Talk:Browser hijacking

message: Like Babylon, Ask, AVG, and maybe even others. Should we mention them as "safe"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.8.24.2 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Hijackers are legit search engines 

message: The title explains it all. - PGSONIC 12:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well technically it was hijacking in that it was redirecting the user's browser in a way it had not been asked to do. I think you want to say that it is not *malware*...
Elinruby (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Earthlink Is Not A Hijacker

message: The flashing image (blinking like crazy) is a sign of receiving malicious advertising content. Turn off computer to cure the flashing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  flashing images 

message: What is about appbario?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.224.154 (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The page https://malwaretips.com/blogs/appbario-toolbar-removal/ has information about Appbario. If you do enter information about it though, make sure not to write it like a "How to" guide. KirbyMario12345 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  appbario? 

message: Wouldn't it be worth mentioning that other platforms are almost immune to browser hijacking, and that removing hijackers is much easier thanks to the absence of registry?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AslanYavrusu (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost Windows-only 

message: I had set the site http://nabzsoftware.com/types-of-threats/dregol as one of the references for Dregol. It was all right when I accessed it, and it had been verified. However, Google Chrome is now reporting it as potentially dangerous. Thus, I have removed the source.68.100.116.118 (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem 

message: Trovi also uses a program called Search Protect. It changes the SE to Trovi Search. Is it the same as Conduit, or is it a different program? I think information about Trovi should be incorporated into this article. KirbyMario12345 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trovi 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Browser hijacking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211102047/https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/kb20100811171926EN_EndUserProfile_en_us: to https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/kb20100811171926EN_EndUserProfile_en_us:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose Trovi be merged into Browser hijacking as Trovi is not independently notable on its own. Audiovideodiscoo (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge per nom (lack of independent notablity). And also WP:NOT a how-to guide (much of the current content isn't suitable to keep here or in merged target). Browser hijacking#Conduit (Search Protect)/Trovi is already a listed example. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge - I agree with the assessment of both the above editors. Onel5969 TT me 13:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This has not happened yet, and should not be here - Richevans69 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sysadmins have undoubtedly seen this on one of the many computing news sites that have run stories about it. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. - MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Enough of anons / socks re-adding this stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

text: What is needed is a reliable secondary source that describes this as browser hijacking.  And on that principle, I have removed all of the "example" subsections that lack any source whatsoever.  (Probably most of the ones that do have a source could also be removed, since I doubt the sources verify that the software hijacks browsers, but I am not sufficiently interested to check them.) --JBL (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Office 365 ProPlus