Jump to content

Firefox no longer works with some versions of XP

Super Fast

By Super Fast
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
DennisD

DennisD

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

For any XP users out there who are concerned by that but don't follow the link, and I'm sure there will be some ...

 

Firefox 3.6.28 and Firefox 12 are the last versions of Firefox that will work with the original version of Windows XP and Windows XP Service Pack 1. They won't be updated with security and stability fixes. To keep your computer and personal information safe, we recommend that you upgrade for free to Windows XP Service Pack 3 and install the latest Firefox. This article goes over your upgrade options.

 

I hope you don't mind my extracting that from your link SF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
mta

mta

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

cant see FF not working on XP sp1 effecting too many people.

although i see heaps of PC's still with XP, i can't remember the last one that had sp1, they all have sp3 that i come across.

Backup now & backup often.
It's your digital life - protect it with a backup.
Three things are certain; Birth, Death and loss of data. You control the last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
trium

trium

Posted
Posted

how about with service pack 4 at the end of xp-support, mh? ;-) with this many updates since sp3 its time to say yes, i mean

Versions of CCleaner Cloud; Introduction Ccleaner Cloud;

Ccleaner-->System-Requirements; Ccleaner FAQ´s; Ccleaner builds; Scheduling Ccleaner Free

 

Es ist möglich, keine Fehler zu machen und dennoch zu verlieren. Das ist kein Zeichen von Schwäche. Das ist das Leben -> "Picard"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Super Fast

Super Fast

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have mixed feelings about artificially limiting software based on version numbers.

One one hand, its supposed to be more secure, etc. I understand that. But I also have other problems.

 

Example: I have a netbook. Did you know Firefox blacklists the intel integrated 3D so I can't experience 3D on the web?

I have to use IE9 or Chrome for that. Wow... I never thought I'd live to see the day I'd actually welcome IE over FF?

 

I understand the importance of upgrades, security, etc, but I do feel that users who have more knowledge & expertise ought at least be offered advanced options to do what they want on their own machines.

 

Right now, feels like a battleground. I buy, they decide what I do with it. No fair! LOL!

 

Sometimes, I just want to crash my own PC on my own terms... Or experiment. Or just have ridiculously "dangerous" fun by using older programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
mta

mta

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

Winapp2,

that link to crashie caused my AVG to pop up 2 Exploit Javascript Document Write Loop threats, which it blocked.

 

I guess that was your aim if the user was in IE, thankfully i was in FF.

Backup now & backup often.
It's your digital life - protect it with a backup.
Three things are certain; Birth, Death and loss of data. You control the last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan_B

Alan_B

Posted
Posted

McAfee SiteAdvisor warns against it:

http://www.siteadvis...tes/crashie.com

I notice that Mcafee tried to run 4 Web safety tests and got no results

I cannot help wondering if that is because McAfee test were done with I.E. which crashed :)

 

Here is an interesting result when I tried

http://www.siteadvis...um.piriform.com

It shows that this forum holds 321 downloads, starting with ccsetup141.exe

If McAfee can see them, why can I not see them - is this a privilege reserved for moderators :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Nergal

Nergal

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

it shows what it has downloaded not what the site holds

McAfee is stopping access because the page is a Proof of Concept for a exploit that siteadvisor is taught to have blocked.

the site itself is safe the issue is that it is there to show how a page can be code to provide this DoS

 

ADVICE FOR USING CCleaner'S REGISTRY INTEGRITY SECTION

DON'T JUST CLEAN EVERYTHING THAT'S CHECKED OFF.

Do your Registry Cleaning in small bits (at the very least Check-mark by Check-mark)

ALWAYS BACKUP THE ENTRY, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'LL BREAK IF YOU DON'T.

Support at https://support.ccleaner.com/s/?language=en_US

Pro users file a PRIORITY SUPPORT via email support@ccleaner.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan_B

Alan_B

Posted
Posted

The first thing I did was visit

http://www.siteadvis...tes/crashie.com

I decided that the McAfee report was consistent with my amusing thought that McAfee used I.E. and it crashed,

so McAfee had no clue what was happening and therefore said it was a bad site without knowing why.

Sorry, but that is my sense of humour.

 

Just as a matter of interest I wondered what sort of rating McAfee would give to a good site that it could access,

and I hoped that the site I use for Portable CCleaner downloads would qualify,

regardless of hopes, I tested

www.siteadvisor.com/sites/piriform.com

The good news is that Piriform.com is 100% Green,

and includes 8 links to sites that are rated green.

The bad news is that one of these links is to Facebook.com.

Sorry, but I beg to differ on Facebook. :angry:

 

I was ESPECIALLY interested to observe that there was no indication that any downloads were available from the Piriform site.

I thought that strange.

How can I trust a 100% Green Rating if McAfee is totally unaware of downloadable executables that modify system files.

 

In view of the fact that McAfee found 8 links from the Piriform.com site

My DOS Prompt PING test :- Pinging piriform.com [108.171.164.204] with 32 bytes of data:

I wondered what it would say about all the links posted on this forum hosted by IPBhost

My DOS Prompt PING test :- Pinging ccleaner.ipbhost.com [50.28.75.78] with 32 bytes of data:

This is the report on this forum

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/forum.piriform.com

That says that McAfee found 321 downloads were available on this forum website.

 

There is no way that I can see the old file ccsetup141.exe on this forum.

When I click on their "see more" link I am taken to

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/piriform.com/downloads/

I cannot see that old file on the NON-Forum download page of the Piriform parent.

 

It is more than disturbing that when McAfee is asked to report on the forum hosted by IPBHost [50.28.75.78]

they actually test what I assume to be the website FileHippo downloads of ccsetup141.exe

My DOS Prompt PING test :- Pinging filehippo.com [74.54.247.132] with 32 bytes of data:

and they think they are finding these files on the NON-Forum Piriform.com [50.28.75.78]

I think that McAfee actually found this file which Filehippo call CCleaner 1.41.544 on the page

http://www.filehippo.com/download_ccleaner/history/8/

 

Just for laughs I tested

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/filehippo.com/download_ccleaner

They rate 100% Green, but again no files were identified

 

Summary on McAffee performance

They cannot distinguish between three different websites managed by three different I.T. support groups.

IPBHost [50.28.75.78]

filehippo.com [74.54.247.132]

piriform.com [108.171.164.204]

 

They cannot see the Portable and Installed etc flavours of the current four Piriform productsavailable on piriform.com [108.171.164.204]

They probably never even saw that this forum website was hacked last month and might have infected visitors with inadequate protection.

 

I have never used McAfee.

I have never suffered any infection on a Windows Computer.

Cause and Effect perhaps :rolleyes:

 

Sorry, now I posted I realize -

I drifted off the Firefox topic by irresistible temptation

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Andavari

Andavari

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

Here is an interesting result when I tried

http://www.siteadvis...um.piriform.com

It shows that this forum holds 321 downloads, starting with ccsetup141.exe

If McAfee can see them, why can I not see them - is this a privilege reserved for moderators :(

 

Nope, mods on here are not privileged, were're just regular users who volunteer who also happen to have the ability to remove spam, etc.

 

If you're feeling nostalgic for v1.41 it's on FileHippo, it's 5 years 4 months old though. Funny how I can actually remember using that version. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Nergal

Nergal

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

As I stated, the downloads listed on McAfee is a historical record, they constantly scan sites with a ID key (or that their users go to) and this site has been watched (for at least) 5 years and 4 months, at which point they downloaded and tested 1.41 thus you see it on the list/

 

ADVICE FOR USING CCleaner'S REGISTRY INTEGRITY SECTION

DON'T JUST CLEAN EVERYTHING THAT'S CHECKED OFF.

Do your Registry Cleaning in small bits (at the very least Check-mark by Check-mark)

ALWAYS BACKUP THE ENTRY, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'LL BREAK IF YOU DON'T.

Support at https://support.ccleaner.com/s/?language=en_US

Pro users file a PRIORITY SUPPORT via email support@ccleaner.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan_B

Alan_B

Posted
Posted

As I stated, the downloads listed on McAfee is a historical record, they constantly scan sites with a ID key (or that their users go to) and this site has been watched (for at least) 5 years and 4 months, at which point they downloaded and tested 1.41 thus you see it on the list/

This raises two concerns.

Why are they showing 1.41 against this forum website, and not against the NON-forum site from which it was downloaded ?

If malware had been detected/reported in 1.41, would this forum site still be listed RED even though the software never came from here ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Nergal

Nergal

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

question1: because it's compiling domains (piriform.com) not subdomains (forum.piriform.com) nor pages (ilehippo.com/download_ccleaner)

 

question2: yes

 

ADVICE FOR USING CCleaner'S REGISTRY INTEGRITY SECTION

DON'T JUST CLEAN EVERYTHING THAT'S CHECKED OFF.

Do your Registry Cleaning in small bits (at the very least Check-mark by Check-mark)

ALWAYS BACKUP THE ENTRY, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'LL BREAK IF YOU DON'T.

Support at https://support.ccleaner.com/s/?language=en_US

Pro users file a PRIORITY SUPPORT via email support@ccleaner.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan_B

Alan_B

Posted
Posted

question2: yes

So McAfee Preaches Eternal Damnation for one sin or mistake. :o

 

Question 3.

If I wish to visit a site and SiteAdviser warns me of a RED status,

Will it be immediately obvious from the warning whether there is a real and present danger on that site,

or whether it was due to an ancient SQL injection hack infection of a file on a host such as FileHippo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Nergal

Nergal

Posted
  • Moderators
Posted

it will act the same way as WOT. It'll let you if you insist. It's just an alternate to WoT, mostly technician curated instead of mostly community driven, though.

 

if the vulnerability is fixed the site can regain its green status, the specific download would remain read but version 1.42 would be freshly tested and given it's own rating

 

if there's no objection I'd like to spin the off-topic discussion to it's own thread

 

ADVICE FOR USING CCleaner'S REGISTRY INTEGRITY SECTION

DON'T JUST CLEAN EVERYTHING THAT'S CHECKED OFF.

Do your Registry Cleaning in small bits (at the very least Check-mark by Check-mark)

ALWAYS BACKUP THE ENTRY, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'LL BREAK IF YOU DON'T.

Support at https://support.ccleaner.com/s/?language=en_US

Pro users file a PRIORITY SUPPORT via email support@ccleaner.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept