close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Firefox Browser

Discussion in 'Tech Talk' started by rfrf, Jan 3, 2009.

  1. rfrf

    rfrf

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will using a Mozilla Firefox browser instead of explorer reduce the chance of getting a virus ?

    Thanks,

    RF
     
  2. Big Al 24

    Big Al 24

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not necessarily, but supposedly it's safer.
     

  3. Pierre!

    Pierre! NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,117
    Likes Received:
    296
    Location:
    Lovin Sparks Nv!
    No Active X on Firefox.. Right?

    That helps....
     
  4. DoubleWide

    DoubleWide

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    168
    Only for viruses using an IE security hole.
     
  5. najaboy

    najaboy

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Not visiting questionable sites and not downloading questionable files go a long way to reducing the risk, no matter the browser. Good security software makes a heck of a difference, too.
     
  6. paccw

    paccw ARE YOU READY !

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PA
    Download the free version of AVG it stops all attacks.
    And yes mozilla is better then explorer.
     
  7. najaboy

    najaboy

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    AVG was good two years ago, now it's just a step above mediocre. Kaspersky, Avast, Norton Internet Security 2009, F-Secure, or AntiVir are far superior programs.
     
  8. paccw

    paccw ARE YOU READY !

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PA
    Just go to download.com and see everyone e-pinion on downloads.
    Your not totally true.
     
  9. najaboy

    najaboy

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Or, rather than fanboy reviews, which are notoriously unreliable... you could check the actual performance metrics of the software.

    In terms of proactive detection... reacting to behavior of the user such as navigating to an infected site or executing an infected file, AVG's performance is "fair." It's a crap shoot on whether or not it's going to alert the user as to a problem.

    Okay, so now you suspect that you might have a virus, so let's do a scan. It found nothing, so all is right, right? Not quite... A test rig was loaded with 1,164,662 virus "samples." AVG missed close to 49,000 of them, which was 4.2% of the sample. If we were in school, getting the right answer 95.8% of the time would be outstanding. But since we're talking computer security, it barely makes it "good." For malware detection, something that detects 98% or better of what's thrown at it would be a very good product, of which the previously mentioned suites have accomplished.

    And who can forget false positives? Visit any torrent site, and you'll note that the folks posting bogus "virus warnings" are more often than not using AVG. And lest we not forget AVG's most embarrassing false positive to date- just a couple months ago, AVG was falsely identifying user32.dll as infected and instructing users to delete the file> Problem is, this caused the affected computers to go into a boot loop or not boot at all once the affected users restarted- things like that tend to happen when system files are mistakenly deleted. This wasn't AVG's first faux pas with user32.dll. For quite some time, AVG had been consistently listing it in scan results as a "changed file."

    As I stated before, AVG used to be exceptional circa two years ago, but has degraded in quality since then.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2009