Login:
Password:

Image Processing Flaw Found in Firefox

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

May 17, 2006, 3:23 PM

Firefox users may be vulnerable to a denial of service attack after researchers looked into reports of a new vulnerability within Firefox 1.5.0.3. The flaw exists in how the browser handles image tags. The SANS Internet Storm Center first wrote off the problem, but continued research has shown that the flaw could be used maliciously.

The exploit was initially believed to only be a joke, as a hyperlinked "image" when opened would launch the media player and play a .wav file. However, researchers now say the same flaw could be used in conjunction with JavaScript to open a mail client and open up multiple windows using the "mailto:" command.

Eventually, the system would become unresponsive, say researchers. While this may seem fairly benign, some security experts sounded the alarm.

"Guys, this is a PoC [proof of concept], do you understand what it can do? Now it opens ~100 mail windows, but what if it does a lot worse, just because the img xsrc= tag can be used to open almost everything?" warned Securityview in a Web log post on Saturday.

Chris Mosby of myITforum.com shared several suggestions on how to avoid exploitation of the flaw. "One possible workaround is to turn off automatic startup of your e-mai application in Firefox," he said. Additionally, a user could disable JavaScript, or block "mailto:" altogether.

Security firms such as Secunia did not list the vulnerability as of press time, but it is likely they would eventually post an advisory, as would other firms. Mozilla has not yet commented on the discovery of the vulnerability.

Add a Comment (349 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By TSThomas

edited May 22, 2006 - 9:48 AM

Masterlie's frequently requests source URLs as "proof" of auto-installation of Spyware in IE (Refusing to believe the statements by Microsoft, SANs, CERT, Sophos...), well perhaps he'd care to check this out;

http://sunbeltblog.blogs...of-createtextrange.html

"The createTextRange() zero-day vulnerability has been patched in the latest round of security updates from Microsoft.

If you’re curious to see the exploit in action at one site, you can see this video here. In it, the AppWiz keylogger is installed.

Patrick Jordan
Senior Spyware Researcher"

Have fun.

Score: 0

By jdhaylie

edited May 19, 2006 - 12:25 AM

how do I know what is safe anti-spy, adware, and virus protection to download for free?

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 22, 2006 - 9:59 AM

Lavasoft Ad-aware
Spybot - Search & Destroy
Microsoft Windows Defender
AVG Free

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 19, 2006 - 1:18 PM

Is it just me or did all of Mastertech's posts just get deleted....because now it looks like i'm talking to myself further down the thread, and although not far off the mark when I'm as tired as I was last night...it just seems...odd...

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 19, 2006 - 3:18 PM

Eh? Well I normally do talk to myself so for me I did not notice until you posted this. Shame that some of our entertainment was removed but I am sure we will have more from BrowserMaster or whatever his name is.

Rather than suspect some deliberate moderation on the part of betanews I think we just may be seeing some kind of hardcoded nutjob thresh-hold in the comment software here. Or possibly we have just witnessed a new metaphysical phenomena like a black hole of clue that sucks the stupidity from around us. Either way it is a bummer...twas most entertaining.

Score: 0

By Mastertech

posted May 19, 2006 - 2:59 PM

Oh yeah all my posts were censored but everyone elses remain. Looks like the fanboys got to this thread too. If that is not proof I do not know what is. Keep spreading the Propaganda anything else will be deleted!

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 22, 2006 - 10:01 AM

I'm sorry MT, I've been away a few days, guess I missed all the fun here. Perhaps your posts due to your continued "I refuse to believe any sources which disprove my statements" & "You disagree with me therefore I'll blacklist you on my site &/or label you as a fanboy spammer".
Instead it's your posts that get deleted, hmm, sounds like you need to re-assess your current line of thinking.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited May 19, 2006 - 3:18 PM

Yea you keep telling yourself that Mastertech...They're out to get you...nevermind your overly obnoxious attitude or continued spamming of your site (most likely reason). It must be the fanboys out to put you down right? Once again your ego gets in the way of you seeing straight.

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:40 PM

No, Firefox isn't 100% secure. It is currently, however, safer than IE.

CVE total is currently running at 397 vulnerabilities for Internet Explorer.
http://www.cve.mitre.org...yword=internet+explorer

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 19, 2006 - 10:05 AM

Masterboy I am not all that fond of spammers. I don't know anyone that is. Heck, I bet that even spammers don't like spammers. You are putting yourself in that category. I have to agree with a previous poster that the word Fact does not mean what you think it means. Even if it were so, facts require context in order to be relevant to an issue. You lack both. Any value your regurgitated minutia (and yes I looked it up because I can't spell worth a damn) may have is more than overshadowed by your fanaticism and refusal to rationally dicuss specific issues. When pressed you spew a torrent of insults, generalizations, links, and other garbage instead of reasoned thinking.

While entertaining on the whole, it does become tiresome after a while. Perhaps you should rest your fingers in order to be fresh for a renewed assualt on our patience over some other issue.

Oh and I don't mind that the links you are spamming are links to your site that has paid advertising on it. I just hate spamming/spammers. But it is also clear that you probably need all the help you can get if you are out of school and have not learned to think yet.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted May 19, 2006 - 1:52 AM

oh boy, these articles about OS and browser flaws are funny. Throw a juicy flaw out there and the vultures start circling. Here's an idea for all of you fanboys. Stop trying to convert everyone..let men/women use what browser or OS they will and get along.

Score: 0

By Floske Tuf

posted May 19, 2006 - 5:51 AM

I couldn't agree more !

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 19, 2006 - 12:26 AM

How many times is Mastertech going to be allowed to spam his site? Not only full of anti-Firefox FUD, this is also a commercial site from which he makes money.

Score: 0

By Mastertech

edited May 19, 2006 - 3:04 PM

Oh so it was you? Nice you got all my threads deleted by spreading more lies. Like I said the only way you can win is by not letting anyone hear what I have to say.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 19, 2006 - 4:01 PM

Yeah, it was me. My Kung Fu is strong.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 19, 2006 - 3:20 PM

paranoid much? ever stop to consider it was your spamming for personal gain that got your posts deleted? Now you'd rather attack the integrity of the entire Betanews staff instead of opening your eyes to your own arrogance.

Score: 0

By tscar12

posted May 18, 2006 - 6:31 PM

I admit that I am new here and my view is whatever browser or os makes your d*** hard or clit wet , go for it. I have to admit I always get a beer before coming to this site cause it can be so funny listening to some of the rants. Hell, it's cheaper than going to the piss poor movies that come out

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 18, 2006 - 8:21 PM

You know, it is funny that you put it that way. When I think of Browsers I normally think of sexual arousal too...how strange. Must be those late nights looking at naughty pictures coming back to haunt me.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 4:35 PM

*grabs some popcorn*

This Mastertech guy is funny. Insane, but damn funny.

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted May 19, 2006 - 10:23 AM

Amen to that.

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted May 18, 2006 - 4:24 PM

awesome, funny and hilarious,and yeah warzone below :-

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted May 18, 2006 - 4:22 PM

awesome, funny and hillarious,and yah warzone below :-

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 18, 2006 - 3:40 PM

who really gives a s*** what browser another person uses? does it affect any of you in any realistic way?

didnt think so, shut up. everyone already knows that there isnt a single browser out there that lived up to the expectations that the design team had when they created it, otherwise there would never be new version, never need to have plugins and never need to be patched. i think we can all agree that we all have our choice of browser or browsers we like and just because someone else says so we arent going to change our minds.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 18, 2006 - 7:27 PM

Please allow me to paraphrase your point (I do so enjoy mangling others words)

who cares, blah, blah, blah, shut up, blah, blah, blah, I have nothing to learn here, blah, blah, blah, sheep are sexy, blah, blah, blah

Does that about say it then?

Score: 0

By ogman

edited May 18, 2006 - 6:10 PM

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 5:25 PM

lmao...

Now *that's* reading between the lines.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted May 18, 2006 - 4:35 PM

'bout right.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

edited May 18, 2006 - 3:00 PM

Wow this is more fun then that time at band camp when they brought out the donkey in a girdle...

You all realize you're insane right?

((HUGS EVERYONE))

Score: 0

By SorenMD

posted May 18, 2006 - 12:22 PM

Fight amongst yourselves...

YAWN...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:07 AM

lmao...

It just gets better and better.

It's no longer about the article...it's about which fanboy can post more FUD about the other browsers.

Nice, guys.

"Just say No" ain't just about Drugs anymore.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:17 AM

Better watch your posts PC_Tool MasterTech has thousands of machines configured with his own special sauce. For all we know there is a botnet there waiting to DDOS Betanews if we plant a foot wrong.

Seriously though, I am not trying to be a jerk, but it would be easier to take MasterTech seriously if he did not post ridiculous things...repeatedly. Trying to plant subtle hint here. If you show your bias so transparently, no-body listens to a thing you have to say even if part of it is valid.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 18, 2006 - 7:45 PM

Well since you asked. Your posts closely mirror what is found on the firefox myths site.

On this site rediculous statements are made and debunked. Here are just 2 examples
Myth - "Firefox is Bug Free"
Myth - "Firefox is completely compatible with every Web Site"

How can you even make this stuff up with a straight face. Anyone who has been on the internet more than 5 minutes will know that this is not true of Any browser let alone a fairly new one. My 7 year old can type up a rebuttal to those, or at least link to them.

You mistake quantity for quality and succumb to the disease that has plagued fanatics since they crawled out from under rocks. That mistake is to think that those who don't agree with you or share your fervor are less intelligent or merely ignorant and that if you rant at them enough they will "Get It". Your facts are dubious and your proofs lack context.

That is what is rediculous. Shall I go on or do you understand?

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 18, 2006 - 8:11 PM

Do not be concerned with what they think. You just keep being your entertaining nutty lovable self and we will all be happy to read it. I think I speak for most in that.

Take this to heart though: It may be more difficult to easily rebut well reasoned statements than it is these "myths" you dig up, but it is far more satisfying. It is also more valuable to try to keep the topic closer to what actually concerns most web surfers. I don't really care which browser loads .02ms faster or has 5 fewer bugs in a given month. I don't know anyone who does. My drivers are far more mundane things like features, quality of add-ons, and security (real world in the trenches my pc is not infected security). In that I make my choice and direct my influence.

You are free to do the same but your influence is diluted if you piss it away making statments like you have in this discussion.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 9:53 PM

"Well reasoned statements are not Myths"

Now if only you would provide a well reasoned statement you might actually get somewhere. Alas, that isn't likely to happen given your prior posting history.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:15 PM

I'm not an FF fanboy and I haven't seen a single one. Just FUD.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:39 PM

Yea, you really need to get back in class and pay attention during reading comprehension class. Are you truly this dimwitted or is this just a "special" day for you?

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited May 18, 2006 - 10:54 PM

about as much as yours do

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:01 PM

So you finally agree that your page is just FUD? Wonderful...it's about time.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:26 PM

to paraphrase Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word (facts)...I do not think it means what you think it means.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 19, 2006 - 7:06 AM

Blue!

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted May 18, 2006 - 4:31 PM

We are fighting for browser, like we used to fight with our GI JOE , mine is stronger no no mine is stronger

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 5:26 PM

I thought that's what convertables and boxters were for...

Score: 0

By rijp

edited May 18, 2006 - 12:12 PM

Was there a post here? Its a blank spot, I think there is something wrong with the betanews site...

at any rate, Mastertech has commendable ideas, people dispute his evidence, why? Because its like the time when Columbus tried to tell the world it was NOT flat, that's how I relate this.

People will not listen, unless they have undisputable evidence, but by then its too late, the damage has been done.

Bias is the point to posting in the first place, if we didn't have an opinion, we wouldn't waste our time in posting any comments.

If you want to believe Firefox has ZERO problems, great! I hope you enjoy it. I know IE is not perfect, but to even IMPLY any product is bullet proof, now THAT's rediculous.

People aren't going to listen anyway, they believe what they want to believe, but when we post in a public forum, we have evidence that we TRIED to convince you otherwise. If you take the advice, wonderful.

Frankly, I could give a s*** less if you take the advice or not. Its not like its going to make 1 iota of difference to me. My machine is stable, I don't infiltrate it with stuff that I know cause problems. If my machine DOES have problems, I can fix it. I don't need anyone's help. The software that people use, is their own, and at their risk. If people can't read the disclaimers on the software BEFORE using them, well too bad. Maybe one day people will learn to read and figure out that software isn't 100% guaranteed, nothing in life is.

Take the advice or leave it. This is a free country. You don't like what PC_Tool, Mastertech, or myself have to say, well you can go fly a kite in Iraq.

Score: 0

By Nanobot

edited May 18, 2006 - 6:03 PM

There's a big difference between his article (he has posted his link several times here; search for it) and my article: http://www.webdevout.net/firefox_myths.php

Is Firefox 100% standards compliant? No, no browser is. Is Firefox 100% secure? No, no browser is (dispite what Mastertech would have you believe, Opera isn't either). Did Firefox invent everything it offers? No. But Mastertech's article isn't just debunking these obvious myths. It's deliberately presenting a skewed picture that makes it looks like Firefox sucks in every area. His page also has a good share of errors in it, such as the claim that Secunia lists an extremely critical vulnerability for Firefox on Windows (it doesn't), the claim that Opera's rewind and fast-forward features are the same idea as Firefox's cached back and forward buttons (they aren't, nor does Opera claim they are), and those (mis)quotes under the Fanboy Quotes section, which were deliberately alterred to say the opposite of what they actually said in the original context.

His page does say a few truthful things, which I have incorporated into my own version of Firefox Myths, but the rest is just lies and misleading statements made to fit his own personal fanboy agenda. I've posted proofs of his lies multiple times before, complete with sources and everything, but he just ignores me claiming that I'm a Firefox fanboy (even though I regularly promote Opera as well) and calling my arguments "excuses, opinions, rhetoric and conjecture". Even quotes directly from Microsoft contradict some of his claims, but he pretends they're Firefox fanboys. He even referred to an Opera fan site as a bunch of Firefox fanboys without realizing it. Anyone who disagrees with him, regardless of what proof they have to back themselves up, is dismissed as a Firefox fanboy. It's absolutely bizarre how someone like him can still have any ego left to keep up this endless crusade.

Score: 0

By Nanobot

edited May 18, 2006 - 10:02 PM

Opera is not currently perfectly secure. Just because Secunia isn't currently aware of any unfixed vulnerabilities in Opera older than the maximum response time they allow doesn't mean Opera doesn't have vulnerabilities. If you claim otherwise, you're simply misleading people.

And you want to talk about excuses? What business does that IE HTML support figure have in your section for a *Firefox* myth? Why don't you note IE's CSS support or Firefox's HTML support? The answer is pretty obvious: you're doing everything you can to leave the reader with your biased perspective.

What bull*** claims did I make about your site? I said you tried to make IE out to be somehow superior to Firefox. And in fact, up until I got you to stop lying about what my resource said (I'm the source for his standards support information, by the way), you were claiming that IE had better XHTML support than Firefox. That pretty well fits the definition of "somehow superior" and even you can't deny that.

Oh I get it, if you just smack the label "fanboy" on the so-called quotes, you're free to misquote people and conduct libel? I'm sure that would make an excellent defense in a court of law.

Here's some proof. Listen clearly...

Proof that Secunia does not list an extremely critical vulnerability for Firefox on Windows: Go to http://secunia.com/product/4227/ and look at the only advisory with an extremely critical rating (http://secunia.com/advisories/16869/). Now read: "This vulnerability can only be exploited on Unix / Linux based environments."

Proof that Opera's rewind/fast-forward buttons aren't the same things as Firefox's cached back/forward buttons: http://opera.com/features/ 'Fast Forward will detect the most likely "next page" link and greatly simplify navigation in multi-page documents.' That isn't close to Firefox's cached back/forward pages.

I'm not sure what kind of proof you want for ActiveX's insecurity, but I think this quote from Microsoft speaks for itself (http://msdn.microsoft.co...ts/activex/security.asp): "An ActiveX control can be an extremely insecure way to provide a feature. Because it is a Component Object Model (COM) object, it can do anything the user can do from that computer."

As for W3C being part of the definition for a webapge, Tim Berners-Lee (founder of the W3C) originally invented/defined the HTML language that your source says is part of the definition of a webpage. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html or a quick Google search)

"Quickly" is a relative term (someone can be running quickly, but compared to a fired bullet he isn't so quick), so the claim that Firefox patches vulnerabilities "quickly" is obviously relative to other browsers. And if you look at Internet Explorer (http://secunia.com/product/11/) you'll see that Firefox does patch vulnerabilities much more quickly than IE. Looking at my patch delay summary (http://www.webdevout.net...urity_summary.php#delay) which comes directly from Secunia's data and the official release dates of each respective patch, although Firefox isn't the "quickest" in every type of average, overall it certainly patches vulnerabilities "quickly".

I could go on and on. On the other hand, what have I lied about? Please show me some proof about a lie I've made.

As for the Opera site in question, I was going to say Opera Watch, but it seems you have just added a note "(not Opera Watch)" even though they're the originator of the "myth" you're addressing. Interesting.. so Opera Watch now isn't a bunch of Firefox fanboys even though they originated the quote, but anyone who quotes it elsewhere is? Will you ever start making sense? It's like trying to argue with a crazy person.

Score: 0

By Nanobot

edited May 19, 2006 - 10:37 AM

You're out of your mind if you think I try to make anything but Firefox look bad. As I have said before, I think Opera is a great browser. When my grandpa asked me to switch him away from IE because of all of the adware he frequently got, I picked Opera instead of Firefox because of the accessibility features. (And by the way, he hasn't had one new piece of adware since.)

I never promote Firefox without also promoting Opera. My personal preference is Firefox, but if it was Opera you would have as much reason to call me an Opera fanboy.

For the millionth time, written false claims about someone is called "libel", not "slander". And my statement wasn't in the least bit libel. Here is an example of a libelous claim: "The owner of this Source had tried to redirect visitors coming from this site to specially created warning pages." It's also libelous to claim that my standards support page has ever redirected anyone to the IE warning page (a different claim than the quote above), or that I have violated your copyrights in any way, or that I am somehow manipulating the data in my tables just to make IE look bad, when every change is recorded in my changelog and anyone can test the information (I even provide several different convenient ways for people to submit corrections, privately or publicly).

And no, my data never once said that IE had better XHTML support than Firefox. For a while, I gave IE credit for supporting some of the *changes* in XHTML over HTML, even though it didn't support those elements in an actual XHTML document, but its support for XHTML 1.1 in total (which generally is more or less the figure in the "Total" section by "HTML / XHTML", although Internet Explorer's value would technically be just about 0% because it doesn't display the document as a webpage when an XHTML document follows the standard strictly) was never shown to be higher than Firefox's. Your problem is that you failed to read my table correctly and you misrepresented what it said.

In what way do I pretend to be above the law? Parodies are perfectly legal, and quoting cited sources is perfectly legal. Some of the things you've done on your site aren't. I'm tired of your constant empty threats at lawsuits. You know very well that you're guilty of much worse than anything you could accuse me of, but unlike you I don't resort to empty threats in order to win an argument.

Your page clearly says "All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no Extensions." Secunia clearly shows no extremely critical vulnerabilities in Firefox on Windows. Get a clue and stop lying to your readers.

And how is Firefox less secure in Linux than Windows? That flaw was fixed the *day after* it was discovered, and right now Secunia shows no difference between the security of Firefox on Linux and Windows. If you want to talk about past vulnerabilities, according to Secunia, Opera has accumulated 48 advisories in its product life compared to Firefox's 40. By your logic, I guess Opera is more insecure than Firefox! (And no, I'm not really claiming that, just that your logic here is flawed.)

"That Opera feature is very similar." Wow. You have a serious clue deficiency. I'll explain in detail what each of the features is:

Opera's rewind and fast-forward buttons are essentially links to pages that are automatically detected as the "previous" or "next" pages in a logical sequence. This can be detected by the "previous" and "next" link types in the document or links that actually say "Previous" or "Next". There is no caching system specific to these buttons; it merely goes to the respective page.

On the other hand, Firefox's cached history feature is a completely different idea. The last few pages the user has navigated to in that tab are cached in memory (as opposed to cached on the hard drive, which is somewhat slower), so when the user hits the back button, the page is loaded from the memory cache instead of requested from the server again or reconstructed from the cached source on the hard drive.

To review: If you go from a Google search results page to some page4.html in Opera, the rewind button goes to page3.html which the Opera has never downloaded and must fetch once you click the button. Meanwhile, going from the search result to page4.html in Firefox, the back button goes back to the search results page instantly. These are two completely different operations and aren't even comparable.

As for your magical eWeek source, why should I take some nobody programmer/writer's word when all of the major security researching companies and even Microsoft say otherwise? That eWeek guy is just spreading a myth, and it's pretty easy to debunk.

"Even the definition of a Web Page on Wikipedia does not include W3C standards in the definition"

Yes it does. It says webpages are typically written in HTML/XHTML (which the definition on your Myths page says more directly), and the Wikipedia clearly says that HTML was "[o]riginally defined by Tim Berners-Lee" (the founder of the W3C) and "maintained by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)". But I forget that you don't understand how simple logic works.

Score: 0

By Nanobot

posted May 20, 2006 - 8:59 AM

FYI, the above few comments from me were replies to comments from Mastertech that have since been deleted by the BetaNews administration. I am not schizophrenic. ;)

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited May 18, 2006 - 9:55 PM

"I don't cover up the truth."

You also don't state the truth either, you distort it. You take a side comment one idiot person on the web makes and provide it as latest "proof" or your newest "myth". You've done that repeatedly on your page you enjoy spamming so much that it's a wonder you don't label the page "fiction". Your fact page has about as much "fact" to it as a Dan Brown novel.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited May 18, 2006 - 10:54 PM

Riiight. Wait...were's your proof? Hey if you can ask so can I. :)

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:03 PM

Nah I want proof of your multiple instances of these misleading claims not just the quote from one misinformed or malnourished nutjob...all of them...for each of your myths.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:25 PM

What no proof then? Pffff...

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 19, 2006 - 7:07 AM

IE Fanboi!

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted May 18, 2006 - 4:29 PM

words of wisdom, dunno about others but it was crystal clear to me.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 18, 2006 - 12:53 PM

You surprise me. That post was actually not too bad. You started strong. A bit of humor a little olive branch but then you lost me. You still offend by the gratuitous use of capitalization but that can be overlooked seeing as how you are so passionate.

Even a little balanced point of view inserted even if it is quickly lost.

Let me see if I can paraphrase...correct me if I am wrong:
=====================================
MasterTech has commendable ideas (I actually agree here, he does have some good ideas, unfortunately these masterful musings are eclipsed by his abysmal delivery skills)

Columbus talked to Rocks (well to world at least - even if he was right...it is not flat, it is not considered productive to talk to the World - better to talk to people, although around here, it sometimes seems as rocks might be more inclined to listen to reason)

People don't listen (True)

Bias is the point of posting (umm...nope - Bias is actually a negative thing and does not equate to opinion. The differences is that a Bias can be said to negatively affect the powers of judgement or reason and prevent you from properly integrating new information into your opinion - so the folks in Columbus' time had a Flat World Bias - not a good thing by any means)

Somebody believes that Firefox has 0 problems (real fanboy material, but no-one here has posted that)

People won't listen (again, true, but getting repetitive)

You give a (something, not sure here) if folks take your advice, you have a stable machine, don't need help infiltrating it and nobody reads disclaimers. Nothing is guaranteed, or maybe it was that you have a Turd named Frank that has infiltrated your machine to give you advice and read the disclaimers for you (I am not sure just quite how to take that).

This is a free country (alas not any longer)

The weather is nice in Iraq this time of year (have to disagree here, it is Hot and dry...not kite flying weather thanks.)
=================================

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted May 18, 2006 - 3:29 PM

what you look up all your words in a dictionary? trying to sound smart? it doesnt help you.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 18, 2006 - 4:19 PM

You must be new here, or at least new to my posts...they are all like that and I seldom need to try.

You have caught me out...I memorized a list of big words when I was younger in order to impress ignorant forum savages. I get so much of my self-esteem from what others think of my IQ that I simply must use the largest words possible at all times so they will think I am smart. I can't post without a dictionary because my ideas are so weak that they cannot stand on their own...I must inject large words to make up for my intellectual inadequacies (well that and my small p**** but lets not go there shall we).

I am detecting some commonality in posters that include the word Master in their nick. Maybe we should conclude that Master is in fact only part of a word...it is missing the final part...hmmm

I did in fact look up one word (mostly because I wanted to be sure I was correct in linking it to another) and that was Bias which is linked with Prejudice (not the same but but one implies the other in some cases). The others came flowing from my ever so humble mind.

Did you have a point turdbrain or is it just syllable envy?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 4:21 PM

Did you have a point turdbrain

Everyone say 'Hello' to Reap_r's inner 3-yr-old.

Hello!

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 18, 2006 - 4:25 PM

You have been waiting for that haven't you?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 5:24 PM

Nah.

Call it a side-effect of having children. Makes it easy to recognize certain behaviours.

*shrug*

It's not meant as an offense. It's simply an observation. Hell, I've been letting mine run rampant today. ;)

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 18, 2006 - 8:23 PM

Well I have a 3 year old and I make her look downright mature sometimes with my antics.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 3:45 PM

Un-called for.

Was there a point ot your post or are you here only to fling insults?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 2:55 PM

not kite flying weather thanks.

Even if it was, good luck getting it up there with all those bullet holes in it...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 12:25 PM

Bang!

Zoom!

There goes rijp, flying off the handle like a cannonball out of a cannon again.

Did you read his comment? He was insulting me, and was *trying* to be civil about Mastertech's obnoxious postings.

Deep breath, man.

Pop another valium....and chill. :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 12:05 PM

What?

Sorry...wasn't listening. ;P

*grin*

That was *too* easy.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:01 AM

nobody wants to hear your childish whining "Mastertech"

go be a Fanboy, and leave the thinking to the intelligent people because you clearly cant handle it.

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted May 18, 2006 - 9:07 PM

"I'll ignore any sources, facts, or rebuttles you just said, label you a Firefox fanboy, and advertise my web site some more."

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 9:48 PM

There have been several. You choose to ignore them and label the writer a FF fanboy. Typical tactic of an internet forum troll who can't back his s*** up...sad really.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:43 PM

If by "backed up and explained" you mean "yell at them and call them a FF fanboy", then yes I suppose you have.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:04 PM

You havent proven anything except your complete inability to listen to anything anyone says.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited May 18, 2006 - 11:36 PM

OK I might have been wrong I admit. You listen just fine it's your reading thats impaired

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 19, 2006 - 7:07 AM

Thanks, it certainly is fun

Score: 0

By Secret Agent Man

posted May 18, 2006 - 9:47 PM

Second, you need to accept the fact that there is more than one side to a debate, and that your own personal views and beliefs are not the end-all decision.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:44 PM

Excuses or counter arguments you can't defend against and thus you just shout "FANBOY"

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:05 PM

again...if by "defending" you mean shouting "FANBOY" then I suppose your right.

If I yell and call you an IE Fanboy does that mean I win to? No? Damn...

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:27 PM

Scroll Down

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 19, 2006 - 7:08 AM

You refuted what? Nothing? Yes refuting nothing is very easy.

Score: 0

By SorenMD

edited May 18, 2006 - 11:08 AM

>>>>>> "nobody wants to hear your childish whining "Mastertech""

AMEN to that!

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:59 AM

"and spammed it up here" yeah, thats what you did.

LOL

You have got to be the most retarded poster EVER!
You just did exactly what you were chiding him about.
LOL, you made my day moron. ROTFL

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 18, 2006 - 12:22 PM

Just a minute, damnit, *I* am the most retarded poster ever! Quit taking my damn title.

I want to be the most annoying, lame, retarded, egotistical, maniacal, childish poster..

Evidently I succeded.. because I have posts to this effect. In the mean time, Mastertech isn't the problem, you are, because you are ALLOWING his comments to sway your judgement.

I don't care about make friends on here. I don't care what you do with my posts, or my advice, I just don't care! someone once said, they were going to report me to the Betanews authorities, is that supposed to be a veiled threat? I don't give a flying ****!

This isn't the real world, its a damn open forum. Get over it! If you have to take these measures of personal behavior to the point where all you can do is focus on how to concentrate your energy on one person, you have some serious problems and you need to have yourself checked.

I don't care what you think of me, but do NOT try to dispute postings where they show you are obviously wrong. This only makes YOU look stupid, not the poster.

Its like arguing with a brick wall, you may win, but who is really going to know?

This has gone beyond stupid and lame, this is just out of control, and ANY post regarding Mastertech and his apparent proof to the contrary, and he does make valid points, whether you can recognize them or not, is just more evidence that you are the idiot.

This is just like the school yard, where he says you are stupid and you are replying with the most utterly lame response ever "I know you are, but what am I". that's all this is.

Keep on making stupid quips and posts like this, and that's all anyone will read "I know you are, but what am I".

If you don't have anything important, or contributes positively to the discussion, please feel free to STFU.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted May 18, 2006 - 1:08 PM

Watch it bud. Many more good posts like this and you may lose that title you coveted so.

Here is good summation of your point I think:

http://carcino.gen.nz/im...x.php/00b9a680/463c5922

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 2:56 PM

NSFW?

Can't get it past the filter. grrrr...

Score: 0

By ogman

posted May 18, 2006 - 1:51 PM

That was good, thanks for the laugh! :o)

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted May 18, 2006 - 1:00 PM

Okay, let's vote:

Biggest Loser:

rijp - who desperately wants the title due to some undiagnosed mental illness

MasterTech - who hasn't figured out what a loser he is yet, due to an undiagnosed mental defficiency.

rijp is more like an unruly pet and he wants it too bad, so I vote for MasterTech.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 9:47 PM

Mastertech

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:44 PM

Everyone already knew that one

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 2:59 PM

MasterTech - who hasn't figured out what a loser he is yet, due to an undiagnosed mental defficiency.

It's called cranial-anal inversion.

Undiagnosed, indeed...

In other words, his head's where his arse should be.

I vote MT, because rijp can actually be amusing on occaision.

Score: 0

By ogman

edited May 18, 2006 - 1:54 PM

Another vote for MasterFool - biggest loser of them all!

Sorry rijp.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted May 18, 2006 - 12:50 PM

"I want to be the most annoying, lame, retarded, egotistical, maniacal, childish poster.."

Then look forward to the continuing criticism of your peers, who have taken the trouble to learn the art of civil colloquy among themselves. You just take advantage of the fact that no-one is *physically* present here. I challenge you to be as rude and obnoxious at a party or other social gathering as you are in these forums without getting taken outside to be taught a lesson.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted May 18, 2006 - 1:00 PM

Well said.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited May 18, 2006 - 11:31 AM

Hey lets try to keep things accurate. He is neither a Moron nor Retarded. I know people who are both. They are not the tightest clips in the box but they do learn to accept negative feedback from behavior that produces a non-desired result.

This individual however is what is known as a "Fanatic" in that no matter how many times the same sub-optimal result is achieved, he continues to follow the same procedure as before. Sort of like the gluttons for punishment that try to introduce themselves to the opposite sex by using not-so-witty pick up lines. Begs the question...if you ever did find a person so desperate that they would respond to such an approach positively...would you want to know them?

Sorry to go OT but I thought it germane.

Score: 0

By Paradise-FH-

edited May 18, 2006 - 10:39 AM

from one firefox user to another: shut it.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:02 AM

"from one firefox user to another: shut it."

Exactly, couldnt have said it better myself.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:43 AM

LOL! Ouch!

Score: 0

By Gerwin

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:25 AM

The thing is, Firefox is opensource, made by programmers who are so bad they couldn't get a paid job. So what do you expect? Opensource sucks, it has always been rubbish and it will always be rubbish. Maybe it's good for development countries.

Score: 0

By womfalcs7

posted May 18, 2006 - 10:34 AM

aaaa Apple just released 43 patches for flaws in its OS and Quicktime...

You might want to rephrase.

Score: 0

By Noremacam

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:12 AM

You missed the point. The people at apple do having paying jobs, and there's still flaws, so the comment was a moot point.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 9:46 PM

Yes it does. If you pulled your head out of your a** long enough to actually READ you might begin to understand...but probably not.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

edited May 18, 2006 - 10:48 PM

Yea you missed it.

Apple...big company with paid developers who according to the genious above are better then OS developers...have an operating system with a large count of obvious security flaws. Hence his argument that the OS developers are somehow inferior is bunk.

Oh and incidently, Google hired the Firefox lead developer. So unless you contend that Google only hires bad developers that ALSO refutes the argument.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:05 PM

How deep does the sand your head is stuck in go down?

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:28 PM

I think my very first observation about you was dead on...you ARE insane.

Score: 0

By Arakiel

posted May 19, 2006 - 7:09 AM

No it isnt stupid its a dodecahedron

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 18, 2006 - 11:09 AM

http://www.opensource.ap...darwin/6.0/release.html

ba-dum-bum!

of course, only the kernel is OSS. What *most* people consider to be the OS, the actual Desktop (Aqua), is closed proprietary code.

Apple FUD fanboys just conveniently forget to mention that part most of the time. :)

Score: 0