Similar addon in FireFox is "ScrapBook". It is manual save and so do not need the delete option most are wanting in Chrome Eye.
You can delete a save site of "ScrapBook".

Well our need may vary.

Regards,

Anand

Have just downloaded Maxathon installation file.
AVG unable to accept saying file contained MalSign InstallCore.B06 Adware.
Is this an acceptable install risk please?

You have taken the first and most important step. You are using a powerful and well tested security tool. And, although no defense package is 100% accurate, this time it did its job.

Adware, whether flagged by an AV or not, is never an acceptable risk.

At best it clogs and impedes your system and forfeits your privacy. At worst it provides a major surface of vulnerability, opening your system and your network to significant infestation. When that happens, not only have you been compromised, but you have become a potential vector of compromise for every system your system touches or has the ability to touch, whether through e-mail or directly.

With the recent permitting and/or use of installation wrappers as common practice among sites that have been long trusted as viable sources of freeware downloads, it has become absolutely essential never to opt for Express or Standard installs. Always choose Custom installation. Always watch your installations carefully. Always opt out of any toolbars and/or additional programs. Consider the viability of using the portable (non-installer) version of a program instead. Among the legitimate programs, these are usually free of bundle-ware.

Where possible, try to access your freeware directly from the author/publisher. Be aware that is not a guarantee that the installer will be free of ride-alongs. Learn to consult VirusTotal. There are even extensions, such as VTzilla for Firefox, that can integrate VT into your download process and also give you context menu items and a toggled toolbar with the ability to scan site and file URLs. VT is helpful, but not infallible. Many of the scanners polled by VT detect viruses, trojans and worms within an executable program but not "legitimate" opt-in bundle-ware within the wrapper.

Another useful tool which has become commonplace is the reputational site scanner/immunizer. It can be found in most solid malware defense packages such as AVG, avast!, SuperAntiSpyWare, Malwarebytes, SpyBot Search & Destroy (the Immunizer function of this old standby) and many others. It is also built into many contemporary browsers. There are even free-standing site scanners such as SpyWare Blaster . Of course, in terms of program installation, these are usually going to be detecting the hinky sites you may have been pointed towards by those questionable installs. But you will also be kept away from the worst sites where you might acquire questionable downloads or drive-by infestations in the first place. Another way to help avoid these sites is an add-on such as AdBlock Plus or, my favorite, AdBlock Edge, with a good and frequently updated set of block lists.

So, in answer to your question: What do you consider acceptable? Is the promise of FREE worth the reality of a system compromise? There is no free lunch. I believe in freeware. But I like to know what lunch is going to cost.

There endeth the sermon.

> I only left it here because internet safety is such an important issue.

...which is why I invested the time and effort in answering kthtl's inquiry.

My screed may seem oblique. It is actually on topic. The security of all of us depends upon the security of each of us. And without secure practices, the most efficient and effective browsers are worth nothing.

Speaking of which, thank you for this interesting investigation. The follow-on promises to be fascinating. I have been using Firefox since version 0.8. For the last 10+ years it has been a central piece of kit. Along with many others, the search is now on for a shapable, reliable and lovable replacement for the ruins that the mozilla devs have left us. Your methodical and organized explorations are eagerly anticipated.

Awesome.

Re: Security - How does it compare to AxCrypt and/or simply zipping a file with a password?

AVAST flagged it a few years ago, I reported it as a false positive, and never had any more issues.

It is very basic way to store sensitive info, like passwords. I use the Edit - Search function to find items. Works for me for passwords, as I do not trust the popular password managers that auto-fill and store on-line.

Thanks, Rob!
I downloaded SecureEdit to a Linux machine, and ran ClamTK on it; could be a case of false positive, but the antivirus came up with PUA.Win32.Packer.Rpolycryptor.

Oops. I encrypted one (1) file using Wordpad. Later, I tried to open a Windows Word file and discovered SE had encrypted every Word file on my computer - and it would not let me open any of them even though I was using the correct password. Thank goodness I had backed up "My Documents" a month ago.

I do NOT recommend this program.

Actually, "...Why a File Name Can be too Long" is the correct phrasing: v.laurie's article briefly explains the limits imposed by Windows and the results (rejection) when a file name exceeds these limits which occurs when a file name IS too long. If you want to get down to semantics, then obviously a file name CAN be too long for use by Windows, but it is not permitted (by Windows) to be too long for use by Windows.