Name one web browser that uses scripts that is not vulnerable. The only one I know is firefox with the noscript add-on. That allows me to only allow websites that I trust to run scripts. But then I've seen you in here saying firefox is crap too so what browser do you use that is not vulnerable? And don't tell my Lynx, I said one that allows scripts to run.
Well, seeing as you are certain you know how to make a system secure without having to use anti virus scanners, spyware scanners, hosts file, script blockers, ad blockers etc. why don't you put up a website with instructions on how to do it and provide a real service to the community?
And this is what you propose the average user does? Home users use their computers for fun and not to pretend their computer is Fort Knox. Hello? Earth to Sebastian G.You are out of touch with reality. You sure you are not posting from within the local loony bin?
Because, with respect to the demands of a normal home user, Windows is secure out of the box? And since anti virus scanners, spyware scanners, hosts file, script blockers, ad blockers etc. can't make a system secure, there's nothing to discuss at all.
Well, if you want that, you wouldn't need NoScript either, since Firefox already has this capability (just doesn't expose it in the GUI). At any rate, the real benefit of NoScript is to potentially limit XSS when actually globally allowing scripts.
So you're equating scripts with vulnerabilities? What a nonsense.
Wrong. Browsers typically get patched before a full description of the vulnerability is released. Even for the extremely rare cases where that didn't hold typically a workaround existed, and even further a simple proactive configuration could have already addressed the problem.
| or adverts for web sites with infectious downloads or even infectious HTML | using the Active-X exploit for Microsoft Internet Explorer
That's MSIE, not a webbrowser. Of course when you're abusing MSIE as such, compromise is inherent - as documented and expected.
just because it's unsuitable as a web browser doesn't mean it isn't one... just because it's implementation of this or that is broken doesn't mean it isn't a web browser...
it was designed to allow people to browse the web, it was marketed as a tool to allow people to browse the web, and it actually *does* allow people to browse the web... whether it does a good job or is well implemented doesn't change the fact that it's a web browser, it only affects it's *quality* as a web browser...
sorry, no... ie was born out of the mosaic web browser technology microsoft purchased/licensed in order to compete with netscape - it is most definitely a *web* browser...
windows explorer is a file browser, and while ie can *also* browse a file system, that doesn't change the fact that it is a web browser...
now you're putting words in my mouth - i never said the fact that people use it as a web browser was the reason it was a web browser... what i have implied, however, is that given the vast majority recognizes it as a web browser, your *reality* represents a redefinition of things...
"Sebastian G." wrote in news:5qjfduFvlpftU1 @mid.dfncis.de:
Do you intend to address my questions directed to you sir? Or continue to ignore them? It's painfully obvious you don't know wtf your talking about here and haven't for sometime, but I think I've been more than fair with you.