Jetico Personal Firewall freeware asks way to many questions

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?

Browsers don't get patched until after the exploit has infected thousands of users PC's. That's how it works, or haven't you noticed?

Not really. And since you also weren't able to name one neither have you, it seems.

What makes you consider a company within the security industry a trustworthy source of information?

Securing a home computer isn't that hard. Securing the guy at the keyboard responsible for the vast majority of all his problems is the challenge.

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.

Mozilla/Firefox, Opera, Konqueror, w3m, ...

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.

Mozilla Seamonkey

So you're equating scripts with vulnerabilities? What a nonsense.

Bullshit. Without a vulnerability in the script engine itself JavaScript is perfectly secure. And such vulnerabilities are so rare, and even further some serious vendors liek Mozilla and the KDE Team have an excellent vulnerability patching policy.

It might be a really good thing if you inform yourself a bit about ECMAScript/JavaScript.

Nothing? So far a recent Windows installation is secure out-of-the-box.

As an additional recommendation, a global no-exec policy is actually very feasible, since the demands of users typically only change rarely.

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.

never said otherwise...

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...

BS

Might be a really good thing if you educate yourself on why scripts can be a very bad thing. Lots of malicious websites out there, boyo.

IE can do that too but that's not the same as an add-on that allows one to allow scripts to run at urls they trust and not any others. Allowing scipts globally is just asking for trouble.

Hahaha...thanks for the laugh. Now pull the other leg.

Come, come, even noobs know that is not true.

Well, that wouldn't work for me or most other people I know as we are always installing new software and games etc.

What makes Seamonkey a safer browser than Firefox? I don't want a browser that is an all-in-one app anyway.

powers such successful siblings as Firefox, Thunderbird, Camino, Sunbird and Miro. Legal backing is provided by the Mozilla Foundation.

Competent programmers who actually care for the users?

And the funny thing is that it's still less bloated than Firefox.

"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.

If you want a detailed analysis of the differences you'd need to carefully study the architecture of the mentioned programs, as well as the configuration of the particular components.

One classical example: Mozilla Firefox doesn't expose the SSL configuration options and has all weak chiffre/hash options allowed by default.