Why do I (you) still keep using older (v12) version?
-
Deleted User last edited by
We've been warned by Opera's developers to update to the latest version. You're entitled to believe whatever you like. I suppose with that mindset, I could still safely use Netscape 7? As for me, I'll put my trust in what Opera tells me as opposed to those who simply "think" they know better. I will wish you good luck. You're going to need it if you insist upon using an older version of Presto.
-
shandra last edited by
Yeah, and each Windows Install is telling you that you are now using the best of all windows ever (which is highly amusing when it is an Install of 98SE within a VM for that Retro Gaming Experience) - I am not sure whether Secunia has still an eye on Presto - but since their last update there are no outstanding issues listed - and keep in mind that products used by the majority are also prime targets (that was why using Norton was more of a risc then using any other AV solution in those times (besides the major problems Norton was introducing to Windows), that was why using a Mac was considered safer compared to windows (to the extreme that the majority of those users believed there is no risc)), so it may be that Presto has unknown issues still, but considering the user base - what would be your target of choice for an attack Chrome or Presto?
Of course I am not saying that it is safe - but that always incorporates the user and general software environment and "always use the latest" is a general warning which doesn't include "previous is unsafe", especially if we are talking Presto/Chrome here - that warning is, as I consider it, to be meant for 15+, not between 12 to 15. -
Deleted User last edited by
I use the latest Windows OS possible and as soon as Windows 10 is available for consumers, I'll have it. I use the latest version of F-Secure which I can put on my computers and tablets. I appreciate what you are saying about Presto users not being a prime target but frankly I don't want to take the risk. It's not a big deal for me. Certainly if I were using a Presto version I would update to 12.17 but that's no longer a concern for me; I've upgraded to Opera 26 and I like what I see. The thing that people are refusing to face is simply this - Opera Presto (any version) is dead. It will no longer be developed... period. And we know that over time sites will become increasingly incompatible with the older browser. I choose to take a pre-emptive approach and make the change now rather than later. But to each his/her own... I guess.
-
-
donq last edited by
Anyone using an old version of Opera's browser is simply taking an unnecessary and foolish risk. But then, why doesn't this surprise me? Many in the group crying and wringing their hands over Opera's new browser, haven't the sense to even update their Presto browser to the most secure version (12.17). And why? Well... such important things as "custom-modified theme" (OMG... so very important) and "old habits". So you'd rather take the security risk to keep your "pretty" theme than use common sense and update your browser? Right. Makes a lot of sense.
leushino, what are you afraid of? What kind of security risk? Risks need to be assessed, some risks need to be taken, some need to be mitigated. For me using old browser (or old OS, or old version of some other program) doesn't usually constitute as considerable risk factor; for you this is apparently different. I as thinking creature don't need always follow common sense, esp when this common sense is biased towards FUD. Or marketed, what is often the case. Create the problem, sell the solution
Do you know how to use your computer securely? Turn it off and disconnect all cables (and remove any batteries from it) and enclose it into steel safe and throw safe keys into deep sea. Any other use involves some security risks.
If for you things like custom-tuned theme (or any other little polished detail) don't matter - no problem. For me this matters however, matters alot more than some minor (often imaginary) security risk and it is not your business to judge about my preferences.
-
Deleted User last edited by
@dong: you're being silly now. If you don't understand why Opera has applied security patches to its Presto browser and advised users of that discontinued browser to update their older versions, then that is your problem. I am not afraid as you term it for the simple reason that I keep my browsers updated, apply any and all critical updates to my OS, run with a hardware firewall and a software firewall, have the best AV program available (F-Secure) and exercise a modicum of intelligence when surfing and opening emails. Skins and themes are unimportant and irrelevant. Laziness is no excuse for running with an older version. If you want to operate with an older browser that does not have the latest security fixes... that's your privilege. And good luck to you; you'll need it.
-
A Former User last edited by
So you ain't gonna force us to "bury Presto" and become "Top 40" fans instead of Old Rockers anymore?
Yes, this new female singer superstar has smooth skin and long legs (let alone nice tits), but I don't like the songs - I can't &*cking headbang along! \m/ -
-
blackbird71 last edited bySeveral points should be kept in mind about risks to browser security. First, all exploits "cost" to create, in time and/or money. So a key question is how the exploit author views the cost/reward ratio for creating exploits aimed at certain browsers. Since there's always some author who may create something just because he can, there will always be a finite (though small) risk that any browser at any version level might be successfully targeted. However, most exploit authors aim for targets offering the best chances of success against the most installations, or that offer possible entry points into the richest private networks. From that standpoint, the lowest likelihood of being targeted by new exploits lies with the lowest-usage browsers, unless they are known to populate large or rich private networks. In that regard, "old" Opera browsers stand in a better position regarding risks of targeting by new exploits than other more popular and numerous browsers.
However, a second point to consider is that exploits are digital - they have no expiration date. So exploits that were successful against old browser versions of any brand can be kept "on file" to be automatically applied against such browsers whenever they "come knocking" at the exploit purveyor's door. In reality, many "nasty" malware sites examine the user-agent strings or employ JavaScript techniques to auto-tailor their attacks from a list of available malware specifically aimed at the inquiring browser brand/version. In such a situation, "old" unpatched browsers fall easy prey to such sites.
Third, not all exploits are created equal. Some merely foul up the browser, hijacking search engines or inserting ads or pop-ups... but in these cases, the trouble may not extend much past the boundaries of the browser. Other malware uses the browser weakness as a portal into the system, installing key-loggers or all kinds of malware infection-partners or bots - and these are the exploits most threatening to a typical user's privacy and identity. Unfortunately, "security exploits" is a broad term that blurs the distinction. The point here is that exploits against just the browser itself may not in every case rise to the threat level presented by exploits that use the browser to attack the system... hence certain patches may not seem as important to a user.
Finally, some exploits are of a more general nature, attacking weaknesses in protocols (think in terms of "Poodle"), rather than specific browser engines themselves. In these cases, "old" browsers are in a peculiarly awkward place, since they are unlikely to ever become fully-patched, and any external remediation of the protocol flaws at servers or sites may leave "old" browser functionality crippled or deficient. In such cases, the security repercussions could be serious, but the remedial paths very limited if some kind of remedy outside the browser (in the OS or anti-malware, etc) can't be supplied.
The bottom line remains intensely personal as to how one reads the security risks applying to them specifically when using a particular browser, especially old ones. However, over the years my experience has been that most folks will under-rate the level of security risk applicable to them until they have been hit by a successful attack. Just sayin'...
-
Deleted User last edited by
Thanks for the informative post, blackbird. There's a lot to digest here.
-
pqr3 last edited by
Opera having dramatically changed its configuration, it may be helpful to others to be aware of my use of Opera Notes in particular.
Notes, to me at least, is a greatly underrated function of Opera. As it has been deleted from Opera 15, Opera 12.15 is the last Opera browser version I'll be using. My Opera Notes files are actually a large collection of media articles from the internet, each note therefore being between 500 and 3000 bytes in size - being grouped by category and subcategory, which naturally alter as more are added. It is much easier to move and regroup them in Opera than in a Word file. Also large Word files (up 6,000 pages of text) are unstable, and as inconvenient as Opera's autosave function.
As Notes are automatically created with URL &c, the Copy to Note function is - especially en masse - much more convenient than cut-and-paste to a Word document. Having tried about a dozen note/bookmark managers, my strongest comment is how excruciatingly bad some of the design and programming really is. Only one of those programmes even sort of allowed using the first line of whatever was copied as the title line - so simple, as Opera does, yet they couldn’t even get that right! As a group, they are dreadful; Opera pre-15 was a browser, yet it is a better (also simpler, and more versatile) Notes Manager than any of them.
Unlike most users, bookmarks are of absolutely no value whatever to me. Indeed, bookmarks' only value is that up to Opera 9.27, one could use Bookmarks as a temporary storage/transfer hub, which is much more precise and reliable than importing. A very useful function, lost from 9.50 and now completely gone with Opera 15. Unlike File > New and File > Import, the File > Open feature in Bookmarks allowed the current file to be neatly closed and the desired one opened. So the overall Notes collection can easily be broken down into lots of smaller files, rendering the time lost to autosave much less important.
So I still use both 9.27 and 12.15.
-
A Former User last edited by
I use old opera because I like it better and 99 plus percent of sites I frequent still work. And I am not worried about any kind of risk. I suppose by risk we talking about some hacker getting our banking passwords and taking all our money, right?
-
shandra last edited by
laingman: more ore less things like "buffer overflows",etc. Something where you pass some executable code into the system via "unhandled exceptions"/"bad memory managment"/etc. -> some way to infiltrate the system via an app (in this case the browser or corresponding plug-in (Java/Flash/Acrobat/etc.) that the infiltrating code doesn't need the browser/reader/player/etc. anymore afterwards...
That's why it is always a good advice to scann one system once in a period (weekly/month/quarterly/...) via an external boot (BartPE/Rescue System/...) - as the security measures within the system may have become corrupted.
And in disregards to Leushino, that is my POV - regular scanns from an external source, regular backups and partition images, system partitioning and folder redirections (Documents/AppData/etc.) to different partitions/HardDrives... Bla...
So to say, every possibilities of Drive/Folder Organization that MS is with each advancement in Windows Versions so eagerly against (Fit the system to the Dummy Users, take away customizability)... -
shandra last edited by
Ok, and if I would know how to modify my recent post I would like to replace at least my typo of leushina to leushino (as I don't meant any offence or cynical misspelling) - sorry for that!
-
ruario last edited by
Ok, and if I would know how to modify my recent post I would like to replace at least my typo of leushina to leushino (as I don't meant any offence or cynical misspelling) - sorry for that!
You click on the Cog underneath your Monkey badge.
P.S. Typo corrected.
-
A Former User last edited by
That's why it is always a good advice to scann one system once in a period ... via an external boot (BartPE/Rescue System/...) - as the security measures within the system may have become corrupted.
How do you do that?
I suppose by risk we talking about some hacker getting our banking passwords and taking all our money, right?
No, Laingman. Read Blackbird's post above.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
... And I am not worried about any kind of risk. I suppose by risk we talking about some hacker getting our banking passwords and taking all our money, right?
By "risks", most knowledgeable people refer to all the collective kinds of digital security risks that go with a browser flaw becoming an avenue for a successful malware attack against just the browser, the host computer, or the entire local network (if any) the computer might be connected to. For example: key-loggers, file- or drive-destructive viruses, file stealers, spyware, adware, scareware, dns hijackers, password/log-in stealers, bots, malware relays, remote controllers, and countless other forms of malware. Some of these are thieves, stealing data or identity information off the computer and whatever it connects with; others are destructive, damaging files or drives or hardware controlled by the computer; while still others force your system into remote-controlled malware networks that infect or exploit other systems without your knowledge.
Once malware has successfully gotten beyond your browser into the system itself, there is almost no predictable limit to what it can do to or through that system... often, the first thing malware will do is to covertly import still more malware types onto the system. The importance of what is on the computer or what/where the computer is connected to dictates the degree of overall risk to a user of a given software vulnerability that enables penetration into the computer.
-
-
-
shandra last edited by
joshl: Well, the german computer magazine C't has included with their magazine periodical for some years now a AV Scann CD (Article) with 1 years licences for some ScannEngines (current CD: Avira/BitDefender/Kaspersky/ClamAV)(the CD is based on a minimal Ubuntu).
With Avast you can create a Bootable Media from within the AV Application, and AFAIK some other Manufacturers (like Avira) are offering downloadable isos for such a media on their sites.
.