Hijack: .3utilities.com?
in [Windows XP]
|
From: MowGreen on 10 Aug 2010 12:06 Spamlet wrote: > Well thank you once again: this is going beyond the call of duty! > That looks like quite a sophisticated add on: I'll give it a try - though I > notice its own website appears to be encouraging a click and scan... > > Cheers, > S > YW, S. NoScript is Trustworthy. Pay no mind to the scan. Someone has to pay for NoScript's development. After you've used NS for awhile you'll learn which domains can be allowed to run scripts and which ones to block *permanently*. I rarely mark sites as Trusted as even Trusted sites can contain malvertizing or malware linked IFrames. MowGreen ================ *-343-* FDNY Never Forgotten ================ banthecheck.com "Security updates should *never* have *non-security content* prechecked
From: Spamlet on 10 Aug 2010 12:38
"MowGreen" <mowgreen(a)nowandzen.com> wrote in message news:i3rted$1cm$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > Spamlet wrote: >> Well thank you once again: this is going beyond the call of duty! >> That looks like quite a sophisticated add on: I'll give it a try - though >> I >> notice its own website appears to be encouraging a click and scan... >> >> Cheers, >> S >> > > > YW, S. NoScript is Trustworthy. Pay no mind to the scan. Someone has to > pay for NoScript's development. > > After you've used NS for awhile you'll learn which domains can be allowed > to run scripts and which ones to block *permanently*. > I rarely mark sites as Trusted as even Trusted sites can contain > malvertizing or malware linked IFrames. > > > MowGreen Thanks Mow, it will take a while to get used to all the options, but for now it seems enough to use the temporary options, as in most searches one only needs to glance at a site to see if it is likely to offer what one is seeking. As for the host file, I think this has slowed things down a little but so far not enough to be inconvenient. With your help I feel that things should be safer now. Cheers, S |