41

As long as there are security risks in using the Excite.com startpage,
The average user should simply avoid it.
Please realize that most visitors here are Average Computer Users… Not Geeks. :slight_smile:

42

@all,

Ok, do not go to that start page portal until the issues mentioned there have been settled.

polonus

43

Well first of all because it might be helpful to some. Why not expand the topic if it’s helpful? After all this is a “general topics” board, right?

But if you want to make a point of what’s “off topic” you might note that I was simply asking if anyone uses the portal discussed and this was in relation to the fact the servers were down at that time.

So based on that the third post which was yours and every one of your specific posts after that were technically “off topic” if you think about it.

But then I didn’t mind at all, I personally considered all posts helpful and informative regardless and I would venture to guess it would be helpful and informative to anyone else that interested enough to want to read it as well.

And of course the key phrase here is “want to read it”, anyone that doesn’t want to read it doesn’t have to and won’t.

On the other hand, others may find it helpful and be interested in reading it. I see no problem either way (I would hope you wouldn’t either).

For those who do not want to read it, then don’t, “Geeks” aside.

But for those that might have an interest in reading it then what’s the problem?

Is this an information/help board or not?

I have to wonder why the concern about who should or shouldn’t be reading anything on this board.

And I would add, what’s the point of placing any limits on a “general topics” board anyway?

I can’t see any harm in putting out information regardless of who may or may not be interested in reading what’s been posted.

I personally welcome a free and open conversation without imposing limits based on the perception that some may not be interested.

And I must say that I find it ironic to even raise this type of concern (especially in a “general topics” board) when as we know we will find more specific Avast issue topics that are sometimes not answered directly but instead the posters motives might be questioned to the extent that the issue raised is alleged to not even be legitimate.

In this case, I personally find all the information provided in this topic related to some extent and very helpful for the most part and I appreciate and thank ALL who have contributed including you Bob. :slight_smile:

44

polonus - I want to thank you for all that you have contributed to the topic and I would add that you certainly do not need to apologize for posting tangential “security issues” that are not only related to the topic on that basis but clearly very helpful. And I would add that if we bother to notice the very first response to the topic was based on “security issues” clearly tangential to the topic, but again undoubtedly well intended and helpful. I would suggest to NOT offer the additional information related to “security issues” would be improper. So THANKS VERY MUCH for all that you have contributed as I personally found it all very interesting as I’m sure others did as well (and I’m not what I’d consider a “Geek”). :slight_smile: Offering up information such as this is the way we all learn more and on that basis there is clearly nothing at all wrong with that.

45

polonus - I did have a question if you happen to venture back here. You said quote:

Now sometimes with a clean site we have to allow some additional functionality to make that site function. At urlquery net for instance you have to allow google-analytics.com else you will not get the scan results.

As I see it this could be problematic because from what I understand about the FF “NoScript” if you “allow” something like “google-analytics” then it is “allowed” for all sites that might have “google-analytics”. So while I understand the need to get a site to work but then in doing so is it opening the door for problems with other sites?

I’ve not allowed “google-analytics” so I’ve obviously not had the need by using “urlquery net”, thus “google-analytics” remains not allowed when browsing.

On that point, I’m not certain how the “lock” used in Umatrix works. Umatrix says it’s saving all temporary changes for this “scope”, so perhaps that means (“scope”) that specific website. If that’s the case then that’s a good thing, but as I understand it with “NoScript” allowing applies to all sites or am I wrong there?

Also you’ve mentioned quote:

Red ball from Bitdefender, don’t even try to go there
… what exactly is that about?

One last point, in ABP wouldn’t unchecking “All some non-intrusive advertising” then eliminate “google-analytics”.

It’s really a shame how Google is infiltrating themselves into everything leaving users with increasingly less alternatives all the time. A big reason I prefer to not use Chrome personally and stick with FF as my primary browser. Unfortunately I’ve been noticing the FF user base is continuing to dwindle at the expense of the every growing Chrome. Unfortunately people either don’t care or just don’t pay attention. That’s the problem we have in politics as well in regards to the “low information” type people. Speaking of “off topic”, now I’m REALLY “off topic”, so I’ll end it here. :wink:

46
I'm no different than the next guy and of course by all means want to stay safe
Yes you are different and you do not want to safe. Let me state some facts: - You are still using avast 2014 and refuse to update to 2015. - You have posted many times here giving people who are seeking help false and outdated information. - You are using a account with administrator rights for daily use on your system. - You are refusing to listen to people when they are giving you real good advice when it comes to security. - You keep posting long post without saying anything useful in them.
47

Hi laksrool,

Just a reply to your question (and for those interested in the workings of the uMatrix extension for Google Chrome).
The answer is “no”", and this is the unique quality of this amazing extension - that this is on a per page basis. Click all and you click all allowed for the time you are on that page within one session with the browser.
Next time you can make another decision and the toggling goes on as on a per page basis. So if google analytics is allowed on avast forum site, it still is being blocked on https://www.security.nl/ for instance, where you again have to allow it when you go there (open that page) when you want to unblock - a red small corner is all that is left of the initial original settings. So really a unique concept and also blocking frames on a page until you allow them with one click. So you just have to consider the settings of uMatrix in combination with ScriptSafe to get the functionality you need within that session (lest the sites you visit were established as secure). Just ponder on this txt and let it sink in, this is quite some added security, because where scripts cannot run and clicks can not have effect infection cannot take place period. It is just like driving a car, when you know what to handle you are “on your way” in a safe and secure manner, and it is not that hard to learn when you use some common sense and know what sites to avoid in allowing functionality (sites that WOT flags, that Bitdefender TrafficLight flags, DrWeb’s URL checker flags, Google Safebrowsing or Yandex alerts and blocks and those alerted by Avast Shields and Web Rep naturally.

Another bonus - while doing all this you learn an awful lot of what is on a website (under the hood) and where to watch out.

polonus