4 ms·
This is awful advice and you would be wise not to follow it. > Your first choice of web browser should be the TOR browser with Javascript disabled. > Your sec
by dguido 10y ago
This is awful advice and you would be wise not to follow it.
> Your first choice of web browser should be the TOR browser with Javascript disabled.
> Your second choice of web browser should be the TOR browser with Javascript enabled.
> Consider using the email client Thunderbird with TorBirdy, which sends emails through the TOR network.
Tor guarantees your network traffic will be intercepted. Malicious exit nodes etc etc.
> Reinstall OS/X every month.
What does this get you? If you're owned, all your accounts will be owned. Re-infecting your OS with malware would be trivial, if that is even necessary anymore.
> Avoid free online email. There is no free lunch. They profit by selling you out.
Author is probably trying to make an implicit pass on Gmail. The only issue with that is Google has a hollow mountain full of security engineers and "name your private mail service" probably has 1, maybe 2, similarly skilled individuals. It's a numbers game: you're safer with Gmail unless you have an explicit 702 risk (ie, FBI thinks you're a terrorist and requests your mailspool via a 702 order from Gmail). Btw, Google has the cutest video that shows how they handle those: https://vimeo.com/108275932 https://vimeo.com/108275932
> When sending a private email, consider encrypting it e.g. with GPG. The recepient will have to use GPG as well.
Even the creator of PGP does not use PGP (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/even-the-inventor-of-pgp-doesnt-use-pgp http://motherboard.vice.com/read/even-the-inventor-of-pgp-do...). I can't tell you how many times people have emailed me their private keys. This is not a great solution 99% of the time. Move your conversation somewhere else.
> Your third choice of web browser should be the text-based Links browser.
lol ok
> Your fourth choice of web browser should be Firefox.
Out of 4 major browsers, yes, use the ONLY one without a sandbox.
> If you need to download an app, get its source code and compile it yourself. (Type ./configure; make clean; make).
Why is this better? You're not reading the source code just like you're not reversing the binary. Waste of time.
> Try to avoid downloading risky files (PDFs, MS Word files etc.) and if you must, run a virus scanner on them first. If the file does not contain any personal or sensitive data, you can upload it to VirusTotal to have it tested by many antivirus programs at once.
Note: Uploading your Docs/PDFs to VirusTotal makes them readable by anyone with a VirusTotal account lol. Also, Google gets a copy. Have fun with that. Much easier to turn off a few features (cough macros) or use a trimmer viewer, like the Chrome PDF Viewer or uploading the docx to Google Docs and viewing there.
> Disable website-provided fonts in your browsers as there have been exploits that use infected font files.
There have been exploits in a lot of things. Let's all go outside and not use computers. Once a trend becomes public, that target generally cleans up its act. There's been a huge amount of effort put into font validation and fuzzing over the last few years and I think we've made it out of the font exploit dark ages.
Here's a list from thegrugq that is far better:
https://gist.github.com/grugq/353b6fc9b094d5700c70 https://gist.github.com/grugq/353b6fc9b094d5700c70
- viraptor 10y ago> Why is this better? You're not reading the code just like you're not reversing the binary. Waste of time. This may be a weird way of saying: get your application from the most trusted source. For example for a long time sourceforge was trusted as an opensource distribution platform. Now they're injecting malware into popular installers. The source/binaries signed with gpg is what I would trust over unsigned binaries from the authors site. The third party download sites which cannot be verified (signature/checksum) are just potential malware. I'm not saying that "compile everything" is realistic or a good idea, but "make sure your sources are trusted" needs much more explanation and qualifiers. Otherwise agree with all comments.