Firefox vs IE (restricted sites)

I'm contemplating the switch from IE to Firefox. I like
Firefox's pop-up blocking, low memory usage compared to
IE, etc. One thing that is stopping me is the fact that
Firefox doesn't have something like a Restricted Sites
zone like IE does.

I like the Restricted Sites zone in IE because it's a long
list of sites I've compiled so that these sites will not
be able to use cookies, ActiveX controls, Java applets,
scripting, unwanted pop-ups, auto-installing of unwanted
programs like spyware, etc.

I'm apprehensive to use Firefox because of this, although
I know I can disable certain things in Firefox (like Java,
and ActiveX isn't even supported).

Am I being too paranoid here or is there something Firefox
gives in return for the loss of my cherished list of
restricted sites?

N
Thu Aug 26 22:02:27 CDT 2004

In article <04f401c48bd0$112607e0$a401280a@phx.gbl>, Udoo says...

> I'm contemplating the switch from IE to Firefox. I like
> Firefox's pop-up blocking, low memory usage compared to
> IE, etc. One thing that is stopping me is the fact that
> Firefox doesn't have something like a Restricted Sites
> zone like IE does.

> I like the Restricted Sites zone in IE because it's a long
> list of sites I've compiled so that these sites will not
> be able to use cookies, ActiveX controls, Java applets,
> scripting, unwanted pop-ups, auto-installing of unwanted
> programs like spyware, etc.

> I'm apprehensive to use Firefox because of this, although
> I know I can disable certain things in Firefox (like Java,
> and ActiveX isn't even supported).

> Am I being too paranoid here or is there something Firefox
> gives in return for the loss of my cherished list of
> restricted sites?

Firefox allows image and cookie blocking on a per site basis. Java and
JavaScript are two completely different things; Java being a programming
language, and JavaScript just being an active scripting process. You don't
really need something like MSIE's restricted sites zone because neither
Java, nor JavaScript were given the low level system access permissions of
ActiveX. Choose your JS settings with care, and don't allow sites to install
software, and you should be at least as secure as you were with MSIE locked
down.

Tools > Options > Web Features

I really don't know the best "Advanced" JavaScript settings. Currently
running with "Disable or replace context menus", "Hide the status bar", and
"Change the status bar" disabled.

Tools > Options > Advanced > Software Update

I have disabled "Allow web sites to install software". Just remember that is
where you set it. If you go to a site that you trust and try to install a
Firefox enhancement, you get no prompt; just that nothing at all happens.

Oh, and you are lucky that I got here first; others will be quick to remind
you that this is a Microsoft support group, not a Firefox (Mozilla) support
group. I see, by your posting headers, that you used a web browser to post
your question:

X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000

If you are switching from MSIE to Firefox, will you be switching from MSOE
to Thunderbird? Either way, MSOE, or Thunderbird, you can get answers to
Firefox questions by setting up a news reader and pointing it to:

news.mozilla.org

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Lance
Thu Aug 26 22:27:01 CDT 2004

I use both. WinXP SP2

Right now I started Firefox and IE with blank startup pages. Firefox is
using 16,776 KB, IE is using 10,540 KB. At Yahoo!, FF uses 19,396 KB and
IE uses 16,540 KB.

To tell you the truth, with the new IE integrated popup stopper that
came with SP2, I prefer IE now.

Lance
*****

Udoo thought carefully and wrote on 8/26/2004 5:52 PM:

> I'm contemplating the switch from IE to Firefox. I like
> Firefox's pop-up blocking, low memory usage compared to
> IE, etc. One thing that is stopping me is the fact that
> Firefox doesn't have something like a Restricted Sites
> zone like IE does.
>
> I like the Restricted Sites zone in IE because it's a long
> list of sites I've compiled so that these sites will not
> be able to use cookies, ActiveX controls, Java applets,
> scripting, unwanted pop-ups, auto-installing of unwanted
> programs like spyware, etc.
>
> I'm apprehensive to use Firefox because of this, although
> I know I can disable certain things in Firefox (like Java,
> and ActiveX isn't even supported).
>
> Am I being too paranoid here or is there something Firefox
> gives in return for the loss of my cherished list of
> restricted sites?

Kent
Sat Aug 28 19:03:01 CDT 2004

Udoo wrote on 26-Aug-2004 5:52 PM:

> I'm contemplating the switch from IE to Firefox. I like
> Firefox's pop-up blocking, low memory usage compared to
> IE, etc. One thing that is stopping me is the fact that
> Firefox doesn't have something like a Restricted Sites
> zone like IE does.
>
> I like the Restricted Sites zone in IE because it's a long
> list of sites I've compiled so that these sites will not
> be able to use cookies, ActiveX controls, Java applets,
> scripting, unwanted pop-ups, auto-installing of unwanted
> programs like spyware, etc.
>
> I'm apprehensive to use Firefox because of this, although
> I know I can disable certain things in Firefox (like Java,
> and ActiveX isn't even supported).
>
> Am I being too paranoid here or is there something Firefox
> gives in return for the loss of my cherished list of
> restricted sites?

I can't see maintaining a list of Restricted sites in IE or Firefox (if
it had a restricted sites list). I would rather lockdown the IE Internet
zone by disabling activex and then putting sites that I want to allow
activex in the Trusted zone. That way every site is restricted from
activex unless you put it in the Trusted zone. MS has a powertoy that
puts a new item in your tools menu to add a site to the trusted zone.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/previous/webaccess/pwrtwks.asp

You can tweak Firefox java settings to restrict it from doing certain
things and you can put sites in various settings to manage cookies and
popups and such. And, of course, it is safe for activex. :-)

--
Kent W. England, Microsoft MVP for Windows Security

Udoo
Sat Aug 28 22:02:08 CDT 2004

But if I "lock down" IE by disabling this or that or
setting it for prompts to ask me what to do, that's
annoying. For example, already I have it set up so that I
receive a prompt for ActiveX on each site and I decide to
let it run or not. It's annoying, yeah, but what else am I
gonna do? Certain sites need it, like one site I go to
that is completely blank without ActiveX.

The Restricted Sites thing works great for me, because
these are where I add on average maybe one site per day to
it and I NEVER have to worry about something happening if
I visit these dodgy sites that want to install spyware on
my computer, etc. The way I've customized my Internet zone
right now in IE, I only receive one or two prompts on
sites here and there. In Restricted, nothing is allowed,
whereas in IE Internet zone how I customized it, some
things are automatically enabled, some prompt me, and the
rest is disabled always.

I just don't feel safe with Firefox right now without my
Restricted Sites zone (my "crutch," lol).

>-----Original Message-----
>I can't see maintaining a list of Restricted sites in IE
or Firefox (if
>it had a restricted sites list). I would rather lockdown
the IE Internet
>zone by disabling activex and then putting sites that I
want to allow
>activex in the Trusted zone. That way every site is
restricted from
>activex unless you put it in the Trusted zone. MS has a
powertoy that
>puts a new item in your tools menu to add a site to the
trusted zone.
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/previous/webaccess/pwr
twks.asp
>
>You can tweak Firefox java settings to restrict it from
doing certain
>things and you can put sites in various settings to
manage cookies and
>popups and such. And, of course, it is safe for
activex. :-)
>
>--
>Kent W. England, Microsoft MVP for Windows Security
>.
>

N
Mon Aug 30 16:16:21 CDT 2004

In article <eYdmxW#iEHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Lance says...

> I use both. WinXP SP2

> Right now I started Firefox and IE with blank startup pages. Firefox is
> using 16,776 KB, IE is using 10,540 KB. At Yahoo!, FF uses 19,396 KB and
> IE uses 16,540 KB.

That test is a bit unfair. Quite a few of the MSIE modules are shared .dlls,
which are also used by Windows Explorer, and other parts of the OS. If
Firefox could easily hook those same shared .dlls, it wouldn't need so much
memory either.

> To tell you the truth, with the new IE integrated popup stopper that
> came with SP2, I prefer IE now.

Whatever. It is still not a better, safer browser.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

N
Mon Aug 30 16:23:23 CDT 2004

In article <21e001c48d74$92261ab0$a301280a@phx.gbl>, Udoo says...

> I just don't feel safe with Firefox right now without my
> Restricted Sites zone (my "crutch," lol).

That is because you understand neither the nature of the restricted sites
zone, nor the way to configure Firefox. Properly done, you have a minimum of
sites in the MSIE restricted sites zone, and no possibility of a drive by
install in Firefox.

When I use MSIE at all, which is rarely, I use the restricted sites zone
only to contain sites I know are data harvesters. I can't know ahead of time
which sites run dodgy scripts, so I have scripts disabled in the Internet
zone.

When I use Firefox, I keep the software install permission disabled. If I
find that I need to add something, I can temporarily enable the installation
for that site, then disable it again.

In neither case is ActiveX a problem; it just doesn't work.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint

Lionel
Tue Aug 31 07:14:10 CDT 2004

N. Miller wrote in message
<MPG.1b9d38fb77b89fd098a3b5@msnews.microsoft.com>:
> In article <eYdmxW#iEHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Lance says...
>
>> I use both. WinXP SP2
>
>> Right now I started Firefox and IE with blank startup pages. Firefox is
>> using 16,776 KB, IE is using 10,540 KB. At Yahoo!, FF uses 19,396 KB and
>> IE uses 16,540 KB.
>
> That test is a bit unfair. Quite a few of the MSIE modules are shared .dlls,
> which are also used by Windows Explorer, and other parts of the OS. If
> Firefox could easily hook those same shared .dlls, it wouldn't need so much
> memory either.

The total memory used by the system will be lower, since IE uses
system DLLs, but it doesn't affect how much virtual memory is used by
the process.

Kent
Fri Sep 03 21:30:54 CDT 2004

Udoo wrote on 28-Aug-2004 8:02 PM:

> But if I "lock down" IE by disabling this or that or
> setting it for prompts to ask me what to do, that's
> annoying. For example, already I have it set up so that I
> receive a prompt for ActiveX on each site and I decide to
> let it run or not. It's annoying, yeah, but what else am I
> gonna do? Certain sites need it, like one site I go to
> that is completely blank without ActiveX.

The choice is between disabling activex and looking at the web page to
see if the web site requires activex and won't display properly if
disabled, or to get a prompt on *new* sites that you visit to give you
the choice to enable activex, if required. (And a menu traversal to add
the site to the Trusted zone.)

Firefox is option one and so is IE Internet zone set to disable activex.
Option two is only available with IE.

The SP2 IE Information bar also gives you the new choice to NEVER accept
downloads from a certain domain. So you shouldn't have to answer a
prompt except for the first time you visit it. This is simpler than
manually adding sites to the Restricted Zone.

--
Kent W. England, Microsoft MVP for Windows Security