Malwarebytes finished scanning and there were no infected files found. Not sure there's much point in posting it here, but I'll post it just in case: Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware 1.36 Database version: 2079 Windows 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2 5/5/2009 6:53:44 PM mbam-log-2009-05-05 (18-53-44).txt Scan type: Full Scan (C:\:) Objects scanned: 162741 Time elapsed: 26 minute(s), 40 second(s) Memory Processes Infected: 0 Memory Modules Infected: 0 Registry Keys Infected: 0 Registry Values Infected: 0 Registry Data Items Infected: 0 Folders Infected: 0 Files Infected: 0 Memory Processes Infected: (No malicious items detected) Memory Modules Infected: (No malicious items detected) Registry Keys Infected: (No malicious items detected) Registry Values Infected: (No malicious items detected) Registry Data Items Infected: (No malicious items detected) Folders Infected: (No malicious items detected) Files Infected: (No malicious items detected) ----------------------------- I guess the Avast boot time scan fixed the problem. Or it was some kind of weird glitch that automatically resolved itself by restarting the computer. Everything appears to be working well now. Thanks for all the help. Lynn.

I've been using Firefox since longer than I can remember, and a beta version has never been pushed to me. Auto-updates to release versions, yes. Beta versions, no (I am not subscribed to the beta channel and have never been forced to it). Regards to browser security, there's a newly discovered vulnerability in the SSLv3 protocol -- POODLE is the acronym. It's a combination of browser and server. SSLv3 was superseded some while ago by TLS, but many servers are still running SSLv3 (along with TLS). A secure browser connection that starts on TLS can be tricked into downgrading to SSL 3.0 (if the connecting server still supports it), and a hacker can intercept bits of the data flow when that happens. The expectation is that SSL 3.0 will not be patched since it's considered outdated. Servers that are running it will (should) soon be reconfigured to no longer support it. Users who are running old browsers that don't support TLS will no longer be able to connect to secure sites such as online banking or shopping after servers no longer support SSLv3. The recommended defense until servers are fixed to to eliminate SSLv3 is for users to set their browser to not allow SSL 3.0 connections (minimum TLSv1). If your old browser of choice (or requirement) doesn't support TLS then you're stuck being susceptible, and will be out-of-luck when SSLv3 is fully redacted. IE6 , for example, supports TLSv1 but the option is not enabled by default, it must be manually turned on. (TLS is currently up to v3, which IE6 does not support past TLSv1.) Test your browser

Mine freezes up fairly regularly here with both IE and Firefox. I blame Vista though - I hate it hate it hate it, but unless I spent a stinkin' fortune on a Mac (I need a laptop rather than a desktop) I didn't have any other choice when my old laptop bit the dust last December. I've run multiple antiviral and anti-malware software packages to no avail. HP has no answers and tells me I can't wipe the hard drive and reinstall an older version of Windoze due to hardware incompatibility issues. Feh. I'm far too brainfogged to try to negotiate Linux. I do back up obsessively - my 'puter has a dual hard drive so I use the second drive to back up the first as well as using a couple of flash drives for documents, photos, and email. Those are dirt cheap now so there's no excuse not to have at least one! There's also a plethora of free online file storage sites to take advantage of. At least if I'm halfway through a post Firefox will usually get it back for me, I'll give it that, and it does import your bookmarks during the installation process. Oh, side note: some manufacturers are doing a really crappy thing and storing an image of your hard drive for a system restore in such a way that it is bollixed up by a defrag. Ran into that problem a few years back and had to spend nearly $50 on a set of restore DVDs as well as spending hours on the phone with tech support (in India, natch). Therefore, you should check your documentation before defragging.

For a while I was addicted to answering the Trivia questions at goodreads. But after forty-three jillion questions about the Harry Potter and Twilight books, my enthusiasm waned. I started skipping those questions, not realizing that when I did it was bringing my average down. I contributed several questions of my own and it was fun to create them, but the feedback was not good: it seems that many thought my questions were about too obscure books and were difficult, very difficult, or really really difficult. One of my questions is about the setting of Joe David Brown's novel Paper Moon: Was it set in Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, or Missouri? The answer is Alabama because I am referring to the book -- after all it's a trivia quiz at a book-reading site -- but most people choose Kansas because they have only seen the film where the setting was changed to that state. I knew it was a bit of a trick question, but I didn't know that people could get so irate when tricked! Then I learned that some participants have learned a way to cheat, and that's how they can answer 20,000 questions (roughly) with 99% accuracy. Sheesh! I gave up. I also liked the group "What's the Name of That Book?" -- at first. I was able to identify nine or ten books for people and it thrilled me that I could help and the queriers were pleased. However, I have gotten very little response to my own queries. I guess that once again it's the too-obscure thing. Most of the questions seem to me to be about fantasy/sci-fi/romance and YA titles -- genres that I know very little about but are obviously the most popular. Every site has its good and bad points. I was quite thrilled with goodreads in the beginning; but once the newness wore off, I began to go days and weeks and months without visiting it. I haven't yet got my library fully catalogued, and it's in a state of chaos -- unlike Pam's neatly tagged and well-reviewed library -- so I won't provide a link so you all can view it until I make it presentable. :-) I'd still say, though, that goodreads' good points outweigh its bad. Well, after I tell you all that you can't see my goodreads library, I remember that I keep running up against that very thing, "Private" libraries, at goodreads; and it quite irks me! I'm guilty of hypocrisy. I understand that some folk may have books that they don't want others to know about it; or they make their libraries private so they won't get unsolicited comments and friendship requests; or, like me, their catalogue is a work in progress; or maybe they're just shy...I don't know. But I like to look at other people's libraries and I'm disappointed when I can't. And when I read a review that impresses me, I like to look up that person's library; so when I hit that stone wall that says "Private," I sigh.