Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Firefox 3.5 and Secunia


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 abanerji

abanerji

  • Members
  • 40 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:37 PM

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:19 AM

I have a Compaq laptop. Key software components are:-

XP pro SP2 (fully patched) with IE 6 (patched)
Firefox (just upgraded from 3.0.17 to 3.5.7)
AVG free (also just upgraded from 8.5 to 9.0.725, virus DB 270.14.133/2612)
ZA basic firewall free 7.0.483

Two months ago, I did a secunia online scan through firefox 3.0 and it went smooth. Now, when I try the same through firefox 3.5, the scan cannot be started. I give permission to secunia's java applet, but the web page doesn't load fully.

I try the same scan through IE, and the process goes smooth.

I have another assembled PC, with similar software components as my laptop mentioned above. However, in this PC, firefox is still 3.0.17, and AVG 8.5 (updated). When I try the secunia scan through firefox 3.0 there, it runs smooth.

Any clues as to what is happening please? Thanks,

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 ThunderZ

ThunderZ

  • Deactivated
  • 4,454 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:09:07 AM

Posted 11 January 2010 - 08:30 AM

I do`t use AVG but I believe both it and ZA, depending on the version, free\paid, have script blocking options so it may not be a Firefox issue.

May be a situation with an older version of Java as well.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users