Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee
Well in that case then the likes of a script to create those warnings would be a better option.  And this would also make things more noticeable for someone to realise they have been infected by a virus.

There are many ways to fixing problems, sometimes you just have to steer clear of the simple solution and find one that is the best for the situation.

---

What's the chances that gallery.php is something legit?  What's the chances that gallery.php is a malicious script?

First one is much higher.

---

It still doesn't matter, the precaution was put in there for a reason and we should not enable it to be bypassed easily, it is a moral duty to make sure we hinder viruses and the likes as much as we possibly can.

We now have many more security checks at airports and the likes because of terrorism and we have learnt to live and accept it as it has the possibility of saving lives, however minute the chances of dying from a terrorist attack are.  As users of the internet we are far more prone to virus attacks, trojan horses, spyware, etc, etc, etc and you aren't willing to have a far minor inconvenience of a pop-up warning and having to modify your message slightly just so we can help stop some of these more common attacks?  I do realise that the consequences are far different, but that is not the point, the point is that we should try and limit the harm to everyone.  People are still falling for the Nigerian email scams even though they are over a decade old, so how vulnerable are people in general to new attacks?  You also have to remember that IM is starting to be used more by people who aren't familiar at all to computers as well (the young and the elderly for example) who are very likely to fall victim to such things.  Although gallery.php viruses might be very uncommon, I highly suspect that they are far more likely to occur than the likes of a terrorist attack.  Just think about others not just yourself, you might have the skills to recognise when a link isn't trust worthy and you might be able to fix it yourself with ease, but other people aren't as fortunate and we should respect that and make sure we help them by not allowing such bypasses of security systems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnZ
markee: you'd have to be an idiot to approve of ANY sort of url censorship so draconian. this is even AFTER they've added UAC and windows defender to vista, and secure mode to internet explorer (which is now supposedly even more secure than firefox and opera.)

besides, even if they're *attempting* to fix the problem, it's fruitless. tinyurl takes <3 seconds, and allows virii writers to completely evade the entire issue while LEGIT urls (and there are a lot of them) are being blocked.

---

Well it will still stop any current ones rather than just making an EXTREMELY easy method of opening it all back up again.  It means that the virus makers have to get another version out and then when it happens we can notify the likes of the people from tinyURL or whatever and get them to remove the link as well as report the person to their ISP as they will have the IP address that was used.