Tech: Firefox browser questions

Subject: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 07 Apr 05 - 10:39 PM

I thought I'd PM Bill and JohnInKansas, but then thought maybe others have had this problem, so here goes.

I'm trying real hard to like the Firefox browser...but...

1. I can't seem to hear MIDI files or MP3's in a continuous sound. I have Windows Media for Windows 98...it worked fine with IE. Could it be some setting somewhere dealing with streaming? The sound is interrupted, not like long pauses when buffering, but an irritating staccato-type static.

2. When I'm updating web pages, I have to have a text copy of the page as well as the HTML copy. In other words, unlike in IE, when I View/Source an html page, it doesn't open in Notepad which allows me to make changes. I have to make all the changes in a separate text (Notepad) file and then save that one as an html file. Just a couple of extra steps, but a bit irritating when I have to go back to update numerous pages that were not created that way in the first place.

3. Pages seem to load more slowly. I see all the single-pixel gifs as a page is loading.

4. I have to remember to reload a page after changes are made in order to view the new page. What is the rule on pages in cache? Since many of my changes are very important as to updates (rents, sale prices, etc) are many of the people viewing the pages having the same problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: NH Dave
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 04:09 AM

Having just updated to Firefox, I amy not have all of the answeres but;
#2 I believe this is standard for all of the Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox browsers. The "View/ Source" command is just that, not open to edit.

#3 BEing new to the program I have no basis of compaarison.

#4 See my comments on #2. You may be able to accomplish what you want using the Composer part of the Mozilla Suite, but I don't believe that Firefox, as shipped will allow this. There are lots of ad-ins available from Molilla.org and you may find what you want by checking there. Additionally, you can get in touch with a Mozilla technician from that site, and pose your questions to him/her directly.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: mindblaster
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 04:56 AM

I have been using both Firefox & Thunderbird for sometime. I uninstalled firefox about 2 weeks ago as I picked up several viruses and worms and they appeared in files associated with firefox. I have now Also uninstalled thunderbird for the same reason. I have been using PCs online now for 5 years and never picked up any worms or viruses.

Shame 'cos I thought that both utilities were brilliant, I even bought the CD and manual from mozilla.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 04:17 PM

I can't offer any real help with the Fox, since I haven't tried it out yet, but there have been several recent releases of "new" Windows Media Player. There's the remote chance that there's a newer (or older) one that might help. The download sites generally all have "Readme" files with some info on System Requirments that may help find a compatibility or resource problem.

For all available versions of WMP, you can visit: Windows Media Player

Media Player 9 is the "latest" version listed as compatible with Win98. There appear to be different flavors of "version 9" for people with WinXP and those with Win98SE/Win2K/WinME, and there's also a version 10 for WinXP. You can scroll the "version" box to see any of the available versions from this page.

Each download page, after you select a version, has a "Readme" link, that may give some clues about whether a given version is right for your setup. Some Win98 users may want to look at the "Minimum System Requirements" – a link inside the "Readme" – since the WMP requirements may be a little more than was required when your Win98 was new. There are some "requirements" for browsers, with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 or Netscape Navigator 4.7 specified for the Win98 ver 9. Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 or Netscape Navigator 7.0 recommended with the: "Note To support embedding digital media in a Web page, Netscape Navigator 6.x and 7.0 must be used only with the Java 2 Runtime Environment version 1.3.x."

I believe I recall that Firefox has quite a number of "add-ins" and some sources indicate that you really need some of them to get things working in good form; but I can't advise which ones might help.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: GUEST,Mozillaman
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 05:40 PM

Mindblaster,

Don't blame Firefox or Thunderbird if you get viruses, worms, etc. They're actually much more common for users of Gatesian software like Internet Explorer and Outlook.

The way to keep out viruses, worms etc., is to use both reputable anti-virus software (Norton, MacAfee, etc.) that is constantly updated and a firewall.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:41 PM

right...viruses have nothing to do with Firefox. It is a matter of where you go and what OTHER software you have protecting you.

In any browser, you have to tell it what your preferences are regarding cache, memory, external editing programs...etc..You need to got to the "tools-options" menu and study it...It has many ways to configure it.

In the same way, YOU can choose which external program will play midis or MP3s...I have several nice MP3 players that are free.

And, yes...Firefox has add-ons called 'extensions' that will do amazing tricks..there ought be a place up top to go directly to the web site to look at them.

It wouldn't really make sense to allow you to edit the source of the page you are viewing right in your browser....Netscape use to have a built in editor, but mostly, folks just have separate program to update a page.


Firefox is designed to NOT have extraneous stuff you don't need, but to be flexible to allow adding exactly what you DO want.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM

Thanks. I'll do some studying. (my tools/options seems to be very limited) I've already downloaded Quicktime and have not been happy with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:31 PM

There is a new version...1.1.2, I think. You might try upgrading and see if that helps at all. I've been using Firefox for about 2 months and haven't experienced those problems...and I have internet radio on all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:33 PM

I've been using Firefox and Thunderbird since last August, both at work and at home, and have had zero problems. I like them better than Netscape.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 08:45 PM

I may have solved one problem. I reassociated Quicktime to open midi files and they sound OK now. It seems that Windows Mediaplayer had taken that over and was doing a lousy job. I thought I only had Quicktime earlier, but now there's no way to know. I had to download MP in order to hear some CD snippits at Amazon. I play around some more and see what I can find.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 08:50 PM

I spoke too soon. It seems that the simple midi files are OK, but a big one, with a full orchestra, sounds awful. It sounds like to me it tries to do streaming and my dialup connection is just not fast enough. In the old days, the file just wouldn't play until all had been loaded. I'll look around more for an option to "not stream" or maybe find an older version. hmmmmmmmm....

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 11:53 PM

Mary...you might try Media
Player Classic at Source Forge...it plays 'almost' everything.

I hope that URL works ok....

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 05 - 11:55 PM

(note that the name indicates the one you want.... XP or 98)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: mack/misophist
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 12:12 AM

Some sites, mostly non-commercial, will allow you to move up a level into the folder where the actual files (midi or mp3) are stored. Then you can download whatever you need without worrying about streaming, which I hate.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: mindblaster
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 03:19 AM

I'm not blaming anybody for viruses - if you read my post! The viruses were only picked up after installing firefox & thunderbird. They were also in files associated with said apps. A word of warning - don't be so cock sure that, just because you read it in the media, by using these two apps you are safe! The virus writers will target them just for that reason.

Yes I do have anti-virus and firewall programs.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Mr Red
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 05:24 AM

I gave-up on Firefox and Opera

I haven't managed to view history or SavedAs files with either - unless I go on-line.

If you are on dial-up this is a limitation because I save and review off line to save time/money. I can peruse at my own pace, and still recieve calls. I load multiple IE's and get multiple pages to read.

IE 5.5 can do that. If you have a website having old browsers is essential - unless you want to dis-enfranchise surfers (in your ignorance). I know of one Festival Director who runs Win95 and he knows not what IE version. The lowest common denominator is pretty low.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: MudGuard
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 05:32 AM

Mr Red, to work offline with Firefox, go to the File menu and click on "Work offline" (checkmark should appear).
To work online again, do the same (checkmark should vanish)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 07:26 AM

You can get 'down-loaders' apps - most will take over the download (with IE - I don't know if all of them work with other browsers) and run it in the background. You can usually adjust the priority, and number of simultaneous downloads, and can 'chew away' at a big download over several connections (days), as they will remember part downloads and continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 08:53 AM

"They were also in files associated with said apps." HUH? That simply makes no sense. WHAT files? WHERE did such files come from? Any browser 'can' have security holes, but IE is famous for them....Firefox is not 'targeted' particularly. It IS better protected against pop-ups & spam.

Either Opera OR Firefox will allow you to work offline....either one will allow you to save your history file in whatever level you specify. I have used ONLY Opera & Firefox for 5 years now..(ever since Netscape went AOL) I open IE maybe twice a year.

"If you have a website having old browsers is essential - unless you want to dis-enfranchise surfers (in your ignorance)."

ummmmm...I sorta see what you are getting at, but it's rather like saying you 'need' an old car with no modern technology, just in case your great-aunt Matilda needs to drive it once a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 08:59 AM

Testing your website in old browsers may be helpful - and if you use those fancy 'generators' rather than hand code, may be essential, but I hand write the code, and I just keep to HTML 3.1

This allows almost every old browser out there to get most stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 09:25 AM

Since most browsers are free, the use of the older browsers is 'mostly' related to technophobia and the reluctance to download and *horrors* install anything new which might require learning some new menus and settings.

Many people simply use whatever was handed them when they bought the machine, and are unlikely to upgrade anything until the machine dies. They want a simple, non-challenging way to push one button and get their email, or open Mudcat. I have friends who do not know where the FOLDERS are located in their machines...they have almost NO idea how to control fonts, images, associations or cache settings.

I guess that will not be such a problem when this generation is gone, and those who grew up with computers are in the majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: GUEST,Mary in Kentucky
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 10:45 AM

Thanks everyone. When I have time (and energy) I'll sort this out. Bill, I'm not really a technophobe, (think Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) but I really don't know enough to efficiently troubleshoot things. I checked some settings last night, and it appears that Firefox is configured correctly for my dialup speed. I also read that my firewall may be causing problems, but the troubleshooting for that was so involved (other than just turn it off - but in the past I had to uninstall it) that I just decided to wait for another day.

Foolestroupe, I agree with the idea of using different browsers...AND as I noticed last week...different screen resolutions. There are just too many possible bugs that I'm unaware of until I happen to see a page in a different browser or resolution. I never new Netscape wouldn't display a page if I forgot to close a table tag until I happened to talk to a Netscape user who couldn't see her page. I was also shocked at some huge table cells that didn't show up in smaller screen sizes, but were ugly at the larger screen size. Also, that loading sequence is very noticeable in my dialup, but few of my friends ever see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 04:23 PM

(Mary...I wasn't thinking of you when I prattled on about technophobia...'mindblaster' set me off and I was just generalizing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: GUEST,Babbuwag
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 06:58 PM

I must agree with mindo - loads of viri invading whilst firefoxxing. BEWARE ... you read it here first!

Subject: RE: BS: Firefox browser questions
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 07:10 PM

(Bill, I never thought you were. I was just generalizing about Zen... in general. I really liked that book and saw myself somewhere between the extremes. Having lived most of my life around mechanical purists, I could really appreciate the descriptions of maintaining an optimum machine!)

I did notice when taking a lab in instrumental analysis (later I had to teach the lab which was a joke) that there was a predictable difference in how a male and a female approached various instruments. Think TV set here for example. The guys would first of all turn every dial to all the extremes to see what happened. I would gingerly turn a dial just a little bit, observe what happened, and then restore it to the beginning setting for fear I had messed it up.

(I know, I know, this is stereotyping, but I could give more examples. It got real funny when males from certain cultures had to ask a female for help!)

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 10:27 PM

"loads of viri invading ..." ...I repeat...the problem is NOT Firefox. It just doesn't work that way. It's what you DO with a browser that makes most of the difference. I have used Firefox since version 0.7 (along with Opera) and I do not get viruses.

(yep, Mary....I have seen those stereotypes at work, myself. I guess I must have a feminine side, 'cause I tweak pretty carefully until I have some idea of the patterns. But I have seen both men AND women who didn't even want to turn the dial! *grin*)

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 05 - 10:44 PM

just did a search and found this review of Firefox...(in case you 'viri' infected folks don't want to look, it includes these words...)

" Even though I had left the computers hooked up on a high-speed Internet connection almost daily for periods of up to eight hours at a time, often unattended but also with a good deal of Web activity thrown in, I had no spyware or viruses to report on the laptop. The computer with Internet Explorer, however, had about 14 instances of spyware.

The absence of viruses or spyware on the Firefox computer says a lot, as a machine with that type of Internet connection using a virus-prone operating system is almost unheard of.

and adds "Firefox is available, though. Tested and proven, it can help keep your computer system clean of spyware as well as some common, nasty viruses. But remember, Firefox is not totally immune, and it is still necessary for you to take precautions to protect your system — including the use of a firewall."

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 12:06 AM

(yup, those that won't even touch the machine are probably the most vexing. I saw an administrator in a computer class one time that would only listen, never would even touch the machine. I find when I tutor teenagers, I put them in the "driver's seat" and they do all the typing and mousing...sometimes a little slower, but certainly more rewarding for them.)

I've been free of Adware since my massive cleanup in January. The help forum that advised me also advised Firefox.

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: GUEST,Wholenut
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 10:53 AM

This fucking BillD is some sort of wanker hey? Does he work for mozilla or something? He's certainly talking out of his arsehole.

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 11:20 AM

spoken like true WholeNut (they do raise some rude ones over on the right side of the pond!)

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Apr 05 - 05:19 PM

One reason that the open source browsers may appear to have fewer vulnerabilities is that patches are seldom made. Instead a new version generally is released, but the "corrections" that are made may never be widely acknowledged publicly. While those who are active in open source coding may be generally aware of what vulnerabilities exist and what is/was/has been found and patched, it is difficult for even "bit-savvy" general users to know just how secure – or insecure – these browsers actually are.

This is not a criticism of open source programs, and there is no intent to assert any unusual vulnerabilites in open source browsers. It is important though, that it cannot be assumed that an open source browser is "invulnerable" just because it "isn't Microsoft."

That a "less popular" browser is less of a target is certainly not in dispute.

In February 2005, Mozilla Organization released the first update to Firefox, version 1.0.1 (www.getfirefox.com). There are no new features of note in the new release, but it did fix 17 documented vulnerabilities in version 1.0.

(Not all of the "fixes" actually removed the vulnerabilities. In at least one case, the "fix" was just to disable the susceptible feature in default settings. This allows the user to turn the vulnerable feature back on, if wanted. It is not clear whether it is documented where naïve users would recognize that doing so re-opens the vulnerability.)

While Mozilla has made no particular effort to conceal vulnerabilities when found, they have withheld any formal public notice until after a fix (new version) is released, which in the case of the recent version was a few months for some of the fixes.

Interim "versions" have occurred to supply patches for significant vulnerabilities, but these are "maverick" releases not supported by Mozilla, and may contain other (unknown?) bugs. Mozilla does not release patches, at least as of this time. The decision to deploy an interim issue is at "user's own risk," and should be based on the severity of the vulnerability, the user's own exposure to attacks using the exploit, and acceptance of risks of running what is essentially "beta" software on the using system(s).

Mozilla has NOT released patches, so the only official way to clear a vulnerability is with an "official update."

A recent commentary, from a usually credible (dose of usual salt recommended) source is at:

Are You Safer With Firefox?
03.14.05 Last Updated: 03.16.05, By Larry J. Seltzer. (Editor, PC Magazine)

Among remaining "bugs" not fixed in release 1.0.1, Mr Seltzer cites that:

"… on a multiuser machine, such as Linux system, if a non-root user starts Firefox when another user is already running Firefox as root, the non-root user's instance of Firefox gains root priveleges."

(Those with reason for concern will understand whether this is significant(?).)

Mr. Seltzer's article also includes a link to Mozilla's new "security bulletins" site, which is a recommended bookmark for Firefox users. It still is unknown whether Firefox will become a significantly targeted browser, but the site may become increasingly helpful if it does.

Separately, a couple of industry security analysts have voiced warnings that Firefox, having reached nearly 15% market penetration, may have achieved the "critical mass" needed to make it susceptible to being targeted by malware. At least one maker has promised a Firfox-specific AntiVirus "soon," although no specific date was mentioned in the releases seen.

As to "infected Firefox files" – whatever is meant – this should not happen if the Firefox version was downloaded from a trusted (Mozilla) source. If the software was acquired "from a friend," or from an unknown website, the "friend" simply runs a dirty machine or the site is dirty and/or has malicious intent. No surprises there, and no indictment of Firefox.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: mindblaster
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 03:18 AM

Fact: My computer was recently infected by several worms & viruses after installing and using firefox & thunderbird.

Fact: prior to installing the mozilla stuff I have been surfing unaffected by viruses for over 5 years.

Fact: I Installed both programs from the official cd disc which I purchased online from mozilla.

Fact: I run titanium anti-virus ans zonealarm firewall at all times.

I do prefer these to their microsoft cousins but all the viruses were in files associated with mozilla so I unfortunately had to get shot of them. I did write the file locations down somewhere at home and I will post it later when I find them (at work now)

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 10:34 AM

Mindblaster -

Assuming you stil have the original CDs, there is nothing to prevent you from scanning the CD to see if it contains some infection. While it's not completely unheard of, such infection from reliable sources is exceedingly rare.

Susceptibility to malware is critically related to how your browser is set up. I don't know what the default security and privacy settings are for Firefox. Recent updates to IE have stepped them up to rather "tight" levels. The default Firefox install may leave some openings that you needed to turn off; although few people have reported such problems.

Unfortunately malware seems to "cluster" on the web, and one visit to the wrong place with an open hole or two can frequently result in a whole bunch of crud. In many cases, a single worm can open up a port or two on your machine and go out looking for other malware to install. Decent AV software usually stops them one at a time as they come in, but it's very common - if any single piece of malware has managed to install itself - to find multiple infections.

Since most malware is intended to affect web access, it's not uncommon for worms etc to seek out browser files to infect. This doesn't mean that they originated with the browser program.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: GUEST,mindblaster
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 11:37 AM

Thanks JohnInKansas.

But I've since dumped the CD and am back using the dreaded MS/IE with no infection probs.

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 01:30 PM

mindblaster -

Just be sure to keep the IE updates current. If they keep stepping the security up, soon you'll be so safe it won't do anything.

Incidentally, a whole new and improved IE (ver 7?) has been promised in a couple of months. Seems they found a place to steal a whole bunch of good ideas when they figured out a lot of people were using other browsers. We'll hold our breath while we wait.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 03:51 PM

One thing that I learned in my extensive cleanup last January was that adware and malware became more prolific and agressive last November. For some reason the antivirus people haven't been as agressive in fighting these as they are in fighting virii. I'm impressed with the adware and malware fighters. They are so good that they are being targeted.

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 04:16 PM

AV programs have been around for quite a while, and there are extablished standards and organizations for detecting new threats, generating defenses, and getting them distributed.

Adware and Spyware are considerably newer phenomena, and thus far there's still even a lot of differences in opinions about what is spyware. There are a couple of groups that are beginning to produce some "standards" but it's still pretty loose.

Speculation now is that we should soon have "integrated" programs that detect viral stuff, block cookies, kill popups, delete tracking cookies, and block all the ports used by the spys, etc., all in one package - but that's what some people were speculating two years ago when "spyware" first began to be a popular subject. (The first recommendation I remember, that everyone should have AntiSpyware program(s) was back about April of 2003. There were probably a few earlier ones, but it wasn't considered much more than a nuisance before then.)

Two or three years ago, a good AV was usually enough. Now a decent firewall is pretty much mandatory, just in order to survive. Real-time AntiAdware/AntiTracking stuff is still something of an option if you clean things out regularly, but anyone can be hit with one of the spyware/zombie programs that can completely shut your machine down, or appropriate it for illegal activies you may not even know about.

The majority of users "out there" ARE INFECTED with something, frequently multiple things, and don't know it. 'catters in general should be much more savvy about this stuff than the general population, and hopefully are doing a better job of "keeping clean" than most.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 07:54 PM

Recent research has now shown that it is on average less than 5 minutes connected to the Net before an unprotected 'Bill Box' (MS) is infected - Virus, Adware, Spyware, Trojans, etc.

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 10:29 PM

Recent research has shown that it is an average of less than five minutes connected to the Net before ANY UNPROTECTED CONNECTION, regardless of operating system or browser, is infected.

This problem is particularly troublesome for those who seem inclined to reinstall their whole OS frequently. The installation is seldom up to date, and it's virtually impossible to connect long enough to get updates before the old holes let in the crud.

Some estimates are that 80% of users either have no AV or do not have current signature files, and that half of these people have 50 or more malware infections - not including the trivial adware cookies. The infections that are a concern are those that let someone with malicious intent use their machine for illegal or destructive purposes without their consent or even their knowledge that it's being done.

It's really a pretty nasty world.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 08:04 AM

Well, John,

what I meant - without excessively promoting Linux - is that some Linux distros are immune to most of the junk floating around, so they will take longer before something that will infect them turns up.

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 10:36 AM

For those who were around before the PC (and the Mac?) became "household appliances" a bit of digging around in the memory dustbins may bring the recollection that "in the good old days" there were "malware tricks" for attacking and/or exploiting nearly all of the various Op Systems. There didn't really seem to be much difference in principle between the vulnerabilities of the various systems, although there were some differences in the details.

Then, it was mostly a localized thing, with a few people hacking in on the company computer for "personal projects."

Since Windows offers a very large bunch of systems, all of almost exactly the same kind, all interconnected by the web, and mostly provided and operated by masses of "idiots" (or call them the "great tribe of the unaware") it's fairly easy to see that Windows offers the best potential for "fame and fortune" if someone wants to prove they can beat the system by finding and exploiting holes in it. Since a great many people depend on their Windows systems, there's also the opportunity to "do good things" by finding and fixing holes.

Windows is the "target of choice" and a whole bunch of people, good and bad, spend lots of time looking for ways to make it do things that were not intended. Because it's a public system, when one of them succeeds, it is absolutely necessary that everyone be told.

In comparison, the number of people looking for ways to exploit other systems, the 'NIX kinds included, is very small. The potential "reward" for cracking into an individual user's Linux machine are miniscule. There's not likely to be much there that's directly useful, and there aren't that many similar machines to be "cracked" using the same method. Cracking into a corporate 'NIX system has somewhat greater potential for producing some sort of "reward" but better administrators and "professional levels of management" make it more difficult. (There's also a higher likelihood of "retribution.")

The number of attacks on Windows "corporate systems" is slightly larger than the attacks on other kinds, largely because the Win systems share some "features" found in attacks on individual users; but the difference is not all that great. Corporations in most cases DO NOT REPORT in public when their systems have been penetrated, but it happens with predictable regularity and doesn't appear to be strongly tied to what OS is in use.

As has been shown in this thread, Firefox was a "small target" when people started switching from IE in search of greater security. It now probably has reached "critical mass" where it's a "target of interest" and Firefox exploits seem to have begun to appear. Firefox has issued an update to patch some of the vulnerabilities.

Linux is "invulnerable" to currently common threats because those threats are designed to use/exploit Windows. It may safely be assumed that when/if the base of individual Linux users becomes large enough to be "of interest" exploits based on and attacking individual users' Linux systems will appear.

Any system that has a "USER" is "vulnerable," because if enough USERs can be tapped, some of them will be "stupid."

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 07:23 PM

I did not want to start a new thread, so here goes:

I just installed Firefox on a new mini-tower. I've checked all of my settings and have them the same as I did on my old PC. Firefox automatically checked my spelling on my old PC. I have the box ticked for it to do the same on this one, but it isn't doing it. I've tried shutting it down, firing back up, rechecked the box to make sure I ticked it and cannot see why it is not doing so. I go to Options>General>Advanced and tick the box. Any ideas on what else I could do. I really liked having it, esp. when I am working. Thanks!

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 07:29 PM

If you open tools/options there a box you can tick(check) for correcting spelling. It might need to be ticked (checked).

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 07:31 PM

Sorry - I see you've done that already...

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 07:55 PM

Tools>Options>Advanced>General, then check, right? Maybe a reboot afterwards?

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:40 PM

Is the spellcheck an integral component in Firefox, or is it one of those "things you can add" that requires a separate download/install?

Just an innocent question, as I don't use it and don't know.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 11:32 PM

Last I knew it was an integral part as it showed up on my old PC after the latest download sometime in the past year or so. I really like it. Since I downloaded the newest, today,for this new PC, I see it listed as oted in the Options and that darn box IS ticked, but it's still not doing it. I;ll gor amble around their site and see if I can find a separate download for it, John. That's a good idea.

Thanks, guys,

kat

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 11:52 PM

John, you are genius! I went to a Mozilla forum and found some info on right clicking to see if "spell check this field" was ticked. Well it didn't even show up, even though that other box I've been writing about was ticked. What DID show up was "Install Dictionaries." So, sez I, why not and bingo...it works! Thanks for the hint!

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 11:59 PM

Another innocent question -

When you gor an amble is it harmed?

It sounds like something that could be fatal.

[kat needs a nap? and/or a ((((hug))))!)

John

Subject: RE: Tech: Firefox browser questions
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:24 AM

LOL..or a good belly laugh, you freekin' genius, you! See WHY I needed that!? Oy, and I call myself an editor?! I'll take the hug and nap along with the laughs, thanks! Nothing greedy about this cat.:-)