[INVALID] Malicious content hosted on the noscript site

General discussion about the NoScript extension for Firefox
Post Reply
Alan Baxter
Ambassador
Posts: 1586
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:47 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Malicious content hosted on the noscript site

Post by Alan Baxter »

I don't see any malware in the source for that page or the content you posted. It may be a false positive from your AV. In any event, I'm sure Giorgio will reply when he sees your post.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0
User avatar
Giorgio Maone
Site Admin
Posts: 9524
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:22 pm
Location: Palermo - Italy
Contact:

Re: Malicious content hosted on the noscript site

Post by Giorgio Maone »

No malware there (actually you're just quoting plain HTML and CSS, not even scripting or plugins).
It should reported as a false positive to your AV vendor.
What's your AV, BTW?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/11.0
Tom T.
Field Marshal
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Malicious content hosted on the noscript site

Post by Tom T. »

anonymous_user wrote:regarding the user account - I picked it from bugmenot as I'm not a member and cba to register
Guest posting is allowed in Forum NoScript Support.

It is not necessary to PM support staff. A topic with a title as attention-getting (inflammatory?) as this will be addressed as soon as someone is available. Having to read unnecessary PMs only takes away support staff time that could be used for responding to board posts, including this one.
... cba to register
I don't know that acronym. Whatever it is, are you "cba" to update your unsafe Firefox 10.0.2 with 11.0, which fixes several critical security flaws, and was released on 13 March?

Also, using bugmenot accounts makes it easier for spammers. We have enough trouble with them already, as almost all forums do.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Firefox/3.6.28
User avatar
therube
Ambassador
Posts: 7969
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Malicious content hosted on the noscript site

Post by therube »

can't be arsed, perhaps.
He may not have realized that some forums here allow anon in any case.
I've used bugmenot before, for times when it was cpa for me too. I've likewise, so identified that I was using it.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball NoScript FlashGot AdblockPlus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120316 Firefox/13.0a2 SeaMonkey/2.10a2
Tom T.
Field Marshal
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Malicious content hosted on the noscript site

Post by Tom T. »

therube wrote:He may not have realized that some forums here allow anon in any case.
Board index:
"NoScript Support
Ask for help about NoScript, no registration needed to post (my emphasis)
therube wrote:I've used bugmenot before, for times when it was cpa for me too. I've likewise, so identified that I was using it.
I've used it too, although almost always in doing support *here*, when a user asks us to visit SiteX.com, which requires a user/pass login.
For support purposes only, not to post at the site.

Also for sites which I don't trust not to sell, rent, trade, or disclose whatever (disposable) email address I give them, to cut down on spam.
I don't think we spam our registered users, do we? :D

And similar privacy issues, for doing support only.

If registration is "cba" or whatever, no reason not to post in Support as a guest (but please think up an original name or string, not "Guest"! :? )
-- assuming that it's a Support issue. Guests who are interested enough to make RFEs, etc. should join.

Or to take a minute to register, knowing that your info will not be misused, and that you can disable notifications of replies any time you like.

I can visualize spammers (not this user, of course) using BMN... bad precedent.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Firefox/3.6.28
User avatar
therube
Ambassador
Posts: 7969
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: Malicious content hosted on the noscript site

Post by therube »

> no reason not to post in Support as a guest

He may not have realized that some forums here allow anon in any case.

> I can visualize spammers ... using BMN

A casual person looking to spam, perhaps.
But otherwise I would think it too much trouble (for a "professional spammer/bot). Much easier to go about registering for a particular website.


And have we blocked "anonymous_user"? And have we notified BMN to not allow informaction.com to be listed there?
Would doing either really accomplish anything? Not IMO. And I see no reason (at present) to do any of that. BMN serves a purpose IMO.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball NoScript FlashGot AdblockPlus
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120316 Firefox/13.0a2 SeaMonkey/2.10a2
User avatar
GµårÐïåñ
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 3369
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:19 am
Location: PST - USA
Contact:

Re: Malicious content hosted on the noscript site

Post by GµårÐïåñ »

I would just say trolling for attention. There is nothing malicious and shows the user's absolute incompetence just reading the post. Either your AV is a piece of crap or you have it setup wrong, either way since you didn't tell us which, and never responded, its safe to assume you just wanted attention and had nothing REAL to offer.
~.:[ Lï£ê ï§ å Lêmðñ åñÐ Ì Wåñ† M¥ Mðñê¥ ßå¢k ]:.~
________________ .: [ Major Mike's ] :. ________________
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.79 Safari/535.11 Comodo_Dragon/17.5.2.0
Tom T.
Field Marshal
Posts: 3620
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:58 am

Re: Malicious content hosted on the noscript site

Post by Tom T. »

therube wrote:And have we blocked "anonymous_user"? And have we notified BMN to not allow informaction.com to be listed there?
Would doing either really accomplish anything? Not IMO. And I see no reason (at present) to do any of that. BMN serves a purpose IMO.
It serves a purpose to know when we're talking to the same person.

Bruce Schneier's blog, which allows guest posting, says somewhere (can't find it ATM)
"You don't have to use your real name, but please give us something to refer to you by. Following threads with a dozen different people posting as "Guest" [or "anonymous user" -- T.T.] can be very confusing."
Exactly.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Firefox/3.6.28
Post Reply