[johngalt]

I am starting this discussion because I wanted to see if others could provide a good list of browser add-ons that helped protect your browsing environment along with being compatible with one another. The discussion started in this thread and I starting this discussion here, with the post that I made over there:

Quote

I performed the last search provided in the article to test my browser security.

I have McAfee SiteAdvisor, Finjan Secure Browsing and Robot Genius installed.

The results are pretty bad, in a sense....

McAfee showed all sites as being bad. Expected - they can be over zealous sometimes and rate sites bad that are not bad, and vice versa, but that is another topic...

Finjan rated one site as unable to read and the rest as *OK*. Soooooooooo not good.

Robot Genius rated all sites as unknown, but part of that may be because, if I understand it correctly, RG looks for bad downloads, or downloads that contain malware.

Online_s..._Capture.PNG

In the picture, the first icon in front of the URL is Finjan, the second Robot Genius and the icon after the URL is McAfee.

So, any other products that anyone is using, having success / failures with them, etc?

On my system this setup is in Firefox 2.0.0.7 running on Vista. If you care to add to this discussion, please list your OS, browser, and if you use multiple browsers, then multiple configurations would also be appreciate if they are different from one another.

[guest]

I use IE7 exclusively and have quite a few add-ins which I have not had any problems with yet




I don't like nor use Firefox nor Opera.

[johngalt]

Ummm, *browser security* add-ons. Like SiteAdvisor, Finjan browsing security, and the rest I named in my first post.

[guest]

I do use McAfee SiteAdvisor and happily rates Calendar of Updates as Good.

I have not tested Finjan Secure Browsing and Robot Genius so I can't comment on them.

[Donna]

Vista/Firefox:
1. Sitehound by http://www.firetrust.com - It has not failed me and it was flagging correctly the bad URLs reported to them. One thing I like with it is .. the flagged URL will not load (not shown to the user) unless the user opted to see the page.
2. NoScript by http://www.noscript.net
3. Dr.Web link checker - http://www.freedrweb.com/browser/

Vista/IE:
1. Dr.Web link checker - http://www.freedrweb.com/browser/

Vista/Opera:
None. I want to add Dr.Web link checker but I haven't try.

XP/IE:
1. SiteHound by Firetrust
2. Dr.Web link checker - http://www.freedrweb.com/browser/

[johngalt]

Interesting - I see there has been some progression from your previous items - No more Netcraft, SpoofStick, SiteAdvisor, and others....

And yeah, I have to agree on the NoScript - I will not use Fx without NoScript....

[Donna]

I actually have SiteAdvisor and many other system that is maintained only for testing (whether the URL is flagged or not)

[johngalt]

Is there a way to install them (SiteAdvisor, RobotGenius, Finjan, etc) and not have them actively scanning? I was having some slow down issues as it was with those three, and then comparing their results - in every 10 searches I performed I could usually find at least 1 web site where they did not agree....Many times Finjan was reporting known malicious sites as good (like that article about spotting phishing scams using PayPal knock offs) but I tried Sitehound and it did not like SiteAdvisor being there at all....

Oh, wait - you use separate profiles and browsers to accomplish this, right?

[Donna]

Quote

I tried Sitehound and it did not like SiteAdvisor being there at all....

In my test system, I have SiteAdvisor and SiteHound on FF. No problem in using both.
I remember first installing SiteHound then NoScript. Followed by SiteAdvisor.

shsaff.jpg

Quote

Oh, wait - you use separate profiles and browsers to accomplish this, right?

Nope. Just one profile.

Quote

Is there a way to install them (SiteAdvisor, RobotGenius, Finjan, etc) and not have them actively scanning?

I'm not sure about RobotGenius and Finjan but with SA, you can disable it via it's menu. THat should stop SA in actively scanning the URLs.

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[johngalt]

Well, After dashing about trying to get it to work, I realized that SiteHound has major problems with my optimized Fx build - it ran fine on Fx 2.0.0.7 Official, but as soon as I replaced the official with the optimized build, Fx crashes upon loading with SiteHound enabled.

I am posting this at MozZine to see if anyone knows a work around....

[Donna]

Will send this topic to Firetrust also. Something for themt to check (Sitehound on optimized FF build).

[rusticdog]

Donna, on Sep 28 2007, 03:08 PM, said:

Will send this topic to Firetrust also. Something for themt to check (Sitehound on optimized FF build).

Didn't even know they existed
Programmer is away for another week, will ask him about it when he's back. Though we've already given SiteHound for Firefox a pretty big working over as well, so it might be the versions we are currently testing are all OK when run on optimized builds.

[Donna]

You are always fast Chris

Thanks!

[rusticdog]

Donna, on Sep 28 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

You are always fast Chris

Thanks!

No probs. John, if you want to try the beta let me know and I'll supply a copy. Being tested internally only at this stage, but it might make a difference.

[Pluto]

So many anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti malware programs, hard to choose and hard to avoid redundancy.

Here's my menu :

A- Real-time monitoring

1- Kaspersky Internet Security ;
2- Javacool Spyware Blaster ;
3- Spybot Search & Destroy (only SDHelper Internet Explorer security, not Tea Timer System Security)
4- System's HOSTS file, managed with HostsMan software.

B- Occasional checking

B1- Local

1- Lavasoft Ad-Aware 2007 Free version (because the Ad-Watch monitoring module included in shareware version is problematic with Kaspersky) ;
2- SUPERAntispyware Free Edition ;
3- Microsoft Malicious Removal Tool ;

B2- Online

4- Secunia Software Inspector ;
5- Softit Browser Security Test.

C- General System Security settings hardening software

1- SeConfig XP ;
2- TCP/IP Stack Hardening Tool ;
3- Merijin's BugOff Protection Tool ;
4- SafeXP ;
5- XP-AntiSpy ;
6- ZebProtect.

I'm on XP SP2 with IE6 and Firefox as default Browser.

Let's wish ourselves good luck!

This post has been edited by Pluto: 14 October 2007 - 03:01 PM

[johngalt]

rusticdog, on Sep 27 2007, 11:49 PM, said:

Donna, on Sep 28 2007, 03:39 PM, said:

You are always fast Chris

Thanks!

No probs. John, if you want to try the beta let me know and I'll supply a copy. Being tested internally only at this stage, but it might make a difference.

I'd love to be able to test it - I can test it on Fx 2.x official, Optimized build (tete009 Bone Echo 2.0.0.7 currently) as well as Fx 3 if need be

Pluto, on Oct 14 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

So many anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti malware programs, hard to choose and hard to avoid redundancy.

Here's my menu :

A- Real-time monitoring

1- Kaspersky Internet Security ; M$ Live One Care for now, will probably be switching to Symantec once my trial s over as I can still get Symantec from work, and now we have Vista licenses....
2- Javacool Spyware Blaster ; MVPs recommends not using this on Vista
3- Spybot Search & Destroy (only SDHelper Internet Explorer security, not Tea Timer System Security) Using the current Halloween Edition Beta, although MVPs also discoruages use
4- System's HOSTS file, managed with HostsMan software. See below

B- Occasional checking

B1- Local

1- Lavasoft Ad-Aware 2007 Free version (because the Ad-Watch monitoring module included in shareware version is problematic with Kaspersky) ; Just went gold with Vista support, so I have yet to actually install it - but I have a 1 year license....
2- SUPERAntispyware Free Edition ; Windows Defender - comes with VIsta
3- Microsoft Malicious Removal Tool ; Same

B2- Online

4- Secunia Software Inspector ; Had some issues with Vista but it seems to be back in place....also use Belarc
5- Softit Browser Security Test.

C- General System Security settings hardening software

1- SeConfig XP ;
2- TCP/IP Stack Hardening Tool ; Worried about hardening stacks in Vista, particularly as SP1 may not be playing nicely yet....
3- Merijin's BugOff Protection Tool ;
4- SafeXP ;
5- XP-AntiSpy ;
6- ZebProtect.

I'm on XP SP2 with IE6 and Firefox as default Browser.

Let's wish ourselves good luck!

Nice set up - but I am running Vista, so half of what you run I can't / shouldn't. Plus, I won't run a HOSTS file other than MVPs - too many others block sites which I consider to be unfairly blocked and even with a manger it is a PITA to try to go out and remove the sites I want access to....

[hewee]

johngalt, on Oct 14 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

Nice set up - but I am running Vista, so half of what you run I can't / shouldn't. Plus, I won't run a HOSTS file other than MVPs - too many others block sites which I consider to be unfairly blocked and even with a manger it is a PITA to try to go out and remove the sites I want access to....

Hostsman makes it very easy to deal with the hosts file and you can delete the sites you want to go to or just put a check mark by them so you can get to the site and it will remember een after you update the hosts file.

[guest]

Quote

Plus, I won't run a HOSTS file other than MVPs - too many others block sites which I consider to be unfairly blocked and even with a manger it is a PITA to try to go out and remove the sites I want access to....

I use hpHOSTS file as it has over 50,000 verified sites as I don't relish the adverts that pop up, pop under nor pop sliders deliver

By the way, hpHOSTS has a forum that you can feedback entries that should be added or removed:
http://forum.hosts-f...ewforum.php?f=8

[Pluto]

hewee, on Oct 15 2007, 08:05 AM, said:

johngalt, on Oct 14 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

Nice set up - but I am running Vista, so half of what you run I can't / shouldn't. Plus, I won't run a HOSTS file other than MVPs - too many others block sites which I consider to be unfairly blocked and even with a manger it is a PITA to try to go out and remove the sites I want access to....

Hostsman makes it very easy to deal with the HOSTS file and you can delete the sites you want to go to or just put a check mark by them so you can get to the site and it will remember een after you update the hosts file.

That's right. Hostsman is only a HOSTS file manager, it's not the HOSTS file itself. Personally I use the MVPS Hosts file as the reference, as it seems in my opinion to be the best to conciliate protection and non-obstruction.

This topic got me to recall another security issue which is the risks related to running with Administrator rights. As many users of a Windows platform, logging in with restricted rights seems too much of a problem. I remembered having read an article on an application written by a Microsoft programmer, application called DropMyRights, which authorizes to set restricted rights on a per-application basis.

DropMyRights Homepage and download : http://msdn2.microso...y/ms972827.aspx
DropMyRights detailed info : http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13554_1-9756656...ml?tag=blg.orig

I installed DropMyRights yesterday, and it works perfectly well (of course).

What do all of you think of the risks related to Administrator rights, of the decrease of those risks when running with restricted rights? Is the security at that point involved?
Also, is Vista really that much more secure?

This post has been edited by Pluto: 15 October 2007 - 09:21 AM

[johngalt]

I know how HOSTSMan works. I know how a HOSTS file works (better than most - I was using them on Win95 in the manner that they were originally developed for - to help bypass DNS lookups on extremely slow connections, which could slow down a connection by as much as 30 seconds....

I refuse to use one besides the MVPs. I don't see the point in blocking advertising - and don't give me that Malware line - I don't store personal information in my browser - it's just not kosher for me. Other than that, I see Internet access the same as television of radio media - it is ridden with advertising, as that is how broadcasters make the money to keep the programs on the air. The same applies here - the advertising allows the content developed to keep their content online. *someone* has to pay the bills for the hosting - think it is cheap? Ask Donna how much this site costs *PER MONTH*. And this is a predominantly text-based site. The bandwidth used skyrockets when you start including multimedia.

Now that that is said, please don't try to convince me otherwise. I only mentioned that I don't use one and will not use one, and I am sufficiently proficient with computers to know what I am doing and to know whether I need one or not.

I mean, come on - my router is being hammered for the last month now by a botnet trying to get in....and yet I am still kicking.....