Date   

Re: Good Browsing Hygiene, was: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Arianna Sepulveda
 

Lol I so need to get this. I remember accidentally installing the Yahoo and Ask toolbars because I accidentally fissed a checkbox.


Thanks,
Ari

On Apr 5, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

Patrick Le Baudour a écrit:  "What I usually do with nvda is open the context menu on the link, type c for copy link address, then nvda+c to tell the clipboard content."

This is the slightly slicker version of what I'd said, and at least it avoids having to open Notepad or any other program to paste the link from the clipboard.

Another program that I cannot recommend more highly, particularly to avoid bundled "junkware" being installed on your computer when you're installing something you've downloaded and want, is Unchecky.  It's useful to anyone, but particularly to the visually impaired and blind because of the loathsome practice of bundling.  I use it on my own computer just in case I miss one of those checkboxes I should be unchecking by accident.

Brian


Re: Problem: No sounds when copying files etc.

Ksenia Natapova
 

Yes, I have checked this box.

Von meinem iPhone gesendet

Am 05.04.2016 um 20:43 schrieb Gene New Zealand <hurrikennyandopo@outlook.co.nz>:

Hi

Do you have under object presentation section in nvda, the following box
checked? report back ground progress bars checked?

Gene nz


On 06-Apr-16 6:38 AM, Lino Morales wrote:
Another way you could do this is the Navigational Sounds for Firefox.
I think Brian the XP fanboy from the UK suggested this to us on the
list. Good little add-on.

On 4/4/2016 10:39 AM, Afrim wrote:
You can hear sounds when activating or disactivating the browse mode,
but not when installing programs. There should be any add-on out
there which may play sounds in different areas of your Computer. If
you're talking about the sounds of percentage, they can be toggled on
by pressing insert plus U to indicate percentage.
Hope it helps. ,

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 4, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Ksenia Natapova via Groups.io
<ksenia.natapova=yahoo.de@groups.io> wrote:

Hello,
I have NVDA installed on my laptop. I don'g hear any sound when I
copy and paste a file or install a program...
I even tried to reset the NVDA settings but I still can't hear any
tone. Is there any way to turn on this option?
Best regards
Ksenia
--
Check out my website for nvda tutorials and other blindness related material at http://www.accessibilitycentral.net




Re: Problem: No sounds when copying files etc.

Kenny Dog <hurrikennyandopo@...>
 

Hi

Do you have under object presentation section in nvda, the following box
checked? report back ground progress bars checked?

Gene nz

On 06-Apr-16 6:38 AM, Lino Morales wrote:
Another way you could do this is the Navigational Sounds for Firefox.
I think Brian the XP fanboy from the UK suggested this to us on the
list. Good little add-on.

On 4/4/2016 10:39 AM, Afrim wrote:
You can hear sounds when activating or disactivating the browse mode,
but not when installing programs. There should be any add-on out
there which may play sounds in different areas of your Computer. If
you're talking about the sounds of percentage, they can be toggled on
by pressing insert plus U to indicate percentage.
Hope it helps. ,

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 4, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Ksenia Natapova via Groups.io
<ksenia.natapova=yahoo.de@groups.io> wrote:

Hello,
I have NVDA installed on my laptop. I don'g hear any sound when I
copy and paste a file or install a program...
I even tried to reset the NVDA settings but I still can't hear any
tone. Is there any way to turn on this option?
Best regards
Ksenia




--
Check out my website for nvda tutorials and other blindness related material at http://www.accessibilitycentral.net


Re: Problem: No sounds when copying files etc.

Lino Morales
 

Another way you could do this is the Navigational Sounds for Firefox. I think Brian the XP fanboy from the UK suggested this to us on the list. Good little add-on.

On 4/4/2016 10:39 AM, Afrim wrote:
You can hear sounds when activating or disactivating the browse mode, but not when installing programs. There should be any add-on out there which may play sounds in different areas of your Computer. If you're talking about the sounds of percentage, they can be toggled on by pressing insert plus U to indicate percentage.
Hope it helps. ,

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 4, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Ksenia Natapova via Groups.io <ksenia.natapova=yahoo.de@groups.io> wrote:

Hello,
I have NVDA installed on my laptop. I don'g hear any sound when I copy and paste a file or install a program...
I even tried to reset the NVDA settings but I still can't hear any tone. Is there any way to turn on this option?
Best regards
Ksenia



Re: vlc media player

Kenny Dog <hurrikennyandopo@...>
 

Hi

I use it more to watch dvds with audio description. it seems very friendly with a screen reader, there is also a add on that you can get for it as well. If i remember right there is a whole list of shortcut keys that you can use as well. If you are interested I do have a basic tutorial on how to use VLC to watch a dvde with audio description. It can be found on the nvda tutorials for other programs page on my website at http://www.accessibilitycentral.net
You can jump down by headings quickly to the section once you have got to that page to read it.

Gene nz


On 05-Apr-16 9:03 PM, Isaac wrote:
Hi, how many of you guys use vlc, and is there any spiware in it as far as you know, sure is much more responsive then winamp as far as opening and closing files, please if some of you could give your opinion.
Thanks

-- 
Check out my website for nvda tutorials and other blindness related material at http://www.accessibilitycentral.net


Re: Good Browsing Hygiene, was: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

 

Patrick Le Baudour a écrit:  "What I usually do with nvda is open the context menu on the link, type c for copy link address, then nvda+c to tell the clipboard content."

This is the slightly slicker version of what I'd said, and at least it avoids having to open Notepad or any other program to paste the link from the clipboard.

Another program that I cannot recommend more highly, particularly to avoid bundled "junkware" being installed on your computer when you're installing something you've downloaded and want, is Unchecky.  It's useful to anyone, but particularly to the visually impaired and blind because of the loathsome practice of bundling.  I use it on my own computer just in case I miss one of those checkboxes I should be unchecking by accident.

Brian


Re: Good Browsing Hygiene, was: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Patrick Le Baudour
 

Hi,

This allows to view the whole source of the html page, while it does allow to see the link, it is a bit overkill.
What I usually do with nvda is open the context menu on the link, type c for copy link address, then nvda+c to tell the clipboard content.
Also, being careful of any executable from unknown or untrusted sources, opt-out third-party installations, and attachments can be useful.

One way of infection that have been frequent was software cracks. Not sure it is as true nowadays, but avoiding them can sometimes actually save money.

-- Patrick.


Re: Good Browsing Hygiene, was: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Rosemarie Chavarria
 

Hi, Brian,

This is very good information. My next-door neighbor got a virus years ago from clicking on a link. It destroyed her drives so she ended up having to get a new computer. I try to be careful about what sites I go on. As far as online shopping, I only go on 3 sites--amazon, the safeway site and National Braille Press. Thank you for posting this information.

Rosemarie

On 4/5/2016 10:07 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:

Ari Sepulveda asked, "So, what exactly does good browsing hygiene entail? I've heard a lot about this over the years, but I've never really understood what it means."

This is an excellent question that has no absolutely precise answer, but there are some general guidelines.

Most of "good browsing hygiene" revolves around analyzing what you're clicking on before you click on it, most specifically links.  These days, and for legitimate reasons, most links are not presented as what I call naked links, in full http plus address format, but using click through text.  This is very convenient, as it tells you much more about what the intended point of clicking is, but it can also mask attempts to get you to click on something that "looks legit" but is intended to take you somewhere that will infect your machine with malware or spyware.

The first thing you need to do before even thinking about clicking any link is to, "Consider the source," as far as the person or entity who provided it to you.  If you are browsing the New York Times website, or Amazon to shop, or eBay, or an e-mail message sent to you by a person you know or a company you do business with that doesn't set off your "something's not quite right about this message" radar, you can be quite safe in assuming that clicking links in those circumstances will be perfectly OK.  One could drive oneself crazy checking each and every link one clicks when the chance of a malicious one coming from "a legitimate source" is really quite small.  If you have any suspicion, then do double check.  I know that there is some way, when you are sitting on a link presented via click-through text, to make your screen reader actually read the "naked" version of the link itself.  When I hover over one the "naked" version of the link shows up in the status bar at the bottom of my web browser, but I'm somehow missing how to make NVDA read that information.  The same things shows up there if I use the INSERT+F7 feature, list links, and then "Move To" a given link.

If you have any reasonable suspicion that a link might not be taking you where you think it might, it's worth getting the "naked" version of the link announced.  If you have a link, for instance, that appears to be taking you to an eBay item listing, but when you have it announced doesn't include "rover.ebay.com" or "ebay.com" anywhere in the link you can almost be assured that someone's trying to take you down the garden path, and said garden won't be full of anything but cyber-weeds.  This idea applies generally in that you can get a sense of whether you recognize where a link wants to take you.  Here's a real-world example taken from the Spam folder of my own e-mail account (which was put there because Google's filter's already identified it as a suspicious e-mail). Let's presume it didn't get filtered, though.  That e-mail has the title, "Attn:Your CVS ExtraCare-Store Card(s), Has Just Been-Updated. Must Be Confirmed by April 10th. #4413"  The title itself should arouse suspicion, since it uses syntax (the parenthesis s is one give away, the weird hyphens another, and the "#4413" at the end a third), and it does.  It contains a link where the click-through text reads, "Go Here to Confirm Your New CVS Extra-Care Reward-Card."  First, the link itself is suspicious because it spells Extra Care as two words with a hyphen between (and, I  know, this may not be something obvious if you can't see it, but I want to include all hallmarks) when CVS itself always uses a single word, ExtraCare, with the E and C capitalized, when referring to its program.  It has a hyphen between reward and card, which is completely unnecessary, and it uses the singular while the message title used the parenthesis S bit.  Finally, if you take yourself to that link and hover over it, what you get shown is a URL that is only 10 characters long and has CVS nowhere to be seen.  All of these things tell you that someone is trying to take you somewhere and to get you to do something you should not be doing.  In this case I'd suspect it's trying to get you to enter personal information as part of an identity theft scheme, but there's no way I'm clicking to find out.

What it boils down to is to, "Consider the source," take a closer look if the source may be OK but also might not be, and never to click unknown links from unknown sources, period.

Also, avoiding things like porn websites (not all are spyware/malware havens, but many are) or clicking through on anything in a pop-up that didn't clearly pop-up because you did something where a pop-up window would be expected, e.g., clicked on an "edit your contact information" button and the contact information comes up in a pop-up window, all of which you're doing on a website you already know to be legitimate.

Reasonable caution and looking out for yourself rather than trusting and/or falling prey to "Ooooooh, shiny!" syndrome in terms of clicking random links without seeing if they appear legitimate first.  This forms the basis of good browsing hygiene.

Brian



Re: Good Browsing Hygiene, was: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

 

Ari,

          When I right click on a link (via conventional right click, not the screen reader) the only thing that pops up that could be remotely useful is the "Copy Link Location" option in the context menu.  You could then open Notepad, for instance, paste it, and have it read there.

           However, I am virtually certain that you can instruct the screen reader to actually announce to you that, "ebay.com/blah_blah.html," is the URL that you'd go to when, "Link White Socks," is what's announced because the click through text is, "White Socks."

           I hope someone else will chime in on what command that would be, as I can't seem to locate it in my NVDA keystrokes document (or am just looking past it or it's using terminology for the command that's not making me say, "that's the one!").

Brian


Re: Good Browsing Hygiene, was: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Arianna Sepulveda
 

Brian, thanks for all your great info! I'm not sure if this'll do the trick, but if "i right-click a link, I see something called view source or something like that. Could this possibly let me view the actual link, and not just the words the person has used? I mean, would this let me view the actual URL, like ebay4com/bladybla, and not just white socks? I hope this makes sense.


Thanks,
Ari

On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:07 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

Ari Sepulveda asked, "So, what exactly does good browsing hygiene entail? I've heard a lot about this over the years, but I've never really understood what it means."

This is an excellent question that has no absolutely precise answer, but there are some general guidelines.

Most of "good browsing hygiene" revolves around analyzing what you're clicking on before you click on it, most specifically links.  These days, and for legitimate reasons, most links are not presented as what I call naked links, in full http plus address format, but using click through text.  This is very convenient, as it tells you much more about what the intended point of clicking is, but it can also mask attempts to get you to click on something that "looks legit" but is intended to take you somewhere that will infect your machine with malware or spyware.

The first thing you need to do before even thinking about clicking any link is to, "Consider the source," as far as the person or entity who provided it to you.  If you are browsing the New York Times website, or Amazon to shop, or eBay, or an e-mail message sent to you by a person you know or a company you do business with that doesn't set off your "something's not quite right about this message" radar, you can be quite safe in assuming that clicking links in those circumstances will be perfectly OK.  One could drive oneself crazy checking each and every link one clicks when the chance of a malicious one coming from "a legitimate source" is really quite small.  If you have any suspicion, then do double check.  I know that there is some way, when you are sitting on a link presented via click-through text, to make your screen reader actually read the "naked" version of the link itself.  When I hover over one the "naked" version of the link shows up in the status bar at the bottom of my web browser, but I'm somehow missing how to make NVDA read that information.  The same things shows up there if I use the INSERT+F7 feature, list links, and then "Move To" a given link.

If you have any reasonable suspicion that a link might not be taking you where you think it might, it's worth getting the "naked" version of the link announced.  If you have a link, for instance, that appears to be taking you to an eBay item listing, but when you have it announced doesn't include "rover.ebay.com" or "ebay.com" anywhere in the link you can almost be assured that someone's trying to take you down the garden path, and said garden won't be full of anything but cyber-weeds.  This idea applies generally in that you can get a sense of whether you recognize where a link wants to take you.  Here's a real-world example taken from the Spam folder of my own e-mail account (which was put there because Google's filter's already identified it as a suspicious e-mail). Let's presume it didn't get filtered, though.  That e-mail has the title, "Attn:Your CVS ExtraCare-Store Card(s), Has Just Been-Updated. Must Be Confirmed by April 10th. #4413"  The title itself should arouse suspicion, since it uses syntax (the parenthesis s is one give away, the weird hyphens another, and the "#4413" at the end a third), and it does.  It contains a link where the click-through text reads, "Go Here to Confirm Your New CVS Extra-Care Reward-Card."  First, the link itself is suspicious because it spells Extra Care as two words with a hyphen between (and, I  know, this may not be something obvious if you can't see it, but I want to include all hallmarks) when CVS itself always uses a single word, ExtraCare, with the E and C capitalized, when referring to its program.  It has a hyphen between reward and card, which is completely unnecessary, and it uses the singular while the message title used the parenthesis S bit.  Finally, if you take yourself to that link and hover over it, what you get shown is a URL that is only 10 characters long and has CVS nowhere to be seen.  All of these things tell you that someone is trying to take you somewhere and to get you to do something you should not be doing.  In this case I'd suspect it's trying to get you to enter personal information as part of an identity theft scheme, but there's no way I'm clicking to find out.

What it boils down to is to, "Consider the source," take a closer look if the source may be OK but also might not be, and never to click unknown links from unknown sources, period.

Also, avoiding things like porn websites (not all are spyware/malware havens, but many are) or clicking through on anything in a pop-up that didn't clearly pop-up because you did something where a pop-up window would be expected, e.g., clicked on an "edit your contact information" button and the contact information comes up in a pop-up window, all of which you're doing on a website you already know to be legitimate.

Reasonable caution and looking out for yourself rather than trusting and/or falling prey to "Ooooooh, shiny!" syndrome in terms of clicking random links without seeing if they appear legitimate first.  This forms the basis of good browsing hygiene.

Brian


Re: Good Browsing Hygiene, was: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

 

Ari Sepulveda asked, "So, what exactly does good browsing hygiene entail? I've heard a lot about this over the years, but I've never really understood what it means."

This is an excellent question that has no absolutely precise answer, but there are some general guidelines.

Most of "good browsing hygiene" revolves around analyzing what you're clicking on before you click on it, most specifically links.  These days, and for legitimate reasons, most links are not presented as what I call naked links, in full http plus address format, but using click through text.  This is very convenient, as it tells you much more about what the intended point of clicking is, but it can also mask attempts to get you to click on something that "looks legit" but is intended to take you somewhere that will infect your machine with malware or spyware.

The first thing you need to do before even thinking about clicking any link is to, "Consider the source," as far as the person or entity who provided it to you.  If you are browsing the New York Times website, or Amazon to shop, or eBay, or an e-mail message sent to you by a person you know or a company you do business with that doesn't set off your "something's not quite right about this message" radar, you can be quite safe in assuming that clicking links in those circumstances will be perfectly OK.  One could drive oneself crazy checking each and every link one clicks when the chance of a malicious one coming from "a legitimate source" is really quite small.  If you have any suspicion, then do double check.  I know that there is some way, when you are sitting on a link presented via click-through text, to make your screen reader actually read the "naked" version of the link itself.  When I hover over one the "naked" version of the link shows up in the status bar at the bottom of my web browser, but I'm somehow missing how to make NVDA read that information.  The same things shows up there if I use the INSERT+F7 feature, list links, and then "Move To" a given link.

If you have any reasonable suspicion that a link might not be taking you where you think it might, it's worth getting the "naked" version of the link announced.  If you have a link, for instance, that appears to be taking you to an eBay item listing, but when you have it announced doesn't include "rover.ebay.com" or "ebay.com" anywhere in the link you can almost be assured that someone's trying to take you down the garden path, and said garden won't be full of anything but cyber-weeds.  This idea applies generally in that you can get a sense of whether you recognize where a link wants to take you.  Here's a real-world example taken from the Spam folder of my own e-mail account (which was put there because Google's filter's already identified it as a suspicious e-mail). Let's presume it didn't get filtered, though.  That e-mail has the title, "Attn:Your CVS ExtraCare-Store Card(s), Has Just Been-Updated. Must Be Confirmed by April 10th. #4413"  The title itself should arouse suspicion, since it uses syntax (the parenthesis s is one give away, the weird hyphens another, and the "#4413" at the end a third), and it does.  It contains a link where the click-through text reads, "Go Here to Confirm Your New CVS Extra-Care Reward-Card."  First, the link itself is suspicious because it spells Extra Care as two words with a hyphen between (and, I  know, this may not be something obvious if you can't see it, but I want to include all hallmarks) when CVS itself always uses a single word, ExtraCare, with the E and C capitalized, when referring to its program.  It has a hyphen between reward and card, which is completely unnecessary, and it uses the singular while the message title used the parenthesis S bit.  Finally, if you take yourself to that link and hover over it, what you get shown is a URL that is only 10 characters long and has CVS nowhere to be seen.  All of these things tell you that someone is trying to take you somewhere and to get you to do something you should not be doing.  In this case I'd suspect it's trying to get you to enter personal information as part of an identity theft scheme, but there's no way I'm clicking to find out.

What it boils down to is to, "Consider the source," take a closer look if the source may be OK but also might not be, and never to click unknown links from unknown sources, period.

Also, avoiding things like porn websites (not all are spyware/malware havens, but many are) or clicking through on anything in a pop-up that didn't clearly pop-up because you did something where a pop-up window would be expected, e.g., clicked on an "edit your contact information" button and the contact information comes up in a pop-up window, all of which you're doing on a website you already know to be legitimate.

Reasonable caution and looking out for yourself rather than trusting and/or falling prey to "Ooooooh, shiny!" syndrome in terms of clicking random links without seeing if they appear legitimate first.  This forms the basis of good browsing hygiene.

Brian


Re: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Arianna Sepulveda
 

So, what exactly does good browsing hygiene entail? I've heard a lot about this over the years, but I've never really understood what it means.


Thanks,
Ari

On Apr 5, 2016, at 7:37 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

Brian Gaff offered, "I wonder if one of the issues is that she is just not being careful enough. Sooner or later if you do not take care, you will get something nasty, no matter what security you have on a machine you know."

And without any hesitation I second this idea, and it has nothing to do with whether one is blind or not.

The subject of infections and "things being missed" comes up endlessly on forums, and most tech geeks say exactly what Mr. Gaff has said in one way or another.  I have done the same recently, twice, on the JFW Group.  For anyone who might be interested the posts are, Recommendations for anti-virus, and, Forums Question & possible change request.  If you do not engage in good "browsing hygiene" you will get infected, period.  There is no way for antivirus, antimalware, and antispyware programs to be 100% up to date and 100% effective 100% of the time.

Brian


Re: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Gene
 

The free version of Malware Bytes doesn't have real time protection.  It doesn't stop a machine from being infected.  It can detect and remove a lot of infections once the machine is infected.  
 
If we can determine and remove the underlying problem, it might be less important to use such a program with real time protection.  It still might be a good idea.
Gene

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Dan,

        I preface with the following:  This is not meant to be accusatory, it's meant as a problem-solving step.

        As has been observed several times now, there has to be something that your wife is doing, in some way, whether intentionally or not, that accounts for this difference.  Given the state of antivirus software, and that virtually all of it will scan anything you download before it is placed on your machine where you can access it, these infections are not likely viruses.  Most other types of infections are the direct result of some user action, typically clicking through on unfamiliar links that take you to malicious sites.  If you have ever had an infection, and it was not completely purged, you can end up having this occur again because the malware/spyware itself triggers "click-throughs."

         Part of ultimately solving this problem is going to be figuring out exactly what action has been taken that is triggering it in the first place.  

         I will disagree with Gene, but only slightly, in that I have generally found the free version of Malwarebytes to be completely sufficient for ridding machines of malware, particularly for home users.  It's part of the standard tool suite that I install on new machines when I am setting them up for a client.  I also like Spywareblaster, which is pre-emptive in nature.  I use Malwarebytes mostly "after the fact" when there's an infection.  Spywareblaster keeps your web browsers from being able to access a long list of known malicious sites (among other things).  The free version requires that you manually update the definitions while the paid version (which is not very expensive) will do automatic updating for you.  I cannot speak to whether it's accessible or not.

Brian

Brian


Re: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

 

Dan,

        I preface with the following:  This is not meant to be accusatory, it's meant as a problem-solving step.

        As has been observed several times now, there has to be something that your wife is doing, in some way, whether intentionally or not, that accounts for this difference.  Given the state of antivirus software, and that virtually all of it will scan anything you download before it is placed on your machine where you can access it, these infections are not likely viruses.  Most other types of infections are the direct result of some user action, typically clicking through on unfamiliar links that take you to malicious sites.  If you have ever had an infection, and it was not completely purged, you can end up having this occur again because the malware/spyware itself triggers "click-throughs."

         Part of ultimately solving this problem is going to be figuring out exactly what action has been taken that is triggering it in the first place.  

         I will disagree with Gene, but only slightly, in that I have generally found the free version of Malwarebytes to be completely sufficient for ridding machines of malware, particularly for home users.  It's part of the standard tool suite that I install on new machines when I am setting them up for a client.  I also like Spywareblaster, which is pre-emptive in nature.  I use Malwarebytes mostly "after the fact" when there's an infection.  Spywareblaster keeps your web browsers from being able to access a long list of known malicious sites (among other things).  The free version requires that you manually update the definitions while the paid version (which is not very expensive) will do automatic updating for you.  I cannot speak to whether it's accessible or not.

Brian

Brian


Re: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Dan Beaver
 

Hi,

Most of what my wife does on-line is shop on Amazon, New Egg, Tiger Direct and a few other shopping sites.  She does a fair amount on Facebook and our church's website.  Other than that I don't see much that should cause her to get these bad things on her laptop but she does.  I do much of the same kinds of things and I do not seem to get these things at all or at least very very little.

I had her set the A V G  settings the same as what I use and her system still gets these things where I do not.

Thanks.

Dan Beaver

On 4/5/2016 10:58 AM, Gene wrote:
Also, if, as has been said, the files are mostly spyware, while you might get better protection using another antivirus program, you should also add the paid version of Malware Bytes if your wife goes to sites and does things that expose her to malware other than viruses.  But what your wife does to infect her computer would be useful to discuss.  Someone who takes good care to follow safe practices should not be infected with anything serious at all often.  We don't know what your wife is infected with but if she if often infected with more than trivial things like tracking cookies, then she is doing things that open her to infection and that should be discussed. 
 
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Brian Gaff offered, "I wonder if one of the issues is that she is just not being careful enough. Sooner or later if you do not take care, you will get something nasty, no matter what security you have on a machine you know."

And without any hesitation I second this idea, and it has nothing to do with whether one is blind or not.

The subject of infections and "things being missed" comes up endlessly on forums, and most tech geeks say exactly what Mr. Gaff has said in one way or another.  I have done the same recently, twice, on the JFW Group.  For anyone who might be interested the posts are, Recommendations for anti-virus, and, Forums Question & possible change request.  If you do not engage in good "browsing hygiene" you will get infected, period.  There is no way for antivirus, antimalware, and antispyware programs to be 100% up to date and 100% effective 100% of the time.

Brian



Re: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Gene
 

Also, if, as has been said, the files are mostly spyware, while you might get better protection using another antivirus program, you should also add the paid version of Malware Bytes if your wife goes to sites and does things that expose her to malware other than viruses.  But what your wife does to infect her computer would be useful to discuss.  Someone who takes good care to follow safe practices should not be infected with anything serious at all often.  We don't know what your wife is infected with but if she if often infected with more than trivial things like tracking cookies, then she is doing things that open her to infection and that should be discussed. 
 
Gene

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

Brian Gaff offered, "I wonder if one of the issues is that she is just not being careful enough. Sooner or later if you do not take care, you will get something nasty, no matter what security you have on a machine you know."

And without any hesitation I second this idea, and it has nothing to do with whether one is blind or not.

The subject of infections and "things being missed" comes up endlessly on forums, and most tech geeks say exactly what Mr. Gaff has said in one way or another.  I have done the same recently, twice, on the JFW Group.  For anyone who might be interested the posts are, Recommendations for anti-virus, and, Forums Question & possible change request.  If you do not engage in good "browsing hygiene" you will get infected, period.  There is no way for antivirus, antimalware, and antispyware programs to be 100% up to date and 100% effective 100% of the time.

Brian


Re: vlc media player

Lenron
 

1.1 seems to not be working for me but 07 did.

On 4/5/16, nasrin khaksar <nasrinkhaksar3@gmail.com> wrote:
hi.
i tested some versions of it, but unfortunately i could not its useful
shortcuts and even i could not go to begin and end of my tracks with
it!
and also i could not understand its total time, elaps and remaining time.
i think its not accessible for us, but maybe i am novice and did not
find the solution!

On 4/5/16, Kevin Cussick via Groups.io
<the.big.white.shepherd=googlemail.com@groups.io> wrote:
I use it not a power user but it just works.

On 05/04/2016 10:03, Isaac wrote:
Hi, how many of you guys use vlc, and is there any spiware in it as far
as you know, sure is much more responsive then winamp as far as opening
and closing files, please if some of you could give your opinion.
Thanks



--
Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find
written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel [who] enjoins them
good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things
and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their
burden and the shackles which were upon them; so [as for] those who
believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which
has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful.
holy quran, chapter 7, verse 157.
best website for studying islamic book in different languages
al-islam.org



--
Lenron Brown
Cell: 985-271-2832
Skype: ron.brown762


Re: win 10 build 295 and "invalid entry"

Lenron
 

I am having this issue as well. It's annoying as hell.

On 4/5/16, Scott VanDeWalle <scottvandewalle2@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Brian.
Yes, i think its just happenhing in the store apps and modern apps or
whatever they're called now.
Of course, facebook does it too, the app i mean.
hth

Scott

On 4/5/2016 9:39 AM, Brian Moore wrote:
Hi. Not sure if there are others participating in the windows insider
program here. noticed something with the last two builds build 291
and 295. I have already reported via feedback but curious if others
are experiencing something similar. All over the place, nvda is now
announcing "invalid entry" where this is not the case. not sure if it
is an nvda issue or windows itself although I suspect windows.

as a test, go to a list of available wifi networks. every single one
will say "invalid entry" after its name. they still work fine but
this phrase is repeated all over the place.

At this point, I have only tried on two asus transformer book machines
and perhaps it is machine specific but want to provide more info to ms
if I can. anyone else experiencing this?

Brian.



--
Lenron Brown
Cell: 985-271-2832
Skype: ron.brown762


Re: Kaspersky antivirus, how accessible?

 

Brian Gaff offered, "I wonder if one of the issues is that she is just not being careful enough. Sooner or later if you do not take care, you will get something nasty, no matter what security you have on a machine you know."

And without any hesitation I second this idea, and it has nothing to do with whether one is blind or not.

The subject of infections and "things being missed" comes up endlessly on forums, and most tech geeks say exactly what Mr. Gaff has said in one way or another.  I have done the same recently, twice, on the JFW Group.  For anyone who might be interested the posts are, Recommendations for anti-virus, and, Forums Question & possible change request.  If you do not engage in good "browsing hygiene" you will get infected, period.  There is no way for antivirus, antimalware, and antispyware programs to be 100% up to date and 100% effective 100% of the time.

Brian


Re: win 10 build 295 and "invalid entry"

Scott VanDeWalle
 

Hi Brian.
Yes, i think its just happenhing in the store apps and modern apps or whatever they're called now.
Of course, facebook does it too, the app i mean.
hth

Scott

On 4/5/2016 9:39 AM, Brian Moore wrote:
Hi. Not sure if there are others participating in the windows insider program here. noticed something with the last two builds build 291 and 295. I have already reported via feedback but curious if others are experiencing something similar. All over the place, nvda is now announcing "invalid entry" where this is not the case. not sure if it is an nvda issue or windows itself although I suspect windows.

as a test, go to a list of available wifi networks. every single one will say "invalid entry" after its name. they still work fine but this phrase is repeated all over the place.

At this point, I have only tried on two asus transformer book machines and perhaps it is machine specific but want to provide more info to ms if I can. anyone else experiencing this?

Brian.