Imagehost Problems, Imagebam, Imagevenue, PimpAndHost, PixHost, ImgBox etc

[lagerlout]

Originally Posted by Darth Joules

Nothing wrong with Norton these days. It's not the awful bloatware that it used to be 4 years ago.

I had it many many years ago, is it still a pain to uninstall ?, it used to leave files everywhere and have it's tentacles into everything

[Immy]

Not sure if this is related, but about a week ago (26th/27th) on two occasions when clicking on two IV pics in different posts, this site called startvp dot com began opening new browser windows one after another, so fast I couldn't close them (using IE 7 with Malwarebytes and Norton). In each case I restarted and they went away, but that's pretty unnerving. Did a scan and things seem ok. Installed AdBlockPlus after that and haven't had a repeat of it.

[buttsie]

Originally Posted by ConstantOgler

I didn't see mention there of making sure you are a User, not Administrator, to block malware? What do the Experts here think of the value of that?

Depends on your version of windows

Some default to admin (XP and before) later versions from Vista placed the admin account out of harms way though I havent used the later versions so cant say first hand



The question was asked on bleeping computer in 2009

Windows security center suggests that a person should surf the net using a standard user account instead of an administrative account.

What do you think about the effectiveness of this suggestion?

Not a 100% guarantee as mentioned in the link below but a lot more secure than signing in with full administrative rights

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/foru...safe-browsing/

The alternative to that is

A. Introduction
B. Running your browser with reduced privileges using Sandboxie
C. Running your browser with reduced privileges using DropMyRights
D. Running other internet facing applications using DropMyRights

source
http://www.techsupportalert.com/safe-surfing.php

Either way the most important thing still remains backing up offline what you value

Infections have a nasty habit of morphing and bypassing even the best security
and you dont want to be the one who finds the new strain that has no antidote.

[JJ3027]

Originally Posted by Moon Raker

I use IE9 (with Javascript add-on disabled) with Malwarebytes Pro and MS Security Essentials, both of which offer real-time protection. I see the 'blocked access to ... IP' message from MWB sometimes when opening up JPGs hosted on IV - not on all of them though. I have never seen that message when posting my own JPGs. Other than that message it is causing no problems so I think we need definitive advice from the experts on this site as to whether or not we should still use IV, ImageVenue and ImageBam being the two main image hosts recommended for use here.

I dumped MS Security Essentials. I check this independent lab web site periodically that tests a large number of AV-software: http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/ There's also this site: http://www.av-test.org/en/home/

[Mr. Gussett]

Originally Posted by Darth Joules

Nothing wrong with Norton these days. It's not the awful bloatware that it used to be 4 years ago.

Each to his own. I still wouldn't have it on my machine.

[EsotericKnave]

Originally Posted by Immy

Not sure if this is related, but about a week ago (26th/27th) on two occasions when clicking on two IV pics in different posts, this site called startvp dot com began opening new browser windows one after another, so fast I couldn't close them (using IE 7 with Malwarebytes and Norton). In each case I restarted and they went away, but that's pretty unnerving. Did a scan and things seem ok. Installed AdBlockPlus after that and haven't had a repeat of it.

In that case, instead of trying to close all the windows, or restarting, you might try opening your task manager (Alt+Ctrl+Del), and shut down the browser.

[teaktop]

had the problem yesterday ,no problem today ?and I havent done anything different

[GailFan]

I get this on my browser if the image is very big. If I click on the blank spot, the image appears fullsize.

[rachels_sissy]

Not sure about the ethics of this on VEF - ImageBam reports that a couple of innocuous images in an uploaded set are banned.

I have stripped the exif data and renamed the files plus the folder containing the image set but still the same result. Increasing the width and/or height of the images in question by a pixel in Photoshop got round the 'ban'.

I haven't posted the set yet, will there be a problem if I do? The set is a fairly vanilla one, not full nudity or hardcore, just topless.

An advice gratefully received, don't want to contravene the rules.

[NIN]

I have often found ImageBams' spurious and often random banning of images just as perplexing and downright annoying when a whole 125 images come back as 'Banned' ,
they are often just 'MetArt covers' and usually about half a dozen other pictures per Hundred.

as far as I know they(imagebam) do this occasionally to keep on the better side of publishers, but I find it easiest to upload the offending (?!) pictures to ImgBox or ImageVenue to complete my posts.
There is not a problem with any banned images (by ImageBam) on this forum