XP, is it still viable for online browsing?

[usually_quiet]

Maybe, but those apps are a bit different than the Windows apps these people are used to. ...and then there are the hardware issues to contend with, because of a lack of drivers for Linux, and all the small things to re-learn, like the differences in how path names work.

It depends. If you learned the broken, half ass bs way that Microsoft Office has worked since 2007 where not a single damn thing is intuitive any more and the most simple of tasks are now completely hidden under layers of obscure submenus, not mention often having to do a search on Google/Yahoo/Bing etc. to find out how to do the most mundane of tasks, then yes, the Linux apps that are compatible with Office are "different" in that they use something akin to the old Office interface that actually works and wasn't designed by a drunken monkey. I've read tons of accounts of offices and people switching to Linux for various financial reasons and the one thing I haven't read is how nobody could come to grips with doing things under Linux. Thunderbird is so superior to Outlook as a mail reader that Outlook looks like a complete joke. Photo apps are different, yes, but some of the music apps are the same. Honestly it's just not that hard to use Linux, but I don't recommend fit or people who want to do serious video/music work. Playing files is one thing. Creating your own BD/DVD discs is something completely different.

What is this "lack of drivers" stuff you are coming up with? That's quite rare actually and usually only bites people who don't do their research. Look, I'm not saying that Linux is all things to all people but what you say is just classic Microsoft FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt). Do I promise that you can buy any random capture card and it will work under Linux? Certainly not. But can you find a few capture cards that will work? Yes.

Of course Linux is easy for you. You work with it every day. ...but if it was easy for everyone to adjust to Linux, you would not be complaining here on these forums about the "Windows Weenies" who join your organization and fail to adapt gracefully to Linux. It is doubtful that compatible Linux drivers are available for every printer, scanner, or drawing tablet. ATI graphics cards have a reputation of not playing nicely with Linux.

[aedipuss]

Try it. Look up linux mint and download a full distro. Burn the image, reboot and allow it to run without installing. See if there is any problem easily surfing, getting email, working on a word doc, and printing. A step up but not at all difficult it is possible to run actual m.s. programs like office. About all that's missing is activeX, and can you name what won't run without it?

[usually_quiet]

Try it. Look up linux mint and download a full distro. Burn the image, reboot and allow it to run without installing. See if there is any problem easily surfing, getting email, working on a word doc, and printing. A step up but not at all difficult it is possible to run actual m.s. programs like office. About all that's missing is activeX, and can you name what won't run without it?

I HAVE tried Ubuntu already. Yes I know about WINE. I already use Open Office on my Windows system as I can't justify the cost of MS Office for as little as I would use it at home, even though I need something more than Word Pad once in a while. I really have not found that whatever benefits Linux has over Windows outweigh all the little annoyances and inconveniences and lack of choice using just Linux. ...and all the flavor of the month distros and forks are PITA to try keep straight.

I can't print anything right now, as my printer just died today. ...but the two Canon printers I was looking at tonight as possible replacements either have poor support under Linux, according to reviewers or support is an still unknown quantity.

[El Heggunte]

Here go a few reasons why I do not switch to Linux:

a) Abiword doesn't support Unicode properly, as far as I can remember ;

b) OpenOffice and LibreOffice NEVER will let you embed fonts in a document ;

c) there is NO full-featured open-source PDF editor, nothing that compares to NitroPDF or to the Adobe bloatware; besides, Ghostscript does not compress images to the JPEG2000 format ;

d) there is NO file manager that dares to mimic the look and feel of the Windows Explorer of Windows 2000 ;

e)

For me I have been using Linux for about one and a half years. I started out with Ubuntu and have stuck with that. I've played with others but Ubuntu fits me best.

I'm not a "purist" as I still use windows (xp and vista on a new laptop) and I have no problem using windows programs in linux with the help of wine. Still I love linux and will continue using it.

So what about you? How long have you been using linux and what was your first distro?

p.s. I thought about a poll but honestly there would be way to many options!

the answer to your question is not that easy primarily because it depends on what your definition of "using" is. if you mean as my primary OS, then the answer would be 0 time, but i used to do reviews of linux distros in the old extremetech forums as well as the main page and forums of a now defunct site, and i have tested damn near ever desktop OS you can name from beos 5 to solaris (including 10) to freebsd to damn near every flavor of linux you can name, hell i even made a couple of different custom remasters and for a while was working on a custom distribution called appropriately enough "deadrats' linux", but the fact of the matter was i never found any compelling reason to not use windows and switch to linux.

now don't get me wrong, i thought redhat 9 (right before the start of the fedora project) was excellent, i like the latest suse, i absolutely love pc-bsd, vector soho is top notch as was peanut linux back in the day (i think it was 9.3 where it was configured by default to "talk" in a female voice) and arguably the most professionally done distro was lindows/linspire, BUT
be that as it may,
it still lacked an all encompassing api ala DX, the file hierarchy to this day continues to be one of the dumbest i have ever seen with that silly /, /root, /home, /etc, slash this i say, the /fstab makes me want to f'n stab somebody and the man pages has such a gay sound to it.

in short linux, despite all the progress it has made, is still mired in it's unix roots from 30 years ago. could what's wrong with it be fixed? sure, but the community, the really fanatical, quasi-religious proponents would never allow it, they consider it a retarded badge of honor to smack you head against the wall custom compiling modules and the kernel then editing some obscure config file to get all the features of a high end sound card to work.

me, i'm not that nerdy, i actually like girls, i don't have the time to jerk around trying to get my computer to work, i would rather double click an exe, click next a couple of time, reboot and be off and running in less than 3 minutes.

p.s. nothing personal, but ubuntu has to be one of the most over-rated distros ever, if i absolutely had to use a non-windows OS my first choice would be pc-bsd, then freespire, then vector soho then suse then fedora, but ubuntu? i think i'd rather waste my time with debian proper or slackware or possibly even knoppix rather than ubuntu and all the idiotic off-shoots.

[Hoser Rob]

The ubuntu site says something much like: the biggest security problem is between the keyboard and the chair.

If some people are reluctant to leave Windows XP behind because making the transition to a newer version of Windows is too much of a challenge for them, do you seriously think Linux is going to work out for those folks?

[Edit]...but yes, user behavior has a lot to do with online safety.

I wasn't trying to suggest migrating to linux. Though I know a couple of total non techies who use ubuntu now and they find it much easier than windows. It can be harder to configure but it's not harder to use.

[TimA-C]

Linux Mint is certainly the way I would suggest any windows users new to Linux begin their journey through Linuxland, but I think you'd still either have to have a need to use Linux or just like playing around with PCs to go down the Linux route just yet. My limited experience with Linux has shown me that it's come along in HUGE leaps and bounds in terms of out-of-the-box usability and usefulness over the last few years, but it's still not quite as easy as Windows. I do think that the Windows 8 "experience" on desktops and laptops will have got a lot of people seriously looking at Linux as a possible alternative to Windows. (And before the Apple fanboys start jumping in, Apple stuff is nice but it's seriously over-hyped, massively overpriced for what it is and what it gives you, and, let's face it, Apple has even less respect for their customers than Microsoft does! And for those reasons, I'm out!)

If you're still using XP then I would suggest that you make sure you're up to date with your drivers (I wouldn't recommend any of those programs that claim to automatically search out and install the latest drivers for all your PC's devices as none of the ones I've seen have come anywhere close to achieving that.) Use one of the newer, faster, still current browsers like Chrome or Firefox. Go through the programs and services running in the background and remove or shut down the ones you don't need. Have a reasonable security package installed (i.e. one that balances protection with resource usage - there's not much point installing the latest super-dooper, all-encompassing offering from Norton or MacAfee [what's the smiley for spitting?] or the like if it's going to make your ageing PC grind to a useless halt.) and use some of the better 3rd party malware scanning and removal tools AND RUN THEM REGULARLY.

For non-commercial use a combination of Comodo, CCleaner and Malwarebytes (with SuperAntiSpyware on standby in case you do pick up something unpleasant) should give you a fair amount of protection and peace of mind.

Finally, if your XP PC was entry or mid level when purchased and it hasn't had much done to it since, and if you have access to reasonably priced 2nd hand parts then you might want to think about spending a few quid upgrading it a bit - XP running on 1.5Gb of DDR RAM is usually noticeably faster than running on just 1Gb of DDR RAM and if it's only going to cost you £10 to upgrade, I'd say do it.

Likewise with hard drives and graphics cards. If you're running a 40Gb IDE (Sorry, P-ATA) drive then going up to a reasonable 120Gb IDE will almost certainly give you a noticeable performance boost. If you're running an IDE drive and your motherboard has a SATA controller then if you can pick up a cheap, compatible 2nd hand SATA drive in good nick (you may need to a bit of searching through the forums to check which SATA hard drives will definitely work with your motherboard as some of the earlier SATA controllers can be quite picky!) then you can pretty easily clone your current drive across to the new drive (well, new to you) using one of the many free utilities around and, again, noticeably speed things up. (If you have a Seagate drive in the system then I think you can use a free util from Seagate. HD Clone has a free [speed limited] cloning program that works pretty well and I think Acronis and possibly Macrium have cloning capabilities now.)

Same thing goes for the graphics card - especially if you're likely to be viewing stuff that uses Flash or Silverlight. If you're currently running, say, an NVidia mx400/4000/5200 card and you can pick up a compatible second hand nVidia 6?? or 7?? card in decent condition for less than £20 then you might want to consider it. (The same is true for ATI graphics cards, it's just that I'm much more familiar with the nVidia cards than the ATI ones. The comparison charts at Tom's Hardware and other places will let you compare relative performance between cards.)

Sorry for the length of this post but I hope someone finds it of some use.

[Hoser Rob]

Linux Mint is certainly the way I would suggest any windows users new to Linux begin their journey through Linuxland...

I don't want this to turn into a linux v. windows discussion, but having used both Mint and Ubuntu I have to disagree with this.

Inexperienced users are going to want good technical support.

The support on the ubuntu forums is amazing ... better than a lot that you'd pay for, though you'll obviously have to wait longer than you would if you were paying.

By comparison Mint tech support is pitiful. Not the worst out there but terrible compared to ubuntu's

I definitely agree that having a number of on demand malware scanners is the way to go in windows. That's exactly what techs use when you take a computer with a virus into their shop. Assuming the virus hasn't totally disabled it, they install as many as a half dozen. Then they just run them and almost always one of them will find it.

If not they'll have to do it the hard way, ie. removing the hard drive and sandboxing it in another computer and doing it by hand.

[deadmeow]

Linux Mint is nice, and most of the Mint releases are based on Ubuntu. There is also a newer Linux out there called Deepin 12.12, (also based on Ubuntu), and it is even easier to use than Mint.

I still like XP, and I am not sure what I will do in the future, probably dual boot between Windows7/Linux. For security, you can always run browsers in a sandbox prog like sandboxie, or in a virtual machine. With Linux, at least we have choices besides the latest overpriced version of windows. And windows8??? omg I won't even go there.

[Hoser Rob]

Here go a few reasons why I do not switch to Linux:

a) Abiword doesn't support Unicode properly, as far as I can remember ;

You can install unicode fonts in ubuntu, no problem.

b) OpenOffice and LibreOffice NEVER will let you embed fonts in a document ;

I agree that libreoffice isn't necessarily a good substitute for MS office, especially if you need to do a power point type presentation. You can't just plug into a windows network and expect it to work with their office setup. A friend has windows running on his macbook for that reason. And he hates that.

But that's why people still want to set their linux machines as dual boot. Problem solved. I actually consider the fact that not all hardware works with linux to be the biggest stumbling block. Mind you, I've installed linux on 3 machines and only had any significant configuration problems on one.

c) there is NO full-featured open-source PDF editor, nothing that compares to NitroPDF or to the Adobe bloatware; besides, Ghostscript does not compress images to the JPEG2000 format ;

I don't do much of that but I've heard of quite good ones.

d) there is NO file manager that dares to mimic the look and feel of the Windows Explorer of Windows 2000

I use dolphin in linux. It's the kde default file manager but you can use it in other linux desktops. I will not use anything else anymore unless I have no choice. It's extremely powerful but you can set up the menu bars to just include the icons for what you use most. There's nothing else like I've ever seen.

But I do agree most of the other linux file managers I've tried are a bit lame. I'd say nautilus is 2nd best.

It seems I've opened a kettle of worms here. Had no intention of turning this into a linux discussion.

BTW I haven't read all the posts closely. Has anybody mentioned the fact that there are no known linux viruses in the wild (which is what this thread was originally about)? There's just not much point in writing linux or unix viruses. It's not just because the user base is small. The system is too hard to hack. Viruses can't propagate very well.

However, you should not choose an OS (or any app software) with the idea that it'll make you immune from serurity concerns. The security is nice but that's not why I use linux. You can still be hacked. You need strong passwords and java redirections in your browser still work.

[El Heggunte]

Here go a few reasons why I do not switch to Linux:

a) Abiword doesn't support Unicode properly, as far as I can remember ;

You can install unicode fonts in ubuntu, no problem.

The problem was not with the fonts, the problem was with the program itself. I found NO WAY to create a multilanguage RTF file, which is a trivial task for Wordpad OTOH.

d) there is NO file manager that dares to mimic the look and feel of the Windows Explorer of Windows 2000

I use dolphin in linux. It's the kde default file manager but you can use it in other linux desktops. I will not use anything else anymore unless I have no choice. It's extremely powerful but you can set up the menu bars to just include the icons for what you use most. There's nothing else like I've ever seen.

But I do agree most of the other linux file managers I've tried are a bit lame. I'd say nautilus is 2nd best.

Thanks for the info about "Dolphin"
Surely I will give it a try, the next time I get too bored, I mean

[yoda313]

It's not just because the user base is small. The system is too hard to hack. Viruses can't propagate very well.

I'm no linux expert but wouldn't part of it be that its so fragmented? I mean there are tons of versions of it out there. Sure some aren't as popular as others but you wouldn't be able to hit as many as if you were targeting say windows 7 or a certain version of a Mac system.

[usually_quiet]

It seems I've opened a kettle of worms here. Had no intention of turning this into a linux discussion.

If you were not looking to give yourself an opportunity to promote the benefits of Linux yet again, then why did you mention Linux at all? You have been involved in too many discussions that took this turn to claim to be so naive that you did not know where the discussion would go once you mentioned Linux.

BTW I haven't read all the posts closely. Has anybody mentioned the fact that there are no known linux viruses in the wild (which is what this thread was originally about)? There's just not much point in writing linux or unix viruses. It's not just because the user base is small. The system is too hard to hack. Viruses can't propagate very well.

Everybody who has heard of Linux has heard this claim. It does not bear repeating.

[hello_hello]

At least the days of Internet Explorer infecting computers via ActiveX drive-bys seem to be over.

I run XP on two PCs. Both connected to the internet and used for browsing daily (Firefox). I don't bother running a software firewall (I'm behind a router). I haven't run any antivirus software for several years. In fact I haven't run any sort of anti-malware software for quite a while. I've never been infected with anything. And yes I've checked that a few times. Once or twice a year I restore the original image I made of Windows and installed programs. A few times before doing so I've installed an antivirus program and run a full scan.... just for fun..... and never found anything nasty.

If a PC gets infected these days it's probably because the user has given something nasty permission to install or they've installed dodgy software containing a virus. I know quite a few people who just click on anything in their way without thinking about it and as a result I've cleaned nasties off quite a few PCs which have had lots of security software installed.

[deadmeow]

You can get viruses just from browsing a website. Trojans are silent and will steal data. If you don't have antivirus, you can only guess that you don't have malware.

[El Heggunte]

More fuel to the bonfire

If a PC gets infected these days it's probably because the user has given something nasty permission to install or they've installed dodgy software containing a virus.

Nope.

You can get viruses just from browsing a website.

Yes.

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/329644-Site-virus

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting

[hello_hello]

You can get viruses just from browsing a website. Trojans are silent and will steal data. If you don't have antivirus, you can only guess that you don't have malware.

True. But in my experience having antivirus is no guarantee you'll know you have malware either. Or no guarantee it'll prevent you from being infected.

More fuel to the bonfire

If a PC gets infected these days it's probably because the user has given something nasty permission to install or they've installed dodgy software containing a virus.

Nope.

Yep. If you keep your browser up to date (patched) and any plugins up to date etc, and you're a little careful where you surf and what you download, then I'm fairly convinced the chances of being infected while just surfing are very low these days. If you do, what's the real likelihood of becoming infected while simply surfing? Especially when compared to the likelihood of being infected because the user allowed it in some way. I didn't claim "user error" is the only way to become infected, only that it's far, far, far more likely to be the cause than having simply surfed to the wrong web page.

I've only got to look at the PCs here. The two I use have never been infected. A third is used by the kids. Same OS, same browser. I've cleaned crap off that one quite a few times, despite it having antivirus software installed. Everything from annoying toolbars to fake anti-malware software which tries to lock down the PC and con you into spending money on something you don't need.

You can get viruses just from browsing a website.

I wouldn't argue you can't, because of course it's possible, but I would argue as to how likely it is if you're careful and keep your browser/plugins up to date.

[deadmeow]

I have gotten 1 virus from a website, and it was this year, (with antivirus + antimalware). However in the past few years, I have had antivirus stop websites from infecting my computer a handfull of times.

In past times I went without antivirus, because they slowed the computer down too much. But todays multicore computers can handle antivirus progs much easier.

[TimA-C]

The only certainties in life are Death and Taxes. Let me guess, you're one of those people who once heard a story where somebody survived a car accident specifically because they weren't wearing a seatbelt, and you've never worn one since?

You say you "run XP on two PCs. Both connected to the internet and used for browsing daily (Firefox)", do you run any other PCs that do have internet security that you do all on-line financial transactions on?

[Nelson37]

How likely is a reasonably careful user with antivirus software to get a virus?

Often enough to pay one of my utility bills every month, sometimes more than one.

The "FBI virus" paid for ALL of my utility bills one month.

[enim]

XP, is it still viable for online browsing?

Why only XP, there are tons of other unsupported versions available for browsing too!

Letting kids have unrestricted access to a business computer?!! Geez, I'd almost say they got what they deserved...

I would say in general, for any home or business where there is a reasonable risk of catching something online, USE DISPOSABLE/REPLACEABLE IMAGED VM SANDBOXES!

In fact, you could still run unprotected Win98 browsing in a VM, going to dangerous sites. Wouldn't matter if you intended to trash the VM image anyway. Of course, you would have browser version display issues...

Scott

Why only kids? KiDs - in general NoBody!
KiDs must their separate PC running in their room some are still Windows3.1, Windows98, WindowsMe, WindowsXP and Windows7, as long as they are happy playing games, some games they like is not available in other version(s). My garage is PC wreck-yard, We should be happy too!

How likely is a reasonably careful user with antivirus software to get a virus?

More likely with a reasonable doubt. Who cares for virus/trojans where there is a game or party going on?
I LuV keep all security gates open - no firewall - no anti-virus, everybody is welcome, What you get is all yours! And, if you are smart enough to pass the statement I just made through NOT Gate Logic, you will get rock tight rock-castle security.

[hello_hello]

I have gotten 1 virus from a website, and it was this year, (with antivirus + antimalware). However in the past few years, I have had antivirus stop websites from infecting my computer a handfull of times.

I'll admit it does baffle me a little, hearing stories of becoming infected through surfing while antivirus and antimalware software is installed, when I've surfed for a long time without either and not been infected.

Your claim raises several questions, such as how do you know the infection came from a website if your antivirus software let a virus walk right past it and infect you? Which virus was it and from which web site? Which browser and which version of Windows are you running? Something newer and apparently more secure than XP?
When I was running antivirus software I do recall it popping up with warnings on several occasions regarding a nasty it found amongst the temporary internet files, but I suspect they're often false positives and I've nothing to show even if they weren't, they would have managed to infect me anyway. Chances are I'd need to be using an unpatched browser which was vulnerable to the virus in question, assuming it was really a virus.

The only certainties in life are Death and Taxes. Let me guess, you're one of those people who once heard a story where somebody survived a car accident specifically because they weren't wearing a seatbelt, and you've never worn one since?

No, but are you one of those people who'd hear a person wearing a blue shirt was in a car accident and automatically concluded wearing blue shirts while driving causes accidents? Although at least we agree becoming infected while surfing isn't one of life's certainties.

You say you "run XP on two PCs. Both connected to the internet and used for browsing daily (Firefox)", do you run any other PCs that do have internet security that you do all on-line financial transactions on?

As I wrote in a later post, there's another PC here which does have internet security and which the the kids use. I've had to clean crap off it several times. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with your question, as even if my PCs were infected I doubt it'd achieve much. At least not in respect to stealing anything valuable. All my passwords and logins are saved using a password manager. It opens web pages and fills forms automatically. Passwords and logins aren't typed, nor do they go via the Windows clipboard.

How likely is a reasonably careful user with antivirus software to get a virus?

Often enough to pay one of my utility bills every month, sometimes more than one.

The "FBI virus" paid for ALL of my utility bills one month.

That doesn't sound like too unlikely a scenario. It possibly indicates the definition of "reasonable care" tends to change in the presence of antivirus software or in relation to the confidence the user has in their antivurus software to protect them.
Wasn't that virus spread through opening attachments in spam emails or installing dodgy software etc? Could you become infected with it simply by surfing to the wrong web page?

Given you seem to spend a lot of time cleaning nasties off other people's computers, I'd be interested to know what percentage of those PCs had antivirus software installed when they became infected and/or what percentage of them didn't.

[deadmeow]

The FBI virus spread simply from surfing to the wrong page. I use XP, and got a virus from a web page. The thing is, if you do a search engine search, and are researching or looking up something, you are going to visit new websites. The more you use a mainstream operating system, the more likely your are to pick up malware. This is a certainty.

Having anti-virus and anti-malware, you are less likely to become and infected, and more likely to know when you are infected. For a few years I stopped using anti-virus because it slowed down the computer too much, but with multicore computers, there is no reason not to slap some kind of anti-virus on.

The only analogy I can make is you should carry around a spare tire. Even if you are careful and drive around on good roads, you don't know when and if you might get a flat.

[hello_hello]

The FBI virus spread simply from surfing to the wrong page. I use XP, and got a virus from a web page. The thing is, if you do a search engine search, and are researching or looking up something, you are going to visit new websites. The more you use a mainstream operating system, the more likely your are to pick up malware. This is a certainty.

The more often I fly the more likely I'll be killed in an aeroplane accident. That's as equal a certainty, but it doesn't mean it's likely I'll be killed in a aeroplane accident.

You may have missed some of my previous questions, so I'll try again.....
How do you know your infection came from a website if your antivirus software let the virus walk right past it and infect you? Which virus was it and from which web site? Which browser are you using?

Having anti-virus and anti-malware, you are less likely to become and infected, and more likely to know when you are infected. For a few years I stopped using anti-virus because it slowed down the computer too much, but with multicore computers, there is no reason not to slap some kind of anti-virus on.

Well I could offer arguments regarding false positives offered by antivirus programs causing the user to disregard it's warnings (I've witnessed people doing so), or argue antivirus programs can give the user a false sense of security despite the fact they're far from being 100% effective, but I wouldn't be offering any hard facts either.

The only analogy I can make is you should carry around a spare tire. Even if you are careful and drive around on good roads, you don't know when and if you might get a flat.

As it turns out, I do carry a spare tyre in the form of an image of my C drive. Should I discover I'm infected, I'd just return the PC to it's previous state. An antivirus program is more like a flat tyre prevention device which encourages the driver to exercise less precaution regarding the condition of the road, sometimes warns of a flat tyre when there isn't one, sometimes fails to warn you when there is, and after it's failed to prevent the flat tyre it was designed to prevent, unsuccessfully attempts to re-inflate it.

[deadmeow]

You are safer with anti-virus period, we both agree. I keep a clean disk image to replace a potentially infected image like you, we agree. After visiting a website, my computer was taken over by this virus near instantly, research shows that it happened to many more people just like me, in seconds after visiting a website. FYI, was using latest version of Opera. Newer malware will outsmart older anti-virus, and newer anti-virus will outsmart older malware, in general.

I have read that website viruses can take over even "sandboxed" web browsers, though it is more difficult.

[hello_hello]

How do you know your infection came from a website if your antivirus software let the virus walk right past it and infect you? Which virus was it and from which web site?

[usually_quiet]

How do you know your infection came from a website if your antivirus software let the virus walk right past it and infect you? Which virus was it and from which web site?

Some people find out their PC could be infected by malware because of a notice posted at the website used to spread the malware, or via a warning from Google, when they tried to access the site later on. (Google scans websites for malware.) That describes what I have personally seen when somebody attempted to use VideoHelp to spread malware in the past couple of years.

Other times, the malware is eventually discovered by a scan following an update to security software. A little research on the malware may reveal how the malware is spread and sometimes a list of sites that were used to spread it.

[Edit]Since you are demanding proof, here is a link to a thread about an attack at VideoHelp, which I forgot to post last night. https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/346642-Has-VH-com-been-Hacked

[MOVIEGEEK]

I have read that website viruses can take over even "sandboxed" web browsers, though it is more difficult.

That's true, as usually_quiet mentioned above, but Chrome is pretty good at stopping an attack. You should also update Flash and Java regularly, more and more malware are using that vulnerability instead of ActiveX to gain access.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Better yet uninstall Java all-together, it's not needed on the end-user anymore.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/248957/555/Why-tech-experts-are-urging-all-users-to...a?sf14497751=1

[El Heggunte]

Better yet uninstall Java all-together, it's not needed on the end-user anymore.

If you had said "better yet disable Java in your web browser(s)", I would agree, but
"it's not needed on the end-user anymore" surely is an exaggeration.
The Blu-Ray producers for example, cannot do without Java, because of the Master Audio Suite Encoder.

[MOVIEGEEK]

I meant your home PC, I doubt hackers care what's on your Blu-ray player. Some business software still requires Java, my company laptop has it installed.