Web shield doesn’t care much what browser you use, it is monitoring the port 80 (HTTP traffic) the only browsers it would effectively ‘ignore’ would be those it doesn’t support, exotic/non-main stream browsers, but it wouldn’t ‘object’ or “I doubt that Web Shield would like that.”
The biggest issue is not the sleazy sites but the sites that have been hacked and have been injected with an iFrame tag that opens malicious content from a site your aren’t even visiting. The web shield protects very well against these iFrame exploits.
You still have a copy of…what? :o
Generally speaking, it is not recommendable to use such old app but according to secunia advisories, the browser appears to be quite safe.
I think Netscape 4.7 doesn’t support Iframe…
As DavidR says, I think Web Shield wouldn’t care and I even think Netscape is supported by Web Shield. You could check it with eicar test files.
That said, you can choose whether to use Web Shield for further protection or just to be happy with your good old browser. I’m inclined to agree with you that the browser is quite safe if inconvenient at times but Web Shield wouldn’t harm.
Just in case someone is interested, he/she can download the setup files of Netscapes from here.
I think the iframe HTML tag has be around for a long time, and I believe the iframe tag isn’t proprietary (e.g. an MS IE option) or it wouldn’t be supported by Opera and Firefox, standards compliant browsers.
Old browsers would probably still be vulnerable to the iframe exploit it is the newer browsers like the latest firefox that are less vulnerable, especially if it is also running noscript.
I’m still kinda punchy, but I want to thank you all for the advice. I will give Web Shield a fair shot before recommending that anyone just keep their SpyBot. OK? FYI: Netscape 4.7 is soooooooo old it doesn’t support frames at all. With everything turned off, things just end up in cache, can’t be used by the browser, and get deleted quickly.
BTW: We mostly use it while trying to find simple 8-bit ANSI word lists for foreign languages for one of our freeware products. The only good place to look is on hacker’s sites. Of course, going there means taking your life in your hands. AVG and Avast have caught several scripts being loaded into cache, but of course, Scripts are off anyway. If anyone knows where to find ANSI word lists for other languages, we’re all ears.
I’d plug the site here, but I suspect hackers monitor anti-virus forums regularly, and I don’t need to give them any help.
Also on reflection, by using the word “hidden” in reference to the AVG 7.5 scanner being inside the Windows kernel in my earlier post, I did not mean to imply that there was anything wrong or deceitful on the part of AVG in constructing the program in this way. My intention was to highlight that what was once hidden and is now revealed is creating a bigger-than-appropriate fuss with disgruntled AVG users.
Anyone have any idea why “Web Shield disabled / SpyBot Immunize on” blocks some sites like iwon.com, but “SpyBot Immunize off / Web Shield Enabled” doesn’t have any problem? Loads a couple Cookies that I assumed would be Tracking Cookies, but neither SpyBot nor AVG Anti-Spyware 7.5 gripe about them. :-/
Yes I have an idea, the web shield isn’t a blocker simple as that it scans http content. Unless you add a URL to the web shield URL Blocking it doesn’t block, so no mystery it is the S&D Immunisation that is blocking.
As I more-or-less suspected. Thanks. One friend has a wife (not mine thankfully this time) who loves “get rich quick” sites. Whenever she convinces him to turn off SpyBot Immunize, I get the job of cleaning up the Spyware. Did you, or someone else, say SpyBot Immunize didn’t play well with Web Shield?
Ok. I found the quote from Rumpelstiltskin way back on page 1.
On the computer SpywareBlaster is installed, which works similarly to Spybot immunize function, without any conflict with Web Shield. I don't see any reason for turning off Web Shield.
The quote doesn’t say what you are implying a conflict between the S&D and web shield. it states “without” any conflict with Web Shield in your quoted text and “I don’t see any reason for turning off Web Shield.” in the same quote.
So there is no reason to disable either web shield or S&D’s immunize function there is no interaction between them so no conflict.
Yeah. Ain’t English wonderful? I guess I read that quote as "works similarly to Spybot immunize function, without any of the conflict with Web Shield. ".
FYI: Netscape 4.7 is soooooooo old it doesn’t support frames at all. With everything turned off, things just end up in cache, can’t be used by the browser, and get deleted quickly.