FireFox is a security mess

[Frank]

Alias wrote:

> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>
>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:44:19 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:04:54 +0200] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed
>>>>>>>>>> results to
>>>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.
>>>>>>>>> For proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on
>>>>>>>>> everything that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus
>>>>>>>>> scan and judge for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you.
>>>>>>> The above is an objective test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration,
>>>>>> Java,
>>>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marco
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I could do that
>>>>
>>>> The truth is that you lack comprehension skills to even understand one
>>>> word in that list of test items above.
>>>
>>> False. I understand each and every one,
>>
>>
>> The proof of which you will of course be unable to deliver.
>
>
> No, no inclination.
>
>>
>>> your condescending attitude notwithstanding.
>>
>>
>> You keep advertising the same childish service over and over again,
>> bragging about the so-called safety of a certain OS, and making
>> extremely condescending remarks about an OS, which is perfectly on topic
>> in this newsgroup, when in fact you have simply been "testing" the
>> safety of Firefox, which is *not* an operating system.
>
>
> Firefox running Ubuntu. If I were to do the same test with Firefox
> running in Windows, I would be busy reinstalling Windows instead of
> posting here.
>
>>
>>>>> but you can't afford my fees.
>>>>
>>>> So who is paying you now to continously advertise an operating system
>>>> that only a couple of misguided nerds with sticky fingers care about?
>>>>
>>>> Marco
>>>
>>> No one. I do that out of the goodness of my heart.
>>
>>
>> Doing what?
>>
>> Marco
>
>
> What you said, of course. Is English your first language?
>
>
Why?
I suppose you can lie in multiple languages right?
Frank

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:08:30 +0200, Marco Desloovere
>Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:

>>Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>>Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>>the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>>I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.

Ah. If a single av can't detect it, it doesn't exist



>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The most accurate diagnostic instrument
in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Alias [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:31:39 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>
>> You keep advertising the same childish service over and over again,
>> bragging about the so-called safety of a certain OS, and making
>> extremely condescending remarks about an OS, which is perfectly on topic
>> in this newsgroup, when in fact you have simply been "testing" the
>> safety of Firefox, which is *not* an operating system.
>
>Firefox running Ubuntu. If I were to do the same test with Firefox
>running in Windows, I would be busy reinstalling Windows instead of
>posting here.

Prove it by providing precise *objective* evidence or be considered an
incompetent childish troll!

Marco

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Alias [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:29:00 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:47:14 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:37:42 +0200] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed
>>>>>>>>>>>> results to
>>>>>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on
>>>>>>>>>>> everything that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan
>>>>>>>>>>> and judge for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The
>>>>>>>>> above is an objective test.
>>>>>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>>>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>>>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>>>>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>>>>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>>>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>>>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marco
>>>>>>> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes
>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>> In other words, that's a lot of work and I charge to do a lot of work.
>>>> That's the only way to get *objective* results - something you're
>>>> obviously not interested in or capable of.
>>> Test: Visit dodgy sites using Firefox while running Ubuntu. No meanies.
>>> Not subjective but objective.
>>
>> I already wrote this many times before: Firefox is not an operating
>> system. Therefore, your "test" has nothing whatsoever to do with the
>> safety of any OS.
>
>I know that. Firefox is an Internet Browser. I used it in Ubuntu.

So?
And how does using Firefox (an Internet browser) in *any* operating
system "test" the *safety* of that particular OS?

>What
>is so difficult about that?

You don't seem to be capable of understanding the gigantic difference
between a browser and an operating system.

Why don't you first learn the basics of computer science instead of
embarrassing yourself by your obvious incompetence.

>>>>> The fact that I spent a couple of hours visiting dodgy sites, clicking
>>>>> on everything that looked evil, and got no blue meanies with Ubuntu
>>>> You visited "dodgy sites" with Ubuntu?
>>>> How can an operating system visit any Internet sites?
>>> Ubuntu comes with Firefox preinstalled is how, of course.
>>
>> Your point being?
>
>Sigh.

So you ran out of arguments once again...

>>> Ubuntu is free and I assume you already have Hasta la Vista, Baby installed.
>>
>> No, my PC came pre-installed with Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.
>>
>> Marco
>
>Figures.

Condescension?

Marco

 

[Marco Desloovere]

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:23:34 +0200]
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:08:30 +0200, Marco Desloovere
>>Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:
>
>>>Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>>>Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>>>the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>>>I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.
>
>Ah. If a single av can't detect it, it doesn't exist

Apart from the fact that you didn't quote anything that I wrote, you are
of course quite right.
No matter how many AV programs are used, malware authors will *always*
be one step ahead of any AV software in *any* operating system.
But this is something that the kid "Alias" hasn't figured out yet...

Marco

 

[Alias]

Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:29:00 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:47:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>> Alias [Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:37:42 +0200] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>>>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on
>>>>>>>>>>>> everything that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan
>>>>>>>>>>>> and judge for yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The
>>>>>>>>>> above is an objective test.
>>>>>>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>>>>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>>>>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration, Java,
>>>>>>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>>>>>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>>>>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>>>>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marco
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes
>>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>>> In other words, that's a lot of work and I charge to do a lot of work.
>>>>> That's the only way to get *objective* results - something you're
>>>>> obviously not interested in or capable of.
>>>> Test: Visit dodgy sites using Firefox while running Ubuntu. No meanies.
>>>> Not subjective but objective.
>>> I already wrote this many times before: Firefox is not an operating
>>> system. Therefore, your "test" has nothing whatsoever to do with the
>>> safety of any OS.
>> I know that. Firefox is an Internet Browser. I used it in Ubuntu.
>
> So?
> And how does using Firefox (an Internet browser) in *any* operating
> system "test" the *safety* of that particular OS?

How else can you go to dodgy web sites?

>
>> What
>> is so difficult about that?
>
> You don't seem to be capable of understanding the gigantic difference
> between a browser and an operating system.

Yes, I do but one cannot *browse* the Internet without a *browser* and
an operating system.

>
> Why don't you first learn the basics of computer science instead of
> embarrassing yourself by your obvious incompetence.

You underestimate me.

>
>>>>>> The fact that I spent a couple of hours visiting dodgy sites, clicking
>>>>>> on everything that looked evil, and got no blue meanies with Ubuntu
>>>>> You visited "dodgy sites" with Ubuntu?
>>>>> How can an operating system visit any Internet sites?
>>>> Ubuntu comes with Firefox preinstalled is how, of course.
>>> Your point being?
>> Sigh.
>
> So you ran out of arguments once again...

No, I don't relate well to a brick wall that won't listen.

>
>>>> Ubuntu is free and I assume you already have Hasta la Vista, Baby installed.
>>> No, my PC came pre-installed with Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium.
>>>
>>> Marco
>> Figures.
>
> Condescension?
>
> Marco

You claim to be a computer expert and claim that I am a novice yet you
don't even build your own computers and I do.
--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[Alias]

Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:31:39 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>> You keep advertising the same childish service over and over again,
>>> bragging about the so-called safety of a certain OS, and making
>>> extremely condescending remarks about an OS, which is perfectly on topic
>>> in this newsgroup, when in fact you have simply been "testing" the
>>> safety of Firefox, which is *not* an operating system.
>> Firefox running Ubuntu. If I were to do the same test with Firefox
>> running in Windows, I would be busy reinstalling Windows instead of
>> posting here.
>
> Prove it by providing precise *objective* evidence or be considered an
> incompetent childish troll!
>
> Marco

I provided an objective test. The fact that you don't understand it or
approve of it is not my problem.

Fact: Windows (all flavors) are virus prone.

Fact: Ubuntu isn't.

Fact: you can't live with that and have to resort to infantile insults
to discredit a perfectly objective and scientific test.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[Alias]

Marco Desloovere wrote:
> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:23:34 +0200]
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:08:30 +0200, Marco Desloovere
>>> Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:
>>>> Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>>>> Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>>>> the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>>>> I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.
>> Ah. If a single av can't detect it, it doesn't exist
>
> Apart from the fact that you didn't quote anything that I wrote, you are
> of course quite right.
> No matter how many AV programs are used, malware authors will *always*
> be one step ahead of any AV software in *any* operating system.
> But this is something that the kid "Alias" hasn't figured out yet...
>
> Marco

Ignorance is bliss, eh, Marco? There hasn't been a new virus for Ubuntu
in years. As viruses are *executables* I sure as hell would have known
because I would have had to give root access by entering my password.
Didn't happen.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[Alias]

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:08:30 +0200, Marco Desloovere
>> Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:
>
>>> Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>>> Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>>> the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>>> I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.
>
> Ah. If a single av can't detect it, it doesn't exist
>
>
>
>> ------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> The most accurate diagnostic instrument
> in medicine is the Retrospectoscope
>> ------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

There hasn't been a new virus for Ubuntu in years. As viruses are
*executables* I sure as hell would have known because I would have had
to give root access by entering my password. Didn't happen.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:


>
> Fact: Windows (all flavors) are virus prone.

Liar!
>
> Fact: Ubuntu isn't.

Biggest lie of all!
>
> Fact: you can't live with that and have to resort to infantile insults
> to discredit a perfectly objective and scientific test.
>

And you resort to lying. You're just a fukkin liar and don't have the
balls to admit it!
Lying loser.
Frank

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Alias [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:45:07 +0200] wrote:

>You claim to be a computer expert and claim that I am a novice yet you
>don't even build your own computers and I do.

You've got to be kidding...!

Marco

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Alias [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:53:15 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:23:34 +0200]
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:08:30 +0200, Marco Desloovere
>>>> Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:
>>>>> Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>>>>> Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>>>>> the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>>>>> I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.
>>> Ah. If a single av can't detect it, it doesn't exist
>>
>> Apart from the fact that you didn't quote anything that I wrote, you are
>> of course quite right.
>> No matter how many AV programs are used, malware authors will *always*
>> be one step ahead of any AV software in *any* operating system.
>> But this is something that the kid "Alias" hasn't figured out yet...
>>
>> Marco
>
>Ignorance is bliss, eh, Marco?

And that is exactly why you feel so happy...

Marco

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Alias [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:47:53 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> Alias [Sat, 04 Aug 2007 01:31:39 +0200] wrote:
>>
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>> You keep advertising the same childish service over and over again,
>>>> bragging about the so-called safety of a certain OS, and making
>>>> extremely condescending remarks about an OS, which is perfectly on topic
>>>> in this newsgroup, when in fact you have simply been "testing" the
>>>> safety of Firefox, which is *not* an operating system.
>>> Firefox running Ubuntu. If I were to do the same test with Firefox
>>> running in Windows, I would be busy reinstalling Windows instead of
>>> posting here.
>>
>> Prove it by providing precise *objective* evidence or be considered an
>> incompetent childish troll!
>>
>> Marco
>
>I provided an objective test. The fact that you don't understand it or
>approve of it is not my problem.

Where? Message ID, URL, ...?

>Fact: Windows (all flavors) are virus prone.

Just like any other operating system.

>Fact: Ubuntu isn't.

Prove it, if you dare, or shut up.

>Fact: you can't live with that and have to resort to infantile insults
>to discredit a perfectly objective and scientific test.

Final conclusion: You are absolutely incapable of providing your
so-called detailed *objective* "test" results or anything else
worthwhile.
The only reason why you are in this group is to continuously advertise a
non-Microsoft operating system, which is obviously totally off topic
here, and to make condescending remarks about the Microsoft Windows
Vista operating system, which on the other hand is discussed here.

End of discussion.

Marco

 

[Ray Rogers]

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
news:e5rrxHb1HHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Saucy wrote:
>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com.> wrote in message
>> news:u9NULmV1HHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>> Alias [Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:10:14 +0200] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Saucy wrote:
>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>>>>>> < chop >
>>>>>>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>>>>>>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>>>>>>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, no.
>>>>> Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The
>>>>> above is an objective test.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain how that "test" is objective?
>>>> Could you show your comprehensive detailed results, like browser (and
>>>> its version) used, Internet sites visited, security configuration,
>>>> Java,
>>>> JavaScript, ActiveX or Cookies enabled/disabled, number of frames in a
>>>> page, cross-zone tests, HTML, XHTML or XML, SSL/TSL enabled/disabled,
>>>> valid/invalid certificates, Phishing filter, which malicious code was
>>>> tested and what were the problems encountered, ...?
>>>>
>>>> Marco
>>>
>>> Yeah, I could do that but you can't afford my fees.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alias
>>> To email me, remove shoes
>>
>>
>> In other words, no.
>
> In other words, that's a lot of work and I charge to do a lot of work. The
> fact that I spent a couple of hours visiting dodgy sites, clicking on
> everything that looked evil, and got no blue meanies with Ubuntu should be
> objective enough.
>
> --
> Alias
> To email me, remove shoes


Still no.