Very awesome Java

[toast]

Paste this script in your url bar-
javascript:R=0; x*=.*; y*=.05; x2=*000; y2=.24; x*=*.6; y*=.24;x4=*00; y4=200; x5=*00; y5=200; DI=document.images; DIL=DI.length;function A(){for(i=0; i<DIL; i++){DIS=DI[ i ].style;DIS.position='absolute'; DIS.left=Math.sin(R*x*+i*x2+x*)*x4+x5;DIS.top=Math .cos(R*y*+i*y2+y*)*y4+y5}R++ }setInterval('A()',5); void(0)

Very cool. Not my code its "Undertaker". It works in some version of IE. I dont think it works in firefox....

Toast

[~~smart~fool~~]

--wow-- awesome

[Moonbat]

Lol. too trippy:D

toast, do you know a site that gives info on javascript things like that that go in the URL bar?

I know a cool thing to do. Type in URL bar.

javascript:alert("MESSAGE HERE")

That gives one of those error messages. Looks totally real. I used it once on a school computer while the kid using it was gone. They shut it down and chkdsk the computer to make sure it was safe, lol.

[~~smart~fool~~]

used it once on a school computer while the kid using it was gone. They shut it down and chkdsk the computer to make sure it was safe, lol.

haha i gotta try that hehehe....i got alot of chumps in my computer class

[Ezekiel]

Does everyone here use IE? I guess everyone must like daily malware infections and no tabbed browsing...


Lol. too trippy:D

toast, do you know a site that gives info on javascript things like that that go in the URL bar?

Any javascript can be placed in the address bar - it evaluates it as it would when normally embedded in a page. You can do anything with URL javascript, such as open new windows, close window, bring up alert boxes, etc.

But most URL javascript must be placed inside the void() function because of something about how return values affect the browser... The alert() function is ok because it doesn't return a value. For example:

javascript:void(alert('a'));

[SyntaXmasteR]

IE 7 has tabbed browsing. I like using IE because lots of web designers make sure their sites are compatible with IE and forget about other browsers like firefox, opera, etc. If I'm browing sites that might be harmful I just turn off active scripting and i'm fine.

You cant view THIS (http://boninroad.com/test/meta.php) in firefox :rolleyes: and how exciting would life be without being able to view white boxes floating around in your browser at different frequencies!

[toast]

toast, do you know a site that gives info on javascript things like that that go in the URL bar?



Nope, cant help ya there.

Toast

[Ezekiel]

I like using IE because lots of web designers make sure their sites are compatible with IE and forget about other browsers like firefox, opera, etc.


The only sites which work only in IE are those which are designed using some non standards-compliant features of IE. If it followed the rules, everything would be compatible. If a site only works in IE, it shows that the designer doesn't know too much about web design. IE is the problem.

It has got so bad that entire blocks of javascript have to be written twice differently - one block for the 'real' browsers (FF, Opera), and one which is written according to the way IE works. This is particularly evident in pages that use AJAX. Like:

if(ie)
{
IE code here.
}
else if(other)
{
FF/Opera/other code here
}


If I'm browing sites that might be harmful I just turn off active scripting and i'm fine.

Yeah, but sometimes you don't know when you'll stumble upon a malicious site.

I just don't know why people are so loyal to Microsoft. Just because it's default doesn't mean it's better. What would you rather have:


Constant threat of malicious code.

No tabbed browsing in < IE7.

Popups and ads.

Browser helper objects, activex and other web-bloat.

'View source' puts page source in notepad which is hard to read AND can't display code correctly which was written on *nix systems due to windows using \r\n and *nix using \n. And most websites were written on unix like systems.


OR:

Virtually no exploits targeted at you.

Ads blocked by adblock.

Flashblock to disable annoying flash pages (flash sucks).

Quick javascript on/off for easy disabling of java & JS on untrusted pages.

Many other useful extensions like switchproxy.

Image zoom.

Download manager.

Quick private data clearer.
Syntax highlighting in 'view page source'.

RSS support.

Automatic updating.

Filterset.G

Cookie editor.

[tocksarcle]

:rolleyes: People actually use IE? I used IE back when I first had a computer but then I discovered firefox, which works a lot better than IE. Plus, who likes Microsoft, anyways?

[SyntaXmasteR]

Microsoft Bashing? At least leave give us your educating opinion tocksarcle. I am open minded about all things. I do not have a * favorite browser but I do pick favorites depending on the situations.

General Browsing - IE Wins
When someone creates a web page, novice or expert, it will (**%) of the time look correct in IE. Why browse the web with software that cant view webpages like the author intended? I know w*w and ie conflict in situations, but thats not the point here. My goal when doing "general browsing" is to browse the web and view content like the author expects me to view. So why IE? IE owns the largest part of the browsing share, so web******s would be ludicrous to design a website that looks great in any other browser than IE. Again experienced web******s will follow guidelines to make pages look the same in every browser, but that is not the point here. The point is I want to lay back, pour a nice crown & coke, and browse the web. I find that I can do this best in IE. - Reference (http://labnol.blogspot.com/2005/**/ie-7-vs-firefox-*5-vs-opera-*-gap-is.html)

Search Engine Analysis - Opera Wins
When I'm comparing algorithms and formulas for search engine optimization I will use Opera. I like the different style layouts that come standard. These really help spotting phonetic pattern placement, structured word positioning & repetition, all while viewing exactly what the spider sees... This is how I rank #* for over *00 keywords on google, yahoo, & msn.

FireFox
I really have not formed an opinion of firefox yet. The times that I did try and use it, I noticed the amount of content I could not view, plug-ins that I needed to install, etc... so i called it quits early. I know its open source, you can create your own gadgets, and maybe someday I will. For now, I'm sticking to IE and Opera.

For those of you who bash Microsoft for Security - Open your eyes

The only big difference between IE/Firefox is that IE is tied in with your OS, Firefox is not. Yes, it would seem like a huge security gap but its not at all. Microsoft now comes with most of these potential targets disabled by default which I think will hurt their business in the short run, but greatly help them in the long run. Short run: RTFM's are still out there. Over time they will adapt to the technology, but most of the market share is clueless! Most of the current market still have the "if it doesnt work when you click, its broken" mentality. The new generation of people understand these concepts but guess what? They have no ***** yet, so they are not a target. Open your eyes and look at the whole picture. Hackers have almost ZERO reasons to target firefox. Open your eyes to the XY generations & do a little research. Keep the same code, firefox now has 80-*0% of the market share, IE is in the place of firefox. Guess what? Firefox would have hundreds of holes, release multiple patches a month, etc...

Finally a topic worth discussing!

[Ezekiel]

I can agree with the fact that MS isn't the only developer with bugs/vulnerabilities. Uneducated people always say "I use Firefox because IE has many of exploits for it and Firefox has 0", but the fact of the matter is Firefox has just as many bugs as IE; maybe even more on some periods of time.

But the thing what makes FF better in the security area is that less than *0% of exploits are targeted at Firefox because only around *0% of the population actually use it. It is pointless to exploit *0% of your victims, so they go for the majority leaving FF users safe. Also, Firefox makes it really easy to disable java and javascript on malicious pages, while IE forces the user to traverse a lengthy set of menus to reach that check box. And it uses some ambiguous names to try to please the dumb users that are afraid of words like 'javascript'. Firefox has a simple check box for 'Enable java' and 'Enable javascript'.

All this is irrelevant though, because Firefox undoubtedly offers the best browsing experience. Microsoft is paid to make a browser and so will do as much is necessary to have a functional browser for their OS. Firefox is developed by people who mostly donate their own free time to make the browser better, and are enthusiastic toward the development. They listen to the community more for new features and are quicker to create updates. The amount of sites that don't work in on-IE browsers is negligible, and not enough to form a decision to stick with IE.



Microsoft Bashing? At least leave give us your educating opinion tocksarcle. I am open minded about all things. I do not have a * favorite browser but I do pick favorites depending on the situations.

I agree that blind Microsoft bashing is wrong, but so is being loyal to a product just because it's what you're used to.


General Browsing - IE Wins
When someone creates a web page, novice or expert, it will (**%) of the time look correct in IE. Why browse the web with software that cant view webpages like the author intended? I know w*w and ie conflict in situations, but thats not the point here. My goal when doing "general browsing" is to browse the web and view content like the author expects me to view. So why IE? IE owns the largest part of the browsing share, so web******s would be ludicrous to design a website that looks great in any other browser than IE. Again experienced web******s will follow guidelines to make pages look the same in every browser, but that is not the point here. The point is I want to lay back, pour a nice crown & coke, and browse the web. I find that I can do this best in IE. - Reference (http://labnol.blogspot.com/2005/**/ie-7-vs-firefox-*5-vs-opera-*-gap-is.html)


Most if not all professional websites are designed according to web standards. This doesn't mean conforming to some obscure undocumented IE functionality. Most professional web designers actually use unix like systems to do their work and only test things in IE as a secondary objective, then they add some javascript and css hacks to get IE to display correctly. Most web designers will use a browser that conforms to standards. Most professional websites run from Apache on unix like systems, coded in an open language like PHP.

And in response to this (http://labnol.blogspot.com/2005/**/ie-7-vs-firefox-*5-vs-opera-*-gap-is.html) link, an argument that IE now has the same functionality as other browsers is flawed, because the other browsers had them first and IE is only now catching up because of community pressure.


FireFox
I really have not formed an opinion of firefox yet. The times that I did try and use it, I noticed the amount of content I could not view, plug-ins that I needed to install, etc... so i called it quits early. I know its open source, you can create your own gadgets, and maybe someday I will. For now, I'm sticking to IE and Opera.

Since installing firefox, I have only come across about * pages which only display correctly in IE. Yes, and those were all on the microsoft.com domain. As I said earlier good web designers follow the standards, and the only people that create pages which only work in IE are either going out of their way to lock out anything but their proprietary browser (microsoft.com), or just bad web designers.


For those of you who bash Microsoft for Security - Open your eyes

The only big difference between IE/Firefox is that IE is tied in with your OS, Firefox is not. Yes, it would seem like a huge security gap but its not at all. Microsoft now comes with most of these potential targets disabled by default which I think will hurt their business in the short run, but greatly help them in the long run. Short run: RTFM's are still out there. Over time they will adapt to the technology, but most of the market share is clueless! Most of the current market still have the "if it doesnt work when you click, its broken" mentality. The new generation of people understand these concepts but guess what? They have no ***** yet, so they are not a target. Open your eyes and look at the whole picture. Hackers have almost ZERO reasons to target firefox. Open your eyes to the XY generations & do a little research. Keep the same code, firefox now has 80-*0% of the market share, IE is in the place of firefox. Guess what? Firefox would have hundreds of holes, release multiple patches a month, etc...

Finally a topic worth discussing!

I think security is not an issue here - every piece of software is going to have bugs so smart people run an AV and a firewall. But out of the question "Which browser offers the best online experience", firefox wins every time.


Most people who switched to a non-IE browser were exactly the same (myself included). Most people were loyal to IE because it is all they know and it works well enough. They think not using IE will make their online experienced worse and not display pages correctly.

But if you just try firefox with good extensions like adblock for * week, you'll never want to go back. Most experienced web users can't imagine the web without adblock.

Damn I just wasted *5 minutes typing that.

[Moonbat]

mike*0*, You are saying that only *0% of people use Firefox, right? So hackers won't target it, because so few people use it.

This is a destructive combo. Here it is.

*. *0% use it, therefore it is targeted less by hackers
2. Someone notices this, then tells others to use Firefox
*. Many people join, and tell others who tell others who tell others who tell others....
4. Let's say in a year nearly 60% of people now use it, thinking that only *0% of people use it, so that means they aren't going to get h4x0r*d
5. But they are wrong. Hackers now catch on to the fact that many people are joining Firefox, lured by the sense of security. They now focus on Firefox
6. Soon, smart people start using a new browser I'll call Finkle. They swtich for the same reason people switched to Firefox
7. Repeat steps *-5, replacing Firefox with Finkle.

[toast]

mike*0*, You are saying that only *0% of people use Firefox, right? So hackers won't target it, because so few people use it.

This is a destructive combo. Here it is.

*. *0% use it, therefore it is targeted less by hackers
2. Someone notices this, then tells others to use Firefox
*. Many people join, and tell others who tell others who tell others who tell others....
4. Let's say in a year nearly 60% of people now use it, thinking that only *0% of people use it, so that means they aren't going to get h4x0r*d
5. But they are wrong. Hackers now catch on to the fact that many people are joining Firefox, lured by the sense of security. They now focus on Firefox
6. Soon, smart people start using a new browser I'll call Finkle. They swtich for the same reason people switched to Firefox
7. Repeat steps *-5, replacing Firefox with Finkle.

People getting hacked is always going to happen. There is no such thing as a secure system. So what you said is always going to happen and its going to happen over and over.
But its not the system that has problems with it, its the user. Its usually always the user. They blame it on microsoft and others. When the real problem is between the key***rd and the c****.

Toast
Ps, I hit *00 posts- Yay!

[SyntaXmasteR]

Well you get the point, but you also sound paranoid. Take your meds and everything will be ok :)

[toast]

Who me?! XD
Im not that bad...
Do I really sound paranoid?

Toast

[Moonbat]

toast, You're right, People will always get hacked. Does that mean we should make it easier for them to get hacked? The user isn't always wrong. Yes, maybe 80% of the time, someone opens a bad attachment, or visits www.comegethacked.com but many times it's because they aren't computer smart, and don't have time/skill to verify the site or a certificate, and rely solely on their antivirus/antispyware to protect them.

By the way, I found a cool JavaScript injection to verify sites, here it is


javascript:alert("The actual URL is:\t\t" + location.protocol + "//" + location.hostname + "/" + "\nThe address URL is:\t\t" + location.href + "\n" + "\nIf the server names do not match, this may be a spoof.");

[toast]

But if people didnt got to risky sites, didnt download porn, and all the other crap they do, there wouldnt be such a problem.
But who would do anything with out knowing something about it? I mean would you put together a car, and not know how it runs? Or how to maintain it?
Im requested for alot for computer help, and I know that most of the answers to the questions are in the user guide or what not.
I think that its not b/c the person cant do it, its b/c the dont want to put effort into something.
You dont have to have a passion to learn something. You have to try. Trying something will get you farther than always getting something right. Its always easier to ask for something than go out and get it for yourself.
I finally get to vent about ppl. *yay*
Havent you noticed that people always ask "hack this for me"?
The whole reason of all problems in the world is b/c no one cares. Its all about "me". The unsocialized self.

Okay. Im done. I feel better.


The code you got was from GRC.com. Very handy and useful.

Toast

Ps, Forgive spelling and grammar, got cought up in the moment.

:)

[Ezekiel]

mike*0*, You are saying that only *0% of people use Firefox, right? So hackers won't target it, because so few people use it.

This is a destructive combo. Here it is.

*. *0% use it, therefore it is targeted less by hackers
2. Someone notices this, then tells others to use Firefox
*. Many people join, and tell others who tell others who tell others who tell others....
4. Let's say in a year nearly 60% of people now use it, thinking that only *0% of people use it, so that means they aren't going to get h4x0r*d
5. But they are wrong. Hackers now catch on to the fact that many people are joining Firefox, lured by the sense of security. They now focus on Firefox
6. Soon, smart people start using a new browser I'll call Finkle. They swtich for the same reason people switched to Firefox
7. Repeat steps *-5, replacing Firefox with Finkle.

Yeah, but as I said above:


think security is not an issue here - every piece of software is going to have bugs so smart people run an AV and a firewall. But out of the question "Which browser offers the best online experience", firefox wins every time.


Every browser will encounter vulnerabilities which compromise its users' security. Firefox may not be currently targeted but it will be in the end, so security is not a factor in this argument.

What we have to look at is which browser gives the best browsing experience - and anyone who says IE is just a microsoft fanboy. Other browsers clearly have greater functionality and features.

If someone runs antivirus and firewall programs, they reduce the risk of malware infection to almost zero. Antivirus programs can usually detect exploit code before it takes effect (unless 0-day), and even when it doesn't detect the code it will detect the payload arriving in the form of a common piece of malware (because **% of exploit users are script kiddies). Antivirus programs can also prevent users from downloading and running malware unless they explicitly choose to run it.

Say a user somehow manages to install malware on his/her computer. The firewall will prevent the software from sending away any personal details, so the only thing which could happen is either a virus infection, data deletion, or a ransomware attack. They don't stand to lose anything which can't be solved with a re-install.

So the point is, if a user takes necessary precautions, their browser is irrelevant for security. As long as they stay smart and don't trust untrusted software or unsolicited emails, they will be fine.

[123456]

*2*45678**0

[toast]

Why worry at all about stuff like virii and other shit; if you are not doing anything that puts yourself out there, then it shouldnt be any headache.

[Ezekiel]

Interesting discussiong.



You underestimate malware. I help out in several security forums and I can tell you that malware can and will compromise computers. It seems stupid really because people think having an AV and a firewall is the solution. Yet they don't bother to update Windows with the latest service packs and patches - this leaves the system wide open to infection regardless of the browser in use.

There are lots of reasons why different browsers are better but what if a user doesn't have an AV, firewall, up-to-date computer with all patches their system will get infected. No browser can prevent this.

If you want to enhance your online browser security then I would keep the browser you like but simply run it in Sandboxie or on a VM. That way everything is contained.

IF you don't then the best advice would be to keep everything updated, have a good AV and firewall, install all patches and be careful in which sites you visit. I know its sometimes not easy to tell whether sites are bad or not without visiting them but there are ways round this: SiteAdvisor, Link checker: http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/

I personally use FireFox because I like the features: add-ons to allow most things e.g. view IE pages in FF, ability to customise things more easily and tabbed browsing.

Just out of curiosity Syntax****** - how about creating a poll to see what browser people prefer. If you made this a separate thread you can then maybe ask people to put the specific reasons why they choose that browser e.g. tabbed browsing. It would be interesting to see whether people did it for certain reasons or just the layout or something.

Well my point was every browser is going to have vulnerabilities, so we should decide on the overall functionality of it rather than immunity to bugs.

Attention all readers of this thread: I have created a poll in a separate thread for everyone to submit their favorite browser and why.

[~~smart~fool~~]

whats argueing over browsers have to do with 'very awesome java'?

[Moonbat]

Well, it started because people were saying IE was unsafe because it was prone to JavaScript users with malicious intent, and said FireFox wasn't.

[~~smart~fool~~]

this thread has been jacked by you ppl argueing over browsers...

[Ezekiel]

this thread has been jacked by you ppl argueing over browsers...

Ok, well if you people want something back on topic, here is some URL javascript I quickly put together to do mostly annoying things...

Note: Try these at your own risk! Most run on an endless loop and the only way to stop them is to end the browser's process.

Number * - The window flasher. Enter this into your (or someone else's) browser and the window will keep flashing until someone decides to close the browser:


javascript:while(*){window.blur();window.focus()};

Number 2 - The endless alert box. This will pop-up an annoying alert box on the browser which simply reappears when 'ok' is clicked. AFAIK, there is not enough time to close the browser window before the next box pops up and you must resort to task manager. This can be used to tie up someone's computer while they aren't looking.


javascript:while(*){alert("This will never end")};

Number * - The window opener. This will keep opening up new windows on google.com as fast as the computer can physically handle. This will eat up resources until killed manually. Google.com could be replaced with a shock website if you particularly dislike the victim - they won't have much chance to close the window.


javascript:while(*){window.open("http://www.google.com")};

Number 4 - The scroller. This javascript will keep scrolling up and down on the page until it lags your computer down.


javascript:while(*){window.scrollTo(0, 500);window.scrollTo(0, 0);};

Number 5 - The window mover. This resizes the window then moves it continually in a square movement until you get bored; then realize there's no way to stop it. Unless of course you use Firefox which allows you to stop unresponsive scripts.


javascript:function pause(numberMillis){var now = new Date();var exitTime = now.getTime() + numberMillis;while (true){now = new Date();if (now.getTime() > exitTime)return;}}window.resizeTo(*0, *0);while(*){pause(200);window.moveBy(200, 0);pause(200);window.moveBy(0, -200);pause(200);window.moveBy(-200, 0);window.moveBy(0, 200);};

Number 6 - The smooth window resizer. This resizes the window gradually back and forth once.


javascript: function pause(numberMillis){var now = new Date();var exitTime = now.getTime() + numberMillis;while (true){now = new Date();if (now.getTime() > exitTime)return;}} for(var Counter = "0";Counter < *0;Counter++){pause(*00);window.resizeBy(-*00, -*00);}for(var Counter = "0";Counter < *0;Counter++){pause(*00);window.resizeBy(*00, *00);}

******: I created all this code apart from one function to delay execution for a specified time, which I found here:

http://codewalkers.com/forum/index.php?action=displaythread&forum=clientside&id=584&realm=default

[Moonbat]

Unless of course you use Firefox which allows you to stop unresponsive scripts.


I should've known you'd stick a pro-Firefox in there somewhere;)

This is some cool stuff. Are you allowed to use anything that Jscript supports?

[Ezekiel]

I should've known you'd stick a pro-Firefox in there somewhere;)

This is some cool stuff. Are you allowed to use anything that Jscript supports?

If by JScript you mean javascript, then yes (JScript is Microsoft's version of javascript, other browsers mostly use Javascript). All javascript can be placed in the URL as long as you keep it on one line and remove any newline characters (return/enter). Some URL javascript must be placed in the void() function, and it has access to the current page.

For example, enter this into your browser:

javascript:alert(document.cookie);

[~~smart~fool~~]

hmm very slick:D