Can this be used additionally?

Talk about internet security, computer security, personal security, your social security number...
Post Reply
luntrus
Senior Member
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 6:29 pm

Can this be used additionally?

Post by luntrus »

Hi forum friends,

Are you aware of this service: http://www.sitetruth.com/yhoo.html
There is also an add-on for Fx: http://www.sitetruth.com/downloads/adrater.html
To be installed from: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/45354
The service is still alpha, but it is different from WOT.
I think it could be a good addition to NS.
Like to hear your comments, ye all,

luntrus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; nl; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100315 Firefox/3.5.9
dhouwn
Bug Buster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Can this be used additionally?

Post by dhouwn »

You mean for use in the http://noscript.net/about/ service? Well, why not? Sounds good.

/edit:
One thing: The site does not look very 'professional'. It has an amateurish design* (the colours, the pixels around the search button), it is not offered via HTTPS, on the bottom of the about page it links to a website with headings in the Comic Sans font (which made me click away reflexively/unconditionally).
I hope this won't be too repellent to most people.
(BTW: I am not sure if I would have installed NoScript if the NoScript page would have looked like Giorgio's website from the 90s [SCNR]).

*) Remember: Programmers are often not very good designers.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100419 Firefox/3.7
Alan Baxter
Ambassador
Posts: 1586
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:47 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Can this be used additionally?

Post by Alan Baxter »

The Firefox extension hasn't been updated for Fx 3.6, which has been out for three months already. The extension hasn't been updated since October 22, 2009. It has no reviews. The web site is still in alpha. I see no reason to believe that this service is something which would provide worthwhile or even accurate information. It should be given a pass.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100413 Firefox/3.6.4
dhouwn
Bug Buster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Can this be used additionally?

Post by dhouwn »

Another service which might be added: http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diag ... xample.org
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100430 Firefox/3.7
User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 9454
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: Can this be used additionally?

Post by Giorgio Maone »

dhouwn wrote:Another service which might be added: http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diag ... xample.org
Done, thanks.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3
dhouwn
Bug Buster
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Can this be used additionally?

Post by dhouwn »

You might want to write Google next to the link, just in case people are cautious towards services offered by Google… *blinks at Guardian* ;)

Also, the link is missing a quote.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.3a5pre) Gecko/20100501 Firefox/3.7
User avatar
GµårÐïåñ
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 3365
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:19 am
Location: PST - USA
Contact:

Re: Can this be used additionally?

Post by GµårÐïåñ »

dhouwn wrote:You might want to write Google next to the link, just in case people are cautious towards services offered by Google… *blinks at Guardian* ;)

Also, the link is missing a quote.
I have nothing against google's products, I just advocate using them cautiously. If I wanted to find something on the internet and I didn't care how much data I have to shovel through, I use google, which is my default search engine. Nothing wrong with that, I cripple their tracking well enough that they won't have any more than my headers and external IP on their raw server logs and the don't waste time with that usually because they have a system of collecting it instead. So cripple that, you cripple their tracking, simple as that.

Whenever I want to find an address, I use google maps, hands down the best IMHO, but again, I don't like the fact that each address from and two you enter ends up in their aggregation database and that's part of the reason why you get some crap in the mail at the address you entered for FROM and you don't know where it came from, ask them under FTC regulations to disclose the source, or if you are in CA, hell you can use the "Shine the Light" statute and they HAVE to tell you who gave it to them, who they gave it to and you will eventually if persistent enough (like I have been) will find google was the source. I worked hard to defeat this and found how to cripple it using a combination of permanent cookies and GreaseMonkey tweaking to eliminate the code that reports back the FROM address, frankly I don't care if they send stuff to the TO address.

etc etc, I don't say their products are bad just the direction they are going with them, I just say use cautiously and KNOW what its doing, KNOW what YOU are doing, and KNOW how to protect yourself. Afterall despite stealing the OS from jobs, Microsoft didn't start out evil, just ended up being that as the largest element in the business. Google came later during the internet generation and skipped over every bad thing M$ did and went straight to the advancing of evil wrapped in a motto (don't be evil) kinda funny actually. They start so subtle and slow because they know that no one reads the revisions to the policies on how they handle your data, so like the frog in the pot not reacting until it boils to death, you go slow enough, no one will see it coming until its too late to do anything about it. Now some call that paranoid, I call it cynical and above all - TRUST BUT VERIFY, that's all. I won't go any further but since you were kind enough to give a shout out, here is my shout back ;) Cheers.
~.:[ Lï£ê ï§ å Lêmðñ åñÐ Ì Wåñ† M¥ Mðñê¥ ßå¢k ]:.~
________________ .: [ Major Mike's ] :. ________________
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100401 Firefox/3.6.3
Post Reply