I understand the fact that most p2p applications are used for illegal purposes, however I don't see where the sources are from, there's got to be someone who is buying the actual thing such as music albums in order to provide the songs.
Does anyone know who is nice enough to buy software or music and share them for free on p2p applications?
thanks.
Full Version: P2P
QUOTE(unloaded @ Dec 16 2006, 06:14 AM) 
I understand the fact that most p2p applications are used for illegal purposes, however I don't see where the sources are from, there's got to be someone who is buying the actual thing such as music albums in order to provide the songs.
Well, what do you mean by illegal purposes? If you bought a metal detector and went out and found coins, gold and other precious metals, don't you think that someone has payed for those items, but lost them? Wouldn't, and shouldn't that be considered using metal detectors for illegal purposes? You know you're suppose to turn it in to your local authorities........ so they can either keep it or sell it off (for profit).
But, any software can and is used for illegal purposes. And I mean any. That's why p2p programs got such a bad rep. Because it's the most sought after way to download anything digital. And I mean anything. P2p, is no different than actual ftp, sorta speak. If they outlawed p2p altogether, then we'll all know that just the regular right mouse click will soon become illegal.
There is nothing illegal about p2p, and I fully support it. No questions at all from me.
They sell guns all the time in stores (which is used to kill) but the stores aren't held responsible for illegal content. This whole new New World Order is full of &*%$$&.
QUOTE
Does anyone know who is nice enough to buy software or music and share them for free on p2p applications?
I can mention millions of them. These people use their hard-earned money from their regular jobs, and simply buy things they want, but they make it available to others. Why they do it?... why don't you just email them and ask them? Don't ask others. Ask the one's that are providing the content... "Why do you do it?", and watch their responses. It's NOT about the money.
I'm going to assume you use torrent clients... ok?......... when you download from most of them, in their .nfo file, they specifically advise you that "if you like this game/program/movie/ or whatever...... go and buy it and support the company. Those are the people who are nice enough to do that. The one's that provide the torrents from THEIR hard-earned cash.
DO NOT underestimate the providers of torrents for you. Get to know them, and you'll soon see that this is a two-sided avenue. It's NOT what most people think. You didn't pay for it, you can't download it..... yeah right. Imagine that.
QUOTE
A peer-to-peer (or P2P) computer network is a network that relies primarily on the computing power and bandwidth of the participants in the network rather than concentrating it in a relatively low number of servers. P2P networks are typically used for connecting nodes via largely ad hoc connections. Such networks are useful for many purposes. Sharing content files (see file sharing) containing audio, video, data or anything in digital format is very common, and realtime data, such as telephony traffic, is also passed using P2P technology.
A pure peer-to-peer network does not have the notion of clients or servers, but only equal peer nodes that simultaneously function as both "clients" and "servers" to the other nodes on the network. This model of network arrangement differs from the client-server model where communication is usually to and from a central server. A typical example for a non peer-to-peer file transfer is an FTP server where the client and server programs are quite distinct, and the clients initiate the download/uploads and the servers react to and satisfy these requests.
The earliest peer-to-peer network in widespread use was the Usenet news server system, in which peers communicated with one another in order to propagate Usenet news articles over the entire Usenet network. Particularly in the earlier days of Usenet, UUCP was used to extend even beyond the Internet. However, the news server system also acted in a client-server form when individual users accessed a local news server in order to read and post articles.
Some networks and channels, such as Napster, OpenNAP, or IRC @find, use a client-server structure for some tasks (e.g., searching) and a peer-to-peer structure for others. Networks such as Gnutella or Freenet use a peer-to-peer structure for all purposes, and are sometimes referred to as true peer-to-peer networks, although Gnutella is greatly facilitated by directory servers that inform peers of the network addresses of other peers.
Peer-to-peer architecture embodies one of the key technical concepts of the internet, described in the first internet Request for Comments, "RFC 1, Host Software" [1] dated 7 April 1969. More recently, the concept has achieved recognition in the general public in the context of the absence of central indexing servers in architectures used for exchanging multimedia files.
The concept of peer to peer is increasingly evolving to an expanded usage as the relational dynamic active in distributed networks, i.e. not just computer to computer, but human to human. Yochai Benkler has developed the notion of commons-based peer production to denote collaborative projects such as free software. Associated with peer production are the concept of peer governance (referring to the manner in which peer production projects are managed) and peer property (referring to the new type of licenses which recognize individual authorship but not exclusive property rights, such as the GNU General Public License and the Creative Commons License).
A pure peer-to-peer network does not have the notion of clients or servers, but only equal peer nodes that simultaneously function as both "clients" and "servers" to the other nodes on the network. This model of network arrangement differs from the client-server model where communication is usually to and from a central server. A typical example for a non peer-to-peer file transfer is an FTP server where the client and server programs are quite distinct, and the clients initiate the download/uploads and the servers react to and satisfy these requests.
The earliest peer-to-peer network in widespread use was the Usenet news server system, in which peers communicated with one another in order to propagate Usenet news articles over the entire Usenet network. Particularly in the earlier days of Usenet, UUCP was used to extend even beyond the Internet. However, the news server system also acted in a client-server form when individual users accessed a local news server in order to read and post articles.
Some networks and channels, such as Napster, OpenNAP, or IRC @find, use a client-server structure for some tasks (e.g., searching) and a peer-to-peer structure for others. Networks such as Gnutella or Freenet use a peer-to-peer structure for all purposes, and are sometimes referred to as true peer-to-peer networks, although Gnutella is greatly facilitated by directory servers that inform peers of the network addresses of other peers.
Peer-to-peer architecture embodies one of the key technical concepts of the internet, described in the first internet Request for Comments, "RFC 1, Host Software" [1] dated 7 April 1969. More recently, the concept has achieved recognition in the general public in the context of the absence of central indexing servers in architectures used for exchanging multimedia files.
The concept of peer to peer is increasingly evolving to an expanded usage as the relational dynamic active in distributed networks, i.e. not just computer to computer, but human to human. Yochai Benkler has developed the notion of commons-based peer production to denote collaborative projects such as free software. Associated with peer production are the concept of peer governance (referring to the manner in which peer production projects are managed) and peer property (referring to the new type of licenses which recognize individual authorship but not exclusive property rights, such as the GNU General Public License and the Creative Commons License).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer
At BC it strongly recommended to stay away from P2P of any kind since a lot of bogus files with malware in it is floating around the networks. There are stories from record companies who uploaded files containing worms into to the network. Especially on easy accessable networks such as limewire you will see a lot of ....
Peer to Peer networking is actually one of the best things to ever sweep the internet. If it wasn't for BitTorrent and other P2P programs, many legit software (ie: OpenOffice.org and countless distributions of Linux) wouldn't be possible.
BitTorrent and P2P allow companies to give away there free product or paid product (where you need to authenticate yourself on their tracker), without wasting there bandwidth. BitTorrent actually helps prevent the Internet wires between continents from becoming completely congested.
BitTorrent and P2P allow companies to give away there free product or paid product (where you need to authenticate yourself on their tracker), without wasting there bandwidth. BitTorrent actually helps prevent the Internet wires between continents from becoming completely congested.
To answer the thread, Bram Cohen is behind the p2p client. The creator/developer of it.
To fozzie,
No offense, but I think you're using frozen text that is just compiled from whatever sources to make people feel that to use a p2p program to download, you're committing a piracy crime. P2P is 100% legal. It's how you use it that makes it illegal or not.
I'll never openly nor voluntarily speak of doing any illegal activity, especially in open forums. But there is NOTHING illegal about p2p. People may do illegal things with it, but p2p is NOT illegal.
Question no# 1. Can you show everyone reading this as to how so many legitimate companies are distributing their software by p2p, and not in any DRM/RIAA/MPAA trouble? Easy....... p2p is NOT illegal.
If Microsoft decides to offer everything they have in .torrent format, will you download from them or will you say that it's p2p'ing?...... I'll answer it for you. You'll download it no matter what is said about it, because you feel like you're downloading from a reputable source. It's no different from any other source. You know what you want to download, and you know what you're downloading.
I know how easy it is for you isp to spy on you. That's why there is protection out there. And if you say "your isp can monitor everything, and knows everything you're doing, then you should consider learning networking. Your isp can't monitor your every move, if you know how to protect yourself.
But fozzie, it's all good.
P2p isn't bad at all. It's what you make of it. It's what you do with it.
When it comes to p2p, I'm in, because I have better protection than the traditional way of downloading (ftp,http).
To fozzie,
No offense, but I think you're using frozen text that is just compiled from whatever sources to make people feel that to use a p2p program to download, you're committing a piracy crime. P2P is 100% legal. It's how you use it that makes it illegal or not.
I'll never openly nor voluntarily speak of doing any illegal activity, especially in open forums. But there is NOTHING illegal about p2p. People may do illegal things with it, but p2p is NOT illegal.
Question no# 1. Can you show everyone reading this as to how so many legitimate companies are distributing their software by p2p, and not in any DRM/RIAA/MPAA trouble? Easy....... p2p is NOT illegal.
If Microsoft decides to offer everything they have in .torrent format, will you download from them or will you say that it's p2p'ing?...... I'll answer it for you. You'll download it no matter what is said about it, because you feel like you're downloading from a reputable source. It's no different from any other source. You know what you want to download, and you know what you're downloading.
I know how easy it is for you isp to spy on you. That's why there is protection out there. And if you say "your isp can monitor everything, and knows everything you're doing, then you should consider learning networking. Your isp can't monitor your every move, if you know how to protect yourself.
But fozzie, it's all good.
P2p isn't bad at all. It's what you make of it. It's what you do with it.
When it comes to p2p, I'm in, because I have better protection than the traditional way of downloading (ftp,http).
Walkman, none taken.. This text was taken from wikipedia an open source library. In principle I do agree that P2P file sharing is not bad if the license holders are the initiators, like you said if Microsoft decides to distribute their software through this system no problem.
Quite often, and you could agree with me on that, the files shared in those networks are copyright protected varying from programs upto complete dvd's, cd's. Copyright holders recenty have decided to post bogus files , some of them with malware in it, to demotivate parties.
If you do a walkaround on websites giving assistence with malware problems you will see that a lot will originate from downloading "misappropiated content " or even worse they have downloaded cracks or serial generators which will infect your computer.
If members decide to go along and keep on participating in these activities fine with me. The only issue at stake here is what are the consequences?
Quite often, and you could agree with me on that, the files shared in those networks are copyright protected varying from programs upto complete dvd's, cd's. Copyright holders recenty have decided to post bogus files , some of them with malware in it, to demotivate parties.
If you do a walkaround on websites giving assistence with malware problems you will see that a lot will originate from downloading "misappropiated content " or even worse they have downloaded cracks or serial generators which will infect your computer.
If members decide to go along and keep on participating in these activities fine with me. The only issue at stake here is what are the consequences?
To fozzie,
I agree with you on that 100%.
But I see that the main problem is that people are using IE in the first place. That browser alone will get you infected. And that's without downloading anything. It's from simply using it, and going to web sites that may be infected. But IE provides no protection for your browsing needs. That's the main problem.
And if I was a HJT helper, my condition on helping anyone would be that they use Firefox when the job is complete. That's how they can pay back to this community.
Then you have those out there that download without any virus protection software, no ip blocking software, no firewalls, nothing. They just download and they're happy with just that. Then... it hits them, right where it hurts, but now..... the damage is done.
Ohhhh, believe me,,, I look at the HJT posts all the time. I just saw one where someone says that they're infected again, by the same thing.
If the infection was cleaned, then that person is doing the same exact things that got him infected in the first place. Some people just don't learn from their own mistakes. And no one is forced to use IE, but they are so used to it, they're scared to use anything else, and that there is the starting point to getting infected while surfing the Internet.
I agree with you on that 100%.
But I see that the main problem is that people are using IE in the first place. That browser alone will get you infected. And that's without downloading anything. It's from simply using it, and going to web sites that may be infected. But IE provides no protection for your browsing needs. That's the main problem.
And if I was a HJT helper, my condition on helping anyone would be that they use Firefox when the job is complete. That's how they can pay back to this community.
Then you have those out there that download without any virus protection software, no ip blocking software, no firewalls, nothing. They just download and they're happy with just that. Then... it hits them, right where it hurts, but now..... the damage is done.
Ohhhh, believe me,,, I look at the HJT posts all the time. I just saw one where someone says that they're infected again, by the same thing.
If the infection was cleaned, then that person is doing the same exact things that got him infected in the first place. Some people just don't learn from their own mistakes. And no one is forced to use IE, but they are so used to it, they're scared to use anything else, and that there is the starting point to getting infected while surfing the Internet.
QUOTE(Walkman @ Dec 29 2006, 01:37 PM)
To fozzie,
I agree with you on that 100%.
But I see that the main problem is that people are using IE in the first place. That browser alone will get you infected. And that's without downloading anything. It's from simply using it, and going to web sites that may be infected. But IE provides no protection for your browsing needs. That's the main problem.
I agree with you on that 100%.
But I see that the main problem is that people are using IE in the first place. That browser alone will get you infected. And that's without downloading anything. It's from simply using it, and going to web sites that may be infected. But IE provides no protection for your browsing needs. That's the main problem.
This might be a silly question but....what does IE stand for???
The only silly question, is the unasked one. For then, knowledge is wasted.
IE is a common abbreviation for Internet Explorer. Microsoft's embedded browser in their windows products.
Be (Alternative Browser) Safe
Da Bleepin AniMod, Animal
IE is a common abbreviation for Internet Explorer. Microsoft's embedded browser in their windows products.
Be (Alternative Browser) Safe
Da Bleepin AniMod, Animal
Thank you 
QUOTE(ghostwriter @ Dec 30 2006, 10:51 AM)
QUOTE(Walkman @ Dec 29 2006, 01:37 PM)
To fozzie,
I agree with you on that 100%.
But I see that the main problem is that people are using IE in the first place. That browser alone will get you infected. And that's without downloading anything. It's from simply using it, and going to web sites that may be infected. But IE provides no protection for your browsing needs. That's the main problem.
This might be a silly question but....what does IE stand for???
This may be a silly question also.I read somewhere that a software called Sandboxie or something like that prevented your PC from being infected,if you were using IE.If I downloaded FF, can I switch back to IE and vice-versa at will without any drama.?
DSTM.
it might be a better idea to use Firefox, it's very similar to IE7.
QUOTE(DSTM @ Dec 30 2006, 06:09 AM)
QUOTE(ghostwriter @ Dec 30 2006, 10:51 AM)
QUOTE(Walkman @ Dec 29 2006, 01:37 PM)
To fozzie,
I agree with you on that 100%.
But I see that the main problem is that people are using IE in the first place. That browser alone will get you infected. And that's without downloading anything. It's from simply using it, and going to web sites that may be infected. But IE provides no protection for your browsing needs. That's the main problem.
This might be a silly question but....what does IE stand for???
This may be a silly question also.I read somewhere that a software called Sandboxie or something like that prevented your PC from being infected,if you were using IE.If I downloaded FF, can I switch back to IE and vice-versa at will without any drama.?
DSTM.
I have done a google on Sandbox, since I never heared of it.here some infoAs far as your question regarding IE and FF Yes you can
QUOTE(fozzie @ Jan 3 2007, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE(DSTM @ Dec 30 2006, 06:09 AM)
QUOTE(ghostwriter @ Dec 30 2006, 10:51 AM)
QUOTE(Walkman @ Dec 29 2006, 01:37 PM)
To fozzie,
I agree with you on that 100%.
But I see that the main problem is that people are using IE in the first place. That browser alone will get you infected. And that's without downloading anything. It's from simply using it, and going to web sites that may be infected. But IE provides no protection for your browsing needs. That's the main problem.
This might be a silly question but....what does IE stand for???
This may be a silly question also.I read somewhere that a software called Sandboxie or something like that prevented your PC from being infected,if you were using IE.If I downloaded FF, can I switch back to IE and vice-versa at will without any drama.?
DSTM.
I have done a google on Sandbox, since I never heared of it.here some infoAs far as your question regarding IE and FF Yes you can
Thanks, Fozzie for info.Always a bit apprehensive trying new software as I have a tendency to stuff up.
Just need more confidence thats all.
I am a bit reluctant to try new security software. Perhaps you can post the question here?
QUOTE(unloaded @ Jan 2 2007, 09:40 PM)
it might be a better idea to use Firefox, it's very similar to IE7.
I primarily use FF, and occasionally IE. I find IE7 to be quite different from FF.
RE: Sandbox: This is a type of program that allows you to install software and so-forth on your computer and when finished simply delete and close and supposedly your computer registry etc. isn't changed at all. I've never used it though, so I'm not clear on the specifics.
Re: P2P: I've never used P2P, and I do have Open Office by the way. Good part of P2P from my understanding - it is a means for lesser known artists to become known by providing samples of their work. This may actually generate sales of the work and generate more income producing opportunities for them. Bad part, there is a lot of pirated material in P2P networks, and a great deal of the material is infected with all sorts of bad stuff which is why BleepingComputer recommends not using most of them.
Orange Blossom
QUOTE(Walkman)
But I see that the main problem is that people are using IE in the first place. That browser alone will get you infected. And that's without downloading anything. It's from simply using it, and going to web sites that may be infected. But IE provides no protection for your browsing needs. That's the main problem.
I think to place the blame directly on IE is quite incorrect. What you are failing to understand is that any popular software will be targeted. For a long time internet explorer was the only browser available; malware writers and hackers will target the most popular software so that their creations are distributed all over the world on people's computers. I do agree that at the moment it is easier to get infected through internet explorer, but the more people move onto browsers such as firefox, the more these new browsers will be targeted. Only in the past few months have we seen a huge increase in the number of targets against the firefox software. There seems to be a conception that FireFox is infallible - You can still get infected using any other browser. Maybe not as easily, granted. But to say "That browser alone will get you infected." is not altogether accurate, and misleading to less informed users.For example, the Rcsr Exploit that surfaced a while back hit firefox users much harder than IE users. This was because of the way Firefox automatically fills in the request forms once the page is viewed or if the user inputs a username help in the password manager cache. This was uncovered with Firefox 2.0, an attack specifically aimed at Firefox users. This is just one example of a whole host of attacks. I guarantee you that as Firefox becomes becomes more popular the more it will be attacked. I'm not saying that Internet Explorer is a more secure browser than Firefox, because it boils down to the fact that it isn't.
Being a Firefox vigilante is not what The HJT Team is about. It's about helping those who have become infected get cleaned up and teaching them how to arm themselves, not make Firefox converts out of everyone. A lot of infected links that I deal with will infect a firefox browser as well as internet explorer. I myself use internet explorer and swear by it. I have used for a long time and have never had any problem with it and have no thoughts on changing.
The "main point" which you talk about is not the security of internet explorer, it should be about educating users about the dangers of the internet. If users could learn about simple steps to staying secure online, malware writers would have a much tougher time infecting users. As a HJT team member I recommend users to read links about staying secure online with differing browsing habits, not changing browsers. I think many people could be offended with you demanding users to install Firefox before you help them, as many many people I know swear by it.
I originally had a handful of links highlighting my point, but a simple google search will uncover the exploits and infections targetted at Firefox users.
QUOTE(D-Trojanator @ Jan 4 2007, 11:40 AM)
quote=Walkman... But I see that the main problem is that people are using IE in the first place. That browser alone will get you infected. And that's without downloading anything. It's from simply using it, and going to web sites that may be infected. But IE provides no protection for your browsing needs. That's the main problem.
QUOTE
I think to place the blame directly on IE is quite incorrect. What you are failing to understand is that any popular software will be targeted. For a long time internet explorer was the only browser available; malware writers and hackers will target the most popular software so that their creations are distributed all over the world on people's computers. I do agree that at the moment it is easier to get infected through internet explorer, but the more people move onto browsers such as firefox, the more these new browsers will be targeted. Only in the past few months have we seen a huge increase in the number of targets against the firefox software. There seems to be a conception that FireFox is infallible - You can still get infected using any other browser. Maybe not as easily, granted.
1. I never placed any blame DIRECTLY on M$. IE simply doesn't help in fighting viruses or such while surfing.
2. I do realize that any software can, and is most likely targeted when they're competing with others. I'm totally aware of that.
3. You can get infected using any browser, and I agree. But of all browsers out there, I stand by my own research and testing, documentations, and trials and errors, that IE is the most insecure browser out there, and the one that will get you infected before any other browsers will.
QUOTE
But to say "That browser alone will get you infected." is not altogether accurate, and misleading to less informed users.
Read no# 3. My claim about IE is accurate --- down to the bone. I know IE, and I've been using it for around 10 years.
To me, misleading is when people don't take the time to inform others of the "alternatives". That's misleading. I tell people what I know, what I've experienced, and what I recommend. Everyone is FREE to make their own decisions on what they use,, but I at least inform them of it. Do you recommend others to at least TRY using another browser?, or do you never mention it, although they have problems up the ying-yang when using IE?
Also, if I ever mislead anyone, I'll personally apologize, and at the same time, I know I'd get a PM or such from BleepComputer. And as of this date....... it hasn't happened, and that's because I don't mislead people, I just have a difference of opinion and research results than others. That doesn't make me misleading anyone at all. Remember, I'm entitled to give my opinion as long as I'm not offending and (or) disrupting this site and its members and staff.
QUOTE
For example, the Rcsr Exploit that surfaced a while back hit firefox users much harder than IE users. This was because of the way Firefox automatically fills in the request forms once the page is viewed or if the user inputs a username help in the password manager cache. This was uncovered with Firefox 2.0, an attack specifically aimed at Firefox users. This is just one example of a whole host of attacks. I guarantee you that as Firefox becomes becomes more popular the more it will be attacked. I'm not saying that Internet Explorer is a more secure browser than Firefox, because it boils down to the fact that it isn't.
The last sentence in bold truly said it all. And if I'm reading it correctly, you, yourself agree that Firefox is more secure than IE. That happened to be my point to the reply of this thread, and I'm so glad you recognized it.
QUOTE
Being a Firefox vigilante is not what The HJT Team is about. It's about helping those who have become infected get cleaned up and teaching them how to arm themselves, not make Firefox converts out of everyone. A lot of infected links that I deal with will infect a firefox browser as well as internet explorer. I myself use internet explorer and swear by it. I have used for a long time and have never had any problem with it and have no thoughts on changing.
If you understood my reply, I didn't indicate at all that if they said they wouldn't use Firefox, I wouldn't help them. I said my condition on helping them is for them to use Firefox AFTER they've been helped. If that part wasn't clear on my end, I'm sorry and I do apologize for the misunderstanding.
Why wouldn't you want anyone to try something different? Why would you want them to continue to use and do the same things, and then come back and complain because they're infected? Why?
There is a true thing called "process of elimination".... and I can't vouch for you as to how much you implement it yourself, but that's all I do. It's almost like the "first intuition"... which normally will steer you in the right direction, but not following it, you normally find yourself in a rut.
QUOTE
The "main point" which you talk about is not the security of internet explorer, it should be about educating users about the dangers of the internet. If users could learn about simple steps to staying secure online, malware writers would have a much tougher time infecting users. As a HJT team member I recommend users to read links about staying secure online with differing browsing habits, not changing browsers. I think many people could be offended with you demanding users to install Firefox before you help them, as many many people I know swear by it.
The MAIN point I talk about IS security, and IE provides none of that, at least not at a stand point of someone wanting to protect themselves from malicious harm that viruses, trojans, worms and so forth bring on to them.
I am/could be amongst the best of the HJT Team that educates people to help people with their browsing habits, and that includes which browsers one SHOULD USE.... I love to help in anything, but I don't want my help to be in vain. I want my help to help...... NOT supply some type of quick fix, just to bring them back for more fixes..... I say "If you're going to help....... help!"..... It's as simple as that. And NEVER informing others that there are other browsers out there instead of IE is NOT helping, in my opinion. What are you scared of?.... let others know they can try out another browser that has been proven to be more secure than IE. Why wouldn't you want others to know that?
I stand my my words, tests, researches, trials and errors.... and that it is concluded that Internet Explorer WILL get you infected quicker than any other browser out there. It's that simple. And trust me..... I know. If IE is that good and secure, I'd be the 1st to say so. But it's not. It's unsafe for browsing, and for those that don't have to compare web pages.
Consider yourself lucky if you've never had any problems using IE. You must be one of the lucky 10 or so out of 100. Not everyone is computer savvy. Not everyone knows the right from wrong..... surfing the Internet. So, if they don't know, why would anyone want them to keep doing what they've been doing........ especially without letting them know that there are "alternatives" out there?
QUOTE
I originally had a handful of links highlighting my point, but a simple google search will uncover the exploits and infections targetted at Firefox users.
I have not only links, but I have ACTUAL videos going to certain sites, and then seeing as you're being infected using IE. You can trust IE all you want, but it's only fair to allow others to see and experience other browsers. Now that's NOT misleading at all, and I'm sure many would agree with it too.
Also, on the last quote above........ that very well may be true. But how many links do you think there are out there that uncovers the exploits of IE? I'd say the results listing will be much longer than Firefox. But I know you'll say Firefox hasn't been out there longer than IE.
Internet Explorer is less safer to use than Firefox, and it has been already proven.
D-Trojanator,
Thanks for your reply in this thread, and you've made some valid points. And you made another good point... well, actually a perfect point............ and that is people need to be educated on surfing and browser using. I couldn't agree more with that.
Thanks again BleepingComputer for all of your help and support that you offer here.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.