 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Me / General Topics / January 2006Some Advice Please
Under Internet Explorer>Tools>Internet Options>Advanced Tab Should the following items be checked or unchecked? Automatically check for Internet Explorer updates. Enable Install On Demand (Internet Explorer) Enable Install On Demand (Other) Thank you. Job: I found it advantageous to have all three checked. You definitely want to have install on demand enabled. You'll be the judge. Harry. > Under Internet Explorer>Tools>Internet Options>Advanced Tab > Should the following items be checked or unchecked? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thank you. WRONG! The settings you recommend are very insecure, Harry!! The general recommendation is to disable both 'Install on Demand' settings - on the basis that a hostile website could force a download in the background without your noticing. As for 'automatically check for IE updates', this setting is redundant if you use the Auto-update features of WinME - you will be notified of any critical updates, and should anyhow go to Windows Updates regularly to check for other possible updates (and I've never seen an update come through this route anyhow). My recommendation for this is also to disable it.  SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's > > Job: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Thank you. Thanks Noel I have made the selections per ur advice. > WRONG! > The settings you recommend are very insecure, Harry!! [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >> > >> Thank you. Noel: I value, respect and appreciate your opinion here, but why give people a choice, when it is so detrimental? I enabled install on demand for the simple reason, to be able to use this feature at all (so I thought). Good thing Job brought this issue up. Wonder what motivated him to do so? Thanks for the corrective intervention. Harry. > WRONG! > The settings you recommend are very insecure, Harry!! [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >> > >> Thank you. Harry I assume there was a question for me. A couple of years ago, based on some security advice, I selected some settings in my system that resulted in getting messages (while surfing) that an ActiveX and/or a Script was trying to access my system and did I want to allow this. I recently switched from a Dial Up to a DSL ISP. When Verizon's Tech Support was helping me set this service up they had me reset some items to their default settings. Subsequently I noticed I was no longer getting the ActiveX and Script messages. In addition I was seeing more pop ads than I had previously. My trying to get back into a more secure environment is what prompted my question. Job says, "You don't need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice." > Noel: > I value, respect and appreciate your opinion here, but why give people a [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > >> > > >> Thank you. Much obliged for your clarification, Job. Personally I never had any problems with my choices, but being alerted this way, I changed them accordingly. Thanks to all. Harry. > Harry I assume there was a question for me. A couple of > years ago, based on some security advice, I selected some [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > > >> > > > >> Thank you. Harry this is a hangover from the IE (x - pick a number from 1 to 6) days - unfortunately, it would seem to be continued henceforth as well - where the user of the system was thought (and in practice - although by later experience id NOT) to have total authorised use of the system. You have to remember that malware writers have learned a lot - and that MS is always going to be on the defensive (as will any other major OS writer) and that the primary job of any PC user needs to be to retain the control with which they were invested when the system was first installed. Some of MS's decisions along the way have ( and will probably continue to be) come home to roost - and we are all paying the price for this (but MS is not alone in this process - just the obvious target for it!). set your preferences so that you have control, and keep a weather-eye out for problems therefrom! SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's > > Noel: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >> >> >> Thank you. Noel: Appreciate you taking the time, to give me such detailed explanation. By the same token it will give others, who might read this with interest, a better understanding of what's going on also. It pays to know. Thanks. Harry. > Harry > this is a hangover from the IE (x - pick a number from 1 to 6) days - [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >> >> > >> >> Thank you. YW, Harry - your question was actually a good one, as it forced me to think about WHY I was recommending the settings, rather than just parroting them! SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's > Noel: > Appreciate you taking the time, to give me such detailed explanation. By [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you. > Under Internet Explorer>Tools>Internet Options>Advanced Tab > Should the following items be checked or unchecked? > Automatically check for Internet Explorer updates. > Enable Install On Demand (Internet Explorer) > Enable Install On Demand (Other) You *may* disable Automatically Check for IE Updates or enable Automatic Updates via your Control Panel. Definitely disable Enable Install on Demand (Other) Other, being what - MVP recommendation to disable. Silj Signaturesiljaline MS - MVP Windows (IE/OE) & Security, AH-VSOP _________________________________________ Security Tools Updates http://aumha.net/viewforum.php?f=31 Reply to group, as return address is invalid that we may all benefit. Thanks for your response. > > Under Internet Explorer>Tools>Internet Options>Advanced Tab > > Should the following items be checked or unchecked? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Silj > Thanks for your response. Your most welcome. If you would like "harden" IE's Security, try these settings; <http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/restricted.htm#Setting> Works for me - very well. Regards, Silj Signaturesiljaline MS - MVP Windows (IE/OE) & Security, AH-VSOP _________________________________________ Security Tools Updates http://aumha.net/viewforum.php?f=31 Reply to group, as return address is invalid that we may all benefit. Silj, thanks for the link. I have printed it out and now need to digest the info before implementing. I've also just become aware of the MVPS Host at http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm. This appears to be a good thing but I need to read more. Right now I don't have any idea of what a "Host File" is nor why I should care <g>. Job says, "Give me ambiguity or give me something else." > > Thanks for your response. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Regards, > Silj Digest the info, Job and before implementing? Better make sure you have an empty stomach and think twice, before implementing, unless you have some spare brains you don't know what to do with. Something else might do better than ambiguity. Harry. > Silj, thanks for the link. I have printed it out and now > need to digest the info before implementing. I've also just [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Regards, > > Silj > Silj, thanks for the link. I have printed it out and now > need to digest the info before implementing. I've also just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Right now I don't have any idea of what a "Host File" is nor > why I should care <g>. Your welcome for the link. <http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/restricted.htm#Setting> *This* HOSTS file is practically a necessity these days. All the information is in the link and FAQ. <http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hostsfaq.htm> Silj Signaturesiljaline MS - MVP Windows (IE/OE) & Security, AH-VSOP _________________________________________ Security Tools Updates http://aumha.net/viewforum.php?f=31 Reply to group, as return address is invalid that we may all benefit. "I ain't never used a HOSTS file yet!!" - and I really see no need to, unless you're in the habit of going to 'dodgy' sites! Having said that, I do consider essential for those who are in the early stages of their computer-competence exams. SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's >> Silj, thanks for the link. I have printed it out and now >> need to digest the info before implementing. I've also just [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Silj I just realised that may have come across as incredibly arrogant! - believe me, I'm still learning!! (may have passed the stage I exams - more to learn before I get the certificate!) SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.crashfixpc.com/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's > "I ain't never used a HOSTS file yet!!" - and I really see no need to, > unless you're in the habit of going to 'dodgy' sites! [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Silj >I just realised that may have come across as incredibly arrogant! - believe me, I'm >still learning!! (may have passed the stage I exams - more to learn before I get >the certificate!) No worries, Noel - I consider running a HOSTS file a Security requisite these days, regardless of where you surf. I don't surf doggy sites deliberately *but* in case I run across a URL where I shouldn't go, Mike's file is there to protect you :-) Silj Signaturesiljaline MS - MVP Windows (IE/OE) & Security, AH-VSOP _________________________________________ Security Tools Updates http://aumha.net/viewforum.php?f=31 Reply to group, as return address is invalid that we may all benefit. "DOGGY SITES"???? SICK PUPPY!! ROFL!! >>I just realised that may have come across as incredibly arrogant! - >>believe me, I'm still learning!! (may have passed the stage I exams - [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Silj > "DOGGY SITES"???? > > SICK PUPPY!! ROFL!! Oops! ;) Silj Signaturesiljaline MS - MVP Windows (IE/OE) & Security, AH-VSOP _________________________________________ Security Tools Updates http://aumha.net/viewforum.php?f=31 Reply to group, as return address is invalid that we may all benefit. Hey: Wasn't it 'dodgy' sites? How did that 'dog' get in there and "how much is that dog in the window"? And who are the "liberals"?? Really??? Harry, don't know much, but would like to know more. > > "DOGGY SITES"???? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Silj About Silj's peculiar taste in websites?? (grin) Or about our superior method of electing a Prime Minister (mega-grin). We can also kick the PM out if we don't like him. Too bad you can't do that to Bush!!!! XX Figgs > Hey: > Wasn't it 'dodgy' sites? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Silj Couldn't get around to this, until now, Heather. If you dislike"liberals", how come you dislike "George"? He is not a liberal at all in political terms, but surely most liberal in his actions. That can't go unpunished in the long run. There is such a thing as universal justice, isn't it? Harry. > About Silj's peculiar taste in websites?? (grin) Or about our superior > method of electing a Prime Minister (mega-grin). We can also kick the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >> > >> Silj Our system is totally different than yours, for starters. Your definition of a *liberal* is different than ours. We have 4 main parties here......Liberals, Conservatives, New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois. The first two get the most seats in Parliament. Our Liberal PM was not doing the job properly.....he had to go. The new leader has some warts as well. I could not vote for him. He is way too friendly with Bush.....and Bush is heartily disliked by most of the world, not just us. We don't agree with the war in Iraq and now the Americans know they were lied to by him re this war. But we, in the rest of the world, knew it from damn near the beginning, because our TV stations reported the *whole truth*....not the watered-down truth you guys got for a long time. Bush is run by the Religious Right and Big Pharma, for starters. We don't allow politics to mix with religion. They are separate and apart. We also have an excellent national healthcare program....you don't. Bush doesn't want you folks to have a subsidized healthcare program. Big Pharma tells him what to do. I compare prescription and surgery prices with friends in the US and your costs totally appall me!! No thanks......you can keep Bush and I am quite happy to live in a country that may have higher taxes, but a hell of a lot of benefits from those same taxes. Most countries have some form of national healthcare, but the US is one of the few that doesn't. Oh boy.....if there was such a thing as *universal justice*, Bush would burn in hell.....lol. However, there is *karma*. I don't envy him his next life, grin. Off my soap box now. But to set the record straight, I like most of the Americans I personally know (are you listening, Loon??)......but why is it that the only Americans we see up here on holidays are the obnoxious ones?? Or for that matter, anywhere in the world. I make sure I have a visible Canadian flag on me when I travel....(g, d & r vvvvf, as Noel would say) OK.....that's my view. Feel free to disagree. Cheers.....a diehard Canuck. > Couldn't get around to this, until now, Heather. > If you dislike"liberals", how come you dislike "George"? [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> >> >> Silj Figgs: I am always glad to hear someone speak his mind, especially when it is as clear as your's. There is no point in disagreeing, right or wrong, but you are mostly right and I commend you for that. The part I don't understand is, that so many people here don't, or don't want to see the truth and are being dragged deeper and deeper into a mess. One can only hope for the best. Harry. > Our system is totally different than yours, for starters. Your > definition of a *liberal* is different than ours. We have 4 main [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > >> >> > >> >> Silj Like Noel I don't run a Host file, this thing is complicated enough without giving me more headaches <g> just got back from my chiropractor so I'm only just catching up here. Joan > No worries, Noel - I consider running a HOSTS file a Security > requisite these days, regardless of where you surf. > I don't surf doggy sites deliberately *but* in case I run across a > URL where I shouldn't go, Mike's file is there to protect you :-) > > Silj > Like Noel I don't run a Host file, Nor do I. Whilst a host file can prevent unwanted redirects and the like my browsing is usually sufficiently limited in its scope that I don't feel the need for such additional protection relying instead on common sense and experience. > this thing is complicated enough > without giving me more headaches <g> just got back from my > chiropractor so I'm only just catching up here. Hopefully all is well Joan. I'm only recently back up on line on this box having suffered a fan failure late last night. :-( SignatureMike M Glad to hear you have your fan sorted out Mike. Peter, my chiropractor is happy with me I only see him every three months now but he was a bit surprised the doctor didn't start me on anything until I go for my scan and he has the results from that, I've been waiting for that appointment since last October <g> as what he could give me to start with is not harmful, but he can see the doctors view as we don't know the state of my bones although he does say he reckons I have that osteo thing-a- me- jig <g> Joan > Hopefully all is well Joan. I'm only recently back up on line on > this box having suffered a fan failure late last night. :-( <lol> Meant to put an answer about this part in my last reply <g> Common sense and experience, what's that, I may have some of the first but very lacking in the second <g> although my surfing is mainly limited to articles I've picked up from experienced people or my shopping, never anything dubious and very boring <g> By the time I've got through all my ng's and the Auhma forum two or three times a day don't have time to go anywhere else, I am supposed to cook and clean at some point in the day <g> Joan > Nor do I. Whilst a host file can prevent unwanted redirects and the > like my browsing is usually sufficiently limited in its scope that I > don't feel the need for such additional protection relying instead on > common sense and experience. > Common sense and experience, what's that, Not browsing sites such as hunkyspunk.sex or lavishinglolita.sex <vbg> And no, I have not the slightest idea whether these sites exist and have no inclination to bother to check. :-) SignatureMike > <lol> Meant to put an answer about this part in my last reply <g> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > day don't have time to go anywhere else, I am supposed to cook and > clean at some point in the day <g> Common sense and experience sounds good however it's a sneaky world out there. A year or so back I thought I would like to learn how to braid a bullwhip and learn to pop it, etc. Did a Google for bullwhips and was amazed at the types of sites listed. Some of them were defined so innocently that I didn't realize they were porn-ish until I clicked on them. Job says, "One problem in our world is that nobody wants to take responsibility for anything-but don't quote me on that." > > Common sense and experience, what's that, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > day don't have time to go anywhere else, I am supposed to cook and > > clean at some point in the day <g> Job: That's where your 6th sense comes in, to detect those sites 'before opening'. Most of the *bad stuff* originates from there, including the latest worm, whatshummacallit? Responsibility, the ones who can afford it, don't have it and the ones who can't, are burdened with it! It's a cruel world to live in. Harry. > Common sense and experience sounds good however it's a > sneaky world out there. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > to cook and > > > clean at some point in the day <g> No...not arrogant. I have no intention of using a hosts file either. That said, I prefer "CAT" (or..) sites....not "doggy" ones like Silj....those Quebeckers.....c'est tres mal! Laughing in Toronto and waiting for the election results..... Prediction.....Tory Minority with NDP backup. Liberals will crash and burn!! (easy prediction really, lol) Figgs >I just realised that may have come across as incredibly arrogant! - >believe me, I'm still learning!! (may have passed the stage I exams - [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>> >>> Silj I don't think it's such esoteric knowledge, Noel, that you appear arrogant for imparting it. I think there's a necessity to teach not only that aids such as a HOSTS file are important to the relatively-inexperienced web-user*, but also that eventually they won't be. * (To me the name 'Newbie' is actually more arrogant, at least while there remain generations that have not grown up with surfer-speak) Shane > I just realised that may have come across as incredibly arrogant! - > believe me, I'm still learning!! (may have passed the stage I exams - [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>> Reply to group, as return address >>> is invalid that we may all benefit. If the HOSTS file is so useless to the experienced user, why does it remain a staple on an MVP site.......is it simply to aid the inexperienced user? After reading about it, years ago, it sounded like a good idea to me and I have been using it ever since. As it works silently in the background, without consuming any processing power (to speak of) and takes up little space, where is the harm? Does it not prevent redirects to unsavory third party sites and block ads/cookies/web bugs from the same? Maybe I need to do more reading about it......or, then again, maybe it is worthwhile. http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm Heirloom, old and there's no place like 127.0.0.1 oh yeah, and I also use the Hoster app to manage the file..... makes it easy to add irritants like 'doubleclick' to the list. >I don't think it's such esoteric knowledge, Noel, that you appear arrogant > for imparting it. I think there's a necessity to teach not only that aids [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >>>> Reply to group, as return address >>>> is invalid that we may all benefit. Not *useless*, H, non-essential. I install and uninstall them depending on what I'm doing, as it is an additional defence (among quite a few) against known baddies. But Safe Hex pretty-much precludes their necessity. If you stay away from dodgy sites, software and e-mail you won't get re-directed. Meanwhile consider ready-made HOSTS files, Ad-shield block lists and the like almost always debar some innocent sites - an error I feel is almost inevitable if one trusts third parties to a). type several hundred urls or portions thereof, or b). decide what the rest of us should or shouldn't see, but also an error I feel is almost inevitable if one trusts *oneself* to type etc etc etc. I'm a strong believer in IE-Spyad (as well as a Firefox alternative!), which does not bar access to, but rather places urls in the Restricted Zone. Coupled with re-setting IE Security for Realistic (sic) Zone (as opposed to the irresponsible settings Microsoft are *still* providing IE/OE with!) - and unchecking the two *Install On Demand* settings - said 'dodgy' sites won't be using ActiveX or javascript to install or redirect, should you happen to go to them. In the end, though, it comes down to how one likes to surf. There are those of us that basically only go to sites we need to and those of us who feel the main point of the Internet is exploration. However, personally, if what one wants to do is *see what's out there*, I feel it goes against the spirit of it to block sites entirely based on the opinion of someone one's never met - it's a bit like using AOL, isn't it? I speak based entirely on personal experience. Last night I found an Adshield blocklist denying access to Windows Update in 98se and ME! Previously I've known HOSTS blocking Macromedia. And Lavasoft blocking Hotmail, iirc? Shane > If the HOSTS file is so useless to the experienced user, why does it > remain a staple on an MVP site.......is it simply to aid the inexperienced [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >>>>> Reply to group, as return address >>>>> is invalid that we may all benefit. Not useless H, just not essential, Further it might perhaps be noted that having a HOSTS file with lots of entry can slow working on the net although this is possibly of less significance nowadays with fast machines. Personally I don't use a hosts file and feel I am unlikely to do so in the future but who knows, my position could well change. I might even start to use an AV program from .......... :-) Not of course that I am trying to equate using a hosts file with using certain nameless AV applications, just that I currently have no use for either at present. <g> > makes it easy to add irritants like > 'doubleclick' to the list. This is something where controlling cookies helps. SignatureMike Maltby mike.maltby@gmail.com > If the HOSTS file is so useless to the experienced user, why does it > remain a staple on an MVP site.......is it simply to aid the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > makes it easy to add irritants like > 'doubleclick' to the list. I do that, as well. Heirloom, old and needlessly redundant > Not useless H, just not essential, Further it might perhaps be noted that > having a HOSTS file with lots of entry can slow working on the net [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> makes it easy to add irritants like >> 'doubleclick' to the list. Just to clarify (or knowing me, further confuse!) - the point about eg Hotmail/Macromedia being blocked is not that sites one *knows* about, *are*, but that sites that might turn out to be absolute gems *might be*. But because we don't yet know that, we'll almost certainly *not* unblock them in order to find out. We'll just assume whoever blocked them must have had good reason to. Yet, for instance, block Flash and you don't discover Weebl. Shane "Shane" <shanebeatson@gmail.com> wrote in message news:... > Not *useless*, H, non-essential. I install and uninstall them depending on > what I'm doing, as it is an additional defence (among quite a few) against [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] >>>>>> Reply to group, as return address >>>>>> is invalid that we may all benefit. Can we let posters decide on HOSTS, please. I'm reading some "opinion" here that is just that, opinion. I found the MVPS HOSTS site while posting before I was an MVP in this very group. Silj Signaturesiljaline MS - MVP Windows (IE/OE) & Security, AH-VSOP _________________________________________ Security Tools Updates http://aumha.net/viewforum.php?f=31 Reply to group, as return address is invalid that we may all benefit. Anyone that has my email - that wishes to discuss the advantages and pitfalls of running a HOSTS file can continue this offline, if you wish. Regards, Silj Signaturesiljaline MS - MVP Windows (IE/OE) & Security, AH-VSOP _________________________________________ Security Tools Updates http://aumha.net/viewforum.php?f=31 Reply to group, as return address is invalid that we may all benefit. I love to get a stimulating conversation going. I always learn something when the "big guys" start exchanging thoughts and opinions. Job asks, "What if there were no hypothetical questions?" > Under Internet Explorer>Tools>Internet Options>Advanced Tab > Should the following items be checked or unchecked? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thank you. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.