Not sure I can reley on secunia PSI

The reason being that without making any system changes. It will on different occasions give me scores varying from 94% to 100%.

It now is telling me I need to go back to Firefox 3.0.4 even though I'm up to 3.6 version now and have been for weeks and it's never had a problem with it before.

One day it tells me my windows Defender is ok and the next it may say it needs upgrading. Cannot trust something that's inconsistent with it's reporting. As I don't know what to believe now.

Mychael

I have not used Secunia, so I couldn't relate to your issue.
However, I would feel the same way about inconsistent reports.

I have had a score of 100% till I just did the newer upgrade of Fire Fox and am now below 95%. I think that Secunia doesn't like Fire Fox for what ever their reasons are. I uninstalled Secunia this am and will go back when it works, don't fix it. Happy Easter All

I'm of the same mind as I've had the same FF version for a while now, no changes, updates, add-on etc and suddenly went from 100% down to 96%.

The reason FF is under the gun with Secunia is because until 3.6.2 was released, there was the threat of "arbitrary code execution". That's one of the worst threats to your computer and security. Look it up at Wikipedia, it describes the threat in detail. FF claims that 3.6.2 "fixed" the problem, however 3.6.3 was released less than two weeks later. FF is apparently the most affected browser, in regard to this threat, at least in Secunia's opinion. They also consistently report that Adobe is a threat, but post "patches" for this problem. I don't have it installed on my desktop, but I do on my laptop, on the XP Pro partition. No doubt, you can't rely on a single organization for your "security" alerts. That's why I run layered protection, in hopes of avoiding these threats. But no matter what any program like Secunia "reports", or what level of AV or malware protection you have, no one can lay it all on the line and say you're 100% safe. That's why I don't have Secunia on all of my Windows installs (eight of them). That 100% rating is a false sense of security to many. I do have an XP install that I use it on for evaluation purposes, to see what it generates. The major threat that I mentioned above came from another forum that I'm a member of. At first, I defended FF wholeheartedly, saying that it wasn't possible with FF. I was almost thrown off of the forum for my remarks in this regard, being that FF is the major browser for Mint 8 (and most other Linux OS's). The moderator directed me to read the 22 or so pages of the thread prior to my remarks. It turned out that the problem was first reported in 2006, at that point, Secunia caught on to it, and they've been on FF's butt since. FF claims that 3.6.2 fixed the problem, but there's been at least two more attacks since then. So now you can see what Secunia has against FF. The other issues that Secunia flip flops around on, I haven't seen yet. I would list the place where the thread in it's entirety can be read, but although it's not a competing forum, I don't want a strike on me here for listing it.

I am using the latest Firefox v3.6.3 and am having ZERO issues. As a matter of fact it's running better than the 3.5.x versions were and the 3.6.0 also. It's like the Firefox of old for me; fast, secure and stable.

I am not using Secunia at this time. I think all that Secunia stuff on an earlier thread was basically much ado about nothing.

Yeah but the silly thing is that PSI is telling me I should be installing a much older version of FF to fix the problem.
Weird, I wont of course as I've only had one virus issue in all my many yrs of windows from '95 onwards.
The one issue I did have was my fault anyway by not paying attention when I was clicking a link.

Mike

I don't think that going backwards will fix anything, unless there's a widely known problem running the newer version. 3.6.3 looks good so far.

I use PSI and get 100% ... but then I use Maxthon ... much nicer