not exactly say they are equal. I said it does not matter that they are not equal, as all which pass realistic testing are adequate to most home users’ needs. Rankings are very fluid, and they seem to change every time a new list is published, even by the same author. If something works for you, just stick with it unless there’s a credible report that your product is failing more recent testing. (This is why a few years ago I switched from Zone Alarm to Comodo Firewall.) Avast may not be the top ranked AV right now in the Maximum PC list, but it is adequate for most users, when used with a good firewall.

BTW, Matousec is not objective. They accept money from companies who submit their products for evaluation. Comodo’s Forums have had several scathing comments by Mehli (Comodo CEO) about the shortcomings of the Matousek Firewall Challenge. And he’s not the only one who has complained. Symantec and McAfee claim that in order to “isolate” the firewalls in their suites, Matousek deliberately turned off some of the other protections, thus rendering the suites ineffective. In a suite, everything must be enabled and everything works together. Which is why I do not like suites — very little flexibility. This sort of criticism has never been adequately answered by the folks at Matousek.

[Edit:] On the other hand, Matousec does offer some insight into the relative strengths and weaknesses of many third-party firewalls.

-- rc primak

Sub-Topic “Running defragmentation alongside other apps” :

The letter writer asked about burning a CD while defragmenting. Even on a quad-core pc with ample RAM, this can cause a buffer underrun on the CD burning program, spoiling the burn. Otherwise, the LangaList answer is perfectly adequate.

-- rc primak

Bob P,

Thanks for the input. I should have remembered that there is a startup manager in CCleaner. I will stick with that one!

I appreciate the word on AV, spyware and firewalls. I’ll likely stick with ZoneAlarm AV (Kaspersky) and switch form CounterSpy to Malwarebytes paid spyware program.

– Dave

I am not sure the active components of Zone Alarm AV and Malwarebytes paid edition will play nicely with each other (two active AV proggrams should not be run together at the same time). If you are already running ZA-AV, MBAM Free (nothing active) should suffice for scanning. You would have all the protections you need.

And Rochelle P, I never said to use CCleaner instead oif HJT. They have different functions, but when it came time to actually manage Startups, I said I prefer CCLeaner’s simplicity over Autoruns which can be too complex for many of us. HJT makes a good “catch-all” but it doesn’t do everything.

As for the Maximum PC AV rankings, I noticed that Avast did rather nicely, which is a good surprise . Many reviewers dump on Avast, and I think this is just because it is free. But I do not believe that any of the Top Five or Six AV programs in that list actually failed any independent tests. I would be skeptical of any such reports. Comodo AV is not up to par, but their firewall, when properly configured, is top-notch. (I use it with Defense Plus, and everything set to very high levels.)

-- rc primak

This morning I tried to start AOL and it hung up on the Flash Player Install file. I couldn’t get past it.

I couldn’t find the Adobe Download Manager anywhere. I did delete all the Adobe files I could find. I also deleted Adobe entries from the Registry.

It’s still there, but at least I can get past it now. I guess my next step is to reformat my fixed disk.

I think your problem is not with Flash Player or its installer. The problems with AOL and its software are many and long standing. Can’t you find another Service Provider?

-- rc primak

According to the System Requirements at Download details: Microsoft .NET Framework 4 (Web Installer) it will work on XP SP-3.

Joe

Thanks. Good to know.

-- rc primak

.NET 4.0 has been released. See Microsoft .NET Framework.

Probably not anything “in the wild” that requires it yet.

Joe

I seem to have read somewhere (don’t recall where) that .NET Framework 4.0 will not work on Windows XP, but is for Vista and Windows 7 only.

-- rc primak

Aha, so Norton + ZoneAlarm + MBAM. Assuming, of course, it is a version of Norton that does not conflict with ZoneAlarm (or vice versa). In responding here, it’s a good idea to fully spell out your recommendations and assumptions, since the person you’re advising may not have your level of experience.

That combination is impossible. Norton (all products, all versions) will not allow Zone Alarm to be installed. We need clarification, I think.

We also should get clarification as to whether the address book is in fact locally stored on the computer, or whether it is only on line as in web mail.

In any event, a local AV/AS scan would be wise. MBAM and Super Antispyware, as well as Norton or Zone Alarm, could find any keylogger or bot, most likely.

-- rc primak

You didn’t read carefully. Esecurity was quoting tests from Virus Bulletin http://www.virusbtn….archive/2010/04

Much better sourcing, but I still do not believe any AV is better or worse if all AV which is under consideration passes independent lab tests. And every item on the Maximum PC list does pass these tests, even MSE.

-- rc primak

Agreed. Post moved.

-- rc primak

These lists which rank AV products and suites seem to shift the positions of the major vendors every time they appear. It does not matter whether your AV choice is Number One or Number Twenty. If it passes muster in independent lab tests, chances are it is plenty good. Microsoft Security Essentials has passed these tests. The important thing to do is to make sure you have a good AV, a secondary spyware detector scanner, and a good firewall (or good knowledge of both the inbound and outbound Windows Firewall controls — for Vista and Windows 7 users only). Suites combine these features under a single user interface. MSE has no advanced heuristics countermeasures, so supplementing it with PC Tools Threatfire may be wise. Maximum PC is really big on lists, but enumerating adds nothing to the factual discussion.

Dave, just replace CounterSpy with Malwarebytes, and you’re golden.

If startups are a concern, CCleaner (freeware) includes a Startups utility which is much simpler to use than Autoruns. It has checkboxes just like Microsoft’s MSConfig Startups tab, and you simply use the CCleaner Disable button to turn off any Startup you can see. Windows will not be damaged by doing this.

-- rc primak

It would certainly make a difference what security programs he uses, if he’s looking for malware or more specifically a keylogger on his computer. Maximum PC Magazine has just posted the results of independent tests on security software, although the May issue is not yet online. Esecurity Planet has just reported that 1/3 of virus programs have failed a security test.

We also haven’t established if it’s webmail or POP3, which would make a difference in who he complains to. . The OP has nor yet said what email program he uses.

Brand advocacy aside, Esecurity Planet is not an independent AV testing lab. That aside, it really does not matter whether a security product ranks in the top ten or in the top twenty, as long as it passes independent tresting. Unfortunately, even the most successful AV programs miss around 1/3 of all current “in the wild” malware. This does not mean that the programs are no good. Just that with all the new variants being spewed out each day (heck, each hour!) no program can block everything.

But this thread really is not about a local computer security issue. I still doubt that the e-mail address was keylogged locally. The idea to scan with a good AV program is just a precaution. Most likely, the harvesting took place directly (or indirectly) on line, or else through hacking into the on line (web) e-mail account. It might not even be the user’s e-mail account, but the Facebook or e-mail account of someone else who had the user’s address in their address book. There is nothing that can be done on the local computer to prevent this sort of thing.

Whom to complain to, is the on line e-mail provider where the affected e-mail address is located. Only that provider can take the necessary actions to stop the e-mail address from being misused, if even they can do anything about it. Most likely, the e-mail address would need to be changed to something not easily associated with the old e-mail address. I would only do this if my reputation was being damaged by the misuse of my e-mail address, or if I were being accused of sending spam or offensive e-mails through my account.

Actually, a POP-3 client downloads from the same server as the web mail account uses, so that distinction is irrelevant. The address book in question resides on the web mail server, not locally.

-- rc primak