Unsolved
This post is more than 5 years old
301 Posts
0
7583
SiteAdvisor Freezing IE7
I am having the same problems with SiteAdvisor as with TrendProtect. They both freeze up IE7 and the only way to get out of it is to manually power off the machine. The only thing that usually registers in my event logs is a disruptive shutdown, and a few times SA and TP were listed as causing IE7 problems. Checked the McAffe website forums and this was there solution.
There are three things that may help.
- Go to Internet Explorer Tools/Internet Options/Content and disable Content Advisor (it will clash with SiteAdvisor)
- Click Tools again and this time check Phishing Filter - turn it off as it too will clash with SiteAdvisor.
- Click the small down arrow at the right of the toolbar SiteAdvisor icon and check if you have turned on Protected Mode. If you have then uninstall/reinstall and leave it turned off this time - yes, another item that can clash.
Some people have found that simply uninstalling and reinstalling (as per the link above) will cure the problem.
This leads to my question. What is better to have, SiteAdvisor or Protected Mode and Phishing Filter turned on?
I have had a lot of problems with SP1, so I am also debating on uninstalling it, then reinstalling, so I don't know if this factors into this problem. Thanks for any suggestions.
joe53
1 Rookie
1 Rookie
•
5.8K Posts
0
June 1st, 2008 19:00
Hi beversoll:
I'm not sure I can help you as I'm still using XP. I found that SiteAdvisor, and the Phishing Filter both slowed down my browsing, as did FireTrust's SiteHound. I use them only to check websites as needed.
Far more important is that I will be visiting Chicago this summer, and hope to finally get to a game at Wrigley Field. Along with Fenway Park, it is the last of an era.
ky331
3 Apprentice
3 Apprentice
•
15.2K Posts
0
June 2nd, 2008 00:00
Hey all,
I'm still away on vacation --- for about another 2 weeks --- but found a few moments to drop in.
Bev: In my opinion/experience, both McAfee SiteAdvisor as well as TrendProtect can occasionally offer "questionable" advice: I have encountered both false-positives [RED-flagging a "safe"-site, such as SuperAntiSpyware.com ] as well as false-negatives [GREEN-flagging a truly bad site] with each. Also, both only offer advice --- neither will actually restrict you from proceeding. [In contrast, FireTrust SiteHound actually blocks access to what it believes to be bad pages --- unless/until the user actively chooses to click on a button allowing permission to proceed. This would seem to be a better/safer approach... however, unlike SiteAdvisor and TrendProtect, SiteHound will (unobtrusively) advise you to obtain its daily updates.]
Given the questionable/limited value of each, if you find any of these conflicting with [and crashing] your system/browser, I would simply uninstall them. In contrast, if [as Joe indicated], there's "merely" a slowdown [as opposed to an outright "crash"], you'll have to personally weigh the merits of (potential) added "protection" vs. the degree of slowdown it entails.
The last I checked with BamaJim, he maintained that IE7, with the Phishing filter, added significant security to one's system. He also advocated keeping UAC running under Vista. On that basis, I would suggest you keep the Phishing filter on.
Note: I have not checked with him to see if his advice had changed under SP1.
-------------------
Joe,
speaking of "last of an era", I trust you're aware that this is the last season of baseball in the current Yankee Stadium (opened 1923; with a complete "renovation" during the '74 & '75 seasons, with the Yankees playing at Shea Stadium along with the Mets). Some people say the old stadium will remain as a museum; others believe it will be demolished. I'll leave it to you to investigate further, if you wish.
http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/nyy/ballpark/stadium_history.jsp
ky331
3 Apprentice
3 Apprentice
•
15.2K Posts
0
June 2nd, 2008 01:00
I located the following explanation, which concurs with RedDawn's view on Protected Mode --
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control :
Internet Explorer 7's "Protected Mode" feature uses [indeed, requires] UAC to run with a 'low' integrity level
(a Standard user token has an integrity level of 'medium';
an elevated (Administrator) token has an integrity level of 'high').
As such, it effectively runs in a sandbox, unable to write to most of the system (apart from the Temporary Internet Files folder) without elevating via UAC. Since toolbars and ActiveX controls run within the Internet Explorer process, they will run with low privileges as well, and will be severely limited in what damage they can do to the system.
I don't believe the "sandbox" assertion is to be taken literally --- but will defer to any expert who knows for sure.
Anonymous
5 Practitioner
5 Practitioner
•
274.2K Posts
0
June 2nd, 2008 01:00
Hi beversoll,
I also have problems with IE7 crashing and wouldn't be surprised if it too was caused by SiteAdvisor. I'm beginning to come round to what people say about McAfee products. Is there any thing that doesn't clash with their software or is it the other way round.:smileyvery-happy:
Protected Mode is the last thing I'd turn off, it's a major security feature of IE7.
beversoll
301 Posts
0
June 2nd, 2008 02:00
Thanks for the replies. I visited the MS website and felt that turning off Protected Mode for SA and TP was not worth it. Before visiting unfamiliar websites I will just do a little homework of my own.
Red Dawn,
About 70% of the time when this occurs I cannot move the mouse. Everything freezes. I waited around fifteen minutes last night for it to unfreeze and it did not. I tried control/alt/delete to no avail. The other thirty percent I am able to end the processes through task manager. The complete freeze in my Reliability Monitor shows a disruptive shutdown (because I have to use the power button), whereas the task manager end usually shows this
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: iexplore.exe
Application Version: 7.0.6001.18000
Application Timestamp: 47918f11
Fault Module Name: SiteAdv.dll
Fault Module Version: 2.6.0.6253
Fault Module Timestamp: 4755bdb0
Exception Code: c0000005
Exception Offset: 0002bdaa
OS Version: 6.0.6001.2.1.0.256.6
Locale ID: 1033
Additional Information 1: fd00
Additional Information 2: ea6f5fe8924aaa756324d57f87834160
Additional Information 3: fd00
Additional Information 4: ea6f5fe8924aaa756324d57f87834160
or this
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: iexplore.exe
Application Version: 7.0.6001.18000
Application Timestamp: 47918f11
Fault Module Name: ntdll.dll
Fault Module Version: 6.0.6001.18000
Fault Module Timestamp: 4791a7a6
Exception Code: c0000005
Exception Offset: 00043387
OS Version: 6.0.6001.2.1.0.256.6
Locale ID: 1033
Additional Information 1: fd00
Additional Information 2: ea6f5fe8924aaa756324d57f87834160
Additional Information 3: fd00
Additional Information 4: ea6f5fe8924aaa756324d57f87834160
joe53
1 Rookie
1 Rookie
•
5.8K Posts
0
June 2nd, 2008 04:00
@ ky331:
Sorry for taking this thread off-topic. But baseball is dear to my heart, and that "Go Cubbies!!!" sig proved irresistable. Thanks for the Yankee Stadium link.
I grew up attending Tiger Stadium (alas, now retired) and have a real fondness for these old ballparks.
melboy
336 Posts
0
June 2nd, 2008 06:00
although its a different sport ,football (soccer, as you guys call it!), i know what you mean about old stadiums. i've visted a lot around England following my team and a lot of the new stadiums have no heart ,soul or character.:smileysad:
anyway, which version of site advisor are you using?. version 2.6.0.6261 was very recently released, replacing 2.6.0.6253.
This was supposed to sort out a number of problems ( Sticking at very high CPU usage etc).
beversoll
301 Posts
0
June 2nd, 2008 20:00
Hi Melboy,
I had this version 2.6.0.6261 during the last freeze. I also had this problem, which my account for some of the bugs I am experiencing. At some point I am going to uninstall Vista SP1, then reinstall it through WU, and see if this fixes some of bugs.
beversoll
301 Posts
0
June 3rd, 2008 05:00
I ran across this article tonight and thought it pertained to this thread.
"The results for Vista products were harder to assess because only six rootkits could run on the OS, but the testers had to turn off UAC to get even this far. Vista's UAC itself spotted everything thrown in front of it.
Once on a PC, rootkits can bury themselves quietly, but they have to get to that point first. As long as users interpret prompts from the UAC system attentively, or those messages haven't in some way been spoofed, rootkits struggle to jump to the PC without drawing attention to themselves.
That UAC can tell a user when a rootkit is trying to install itself is not in itself surprising, as Vista is supposedly engineered from the ground up to intercept all applications requests of any significance."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146256/vistas_despised_uac_nails_rootkits_tests_find.html
Bugbatter
20.5K Posts
0
June 3rd, 2008 12:00
I agree that it is important to keep the UAC enabled on Vista. Some users disable it for convenience -- big mistake.