When I first got this Windows 7 machine, it had two versions of EI 9, 32 bit which was the default, and 64 bit.  However, the 32 bit version never let me click on links on web pages, but the 64 bit version worked perfectly, which I made the default.

 

Last week I upgraded to IE11 and the problem of not being able to click on links has returned. Problem is, this so called upgrade has removed the previous versions and now I'm knackered, especially as I've just gone fibre and I can't click on the link to enable it.

This doesn't happen to all links, ones with addresses work ok generally, but ones with just a phrase type link, for example "Enable fibre broadband", will not work.

Any clues out there please, specifically for a computer numpty. TIA.

Download Chrome.

I'd suggest Firefox over Chrome.

 

I don't like google to know everything.

If some links work and some don't, could be an adblocker/JavaScript type problem (as a lot of links actually "wrap" the link in tracking JavaScript these days in order to report clickthrough rates and statistics back to the website operator, rather than just letting the browser handle everything which means you don't know which links on your site are most active).

 

If you have adblocking software installed try disabling it, if you have a NoScript type addon installed, try disabling it, if you don't knowingly have either of those then try malware scanning in case you have malware which is modifying the links in the page without you knowing.

 

If that still doesn't work and your PC comes up clean then just install another browser, but if it were me I'd at least do a cursory scan before doing that just in case my PC was infected... 

Firefox has sorted it, thanks for your input guys.

I'd scan your system for any browser hijacks.

 

What AV are you using?

In an effort to make the browser safer, IE has over the years, blocked various active scripts by default; it could be the newest version is blocking an active script being used in the links that are being blocked.

 

I am only guessing though, I wouldnt touch IE with a bargepole, and have been using FireFox since v2.1.

 

Now you have FF, to make it even safer - install NoScript, FlagFox and ABP+.

 

NoScript will be an eye opener the first time you try to visit some websites - HOW many 3rd party active scripts want to run!!!! On social sites like Buzzfeed, the list of blocked scripts runs off of the page!!

Edited 26 September, 201510 yr by GentleGiant

I've run Adblock+ for years now.

 

Every so often you see the internet through a browser that doesn't have it and it's quite a shock to see just how cluttered everything thing is with ads now.

 

NoScript is a bit of a pain to start with until you build up your allowed lists on the sites you use regularly and you are forced to pay attention to what is actually happening.

Edited 28 September, 201510 yr by Aspman

Flagfox might seem an odd addon for security - until that one day you try to log onto your banks website and notice it is suddenly being hosted in Kazakhstan  This saved the family business a couple of years back; the PC was redirected to what appeared to be the NatWest website log in page - except the FlagFox flag was no longer the Union Jack.

Flagfox might seem an odd addon for security - until that one day you try to log onto your banks website and notice it is suddenly being hosted in Kazakhstan This saved the family business a couple of years back; the PC was redirected to what appeared to be the NatWest website log in page - except the FlagFox flag was no longer the Union Jack.

You and your family must be the unluckiest people going!

I'd look at getting a better Antivirus as Norton warns me of all that already.

A friend had Norton 360 a few years back, I went around cos her PC was getting slow and cleared over 14,000 infections from it (took about 5 hours including an initial scan in "Safe Mode").

 

All caused by one file "shared" to her daughter by a friend on a teens social site.

 

The redirect wasnt caused by an issue on the business PC, it scanned clean with multiple AV scanners, and the redirect never happened again; I assume it was a problem at the banks end; I reported it, but never got any feedback.

Edited 29 September, 201510 yr by GentleGiant

I'd say it was probably more likely a failure of FlagFox (or specifically, whichever GeoIP data it uses), to be honest...I've never heard of a bank's website being redirected like that, and it would actually be reasonably hard to do - which is the reason phishing is so popular, it's much easier to get people to load a fake page if you want them to provide you with their credentials than it is to cause such a targeted hijack without arousing major suspicion. FlagFox and the like are basically guessing at locations according to GeoIP data and can often get it wrong, same as you'll often find adverts targeted at the home town of your ISP ("Meet local women in $notyourtown tonight...") rather than your actual location.

Using FlagFox tools, you can get the IP address, and a lot of details about who owns/runs the IP address; it wasnt an error.

For instance for Briskoda.......

SSL Labs logo

Home Projects Qualys.com Contact

You are here: Home > Projects > SSL Server Test > briskoda.net

SSL Report: briskoda.net (88.80.191.226)

Assessed on: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:17:01 UTC | Clear cache

Scan Another »

Summary

Overall Rating

A

0

20

40

60

80

100

Certificate

100

Protocol Support

95

Key Exchange

90

Cipher Strength

90

Visit our documentation page for more information, configuration guides, and books. Known issues are documented here.

This server supports TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV to prevent protocol downgrade attacks.

Authentication

Server Key and Certificate #1

Common names www.briskoda.net

Alternative names www.briskoda.net briskoda.net

Prefix handling Both (with and without WWW)

Valid from Fri, 23 Jan 2015 00:13:07 UTC

Valid until Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:03:36 UTC (expires in 5 months and 25 days)

Key RSA 2048 bits (e 65537)

Weak key (Debian) No

Issuer RapidSSL SHA256 CA - G3

Signature algorithm SHA256withRSA

Extended Validation No

Certificate Transparency No

Revocation information CRL, OCSP

Revocation status Good (not revoked)

Trusted Yes

Additional Certificates (if supplied)

Certificates provided 2 (2274 bytes)

Chain issues None

#2

Subject RapidSSL SHA256 CA - G3

Fingerprint: 0e34141846e7423d37f20dc0ab06c9bbd843dc24

Valid until Fri, 20 May 2022 21:39:32 UTC (expires in 6 years and 7 months)

Key RSA 2048 bits (e 65537)

Issuer GeoTrust Global CA

Signature algorithm SHA256withRSA

Certification Paths

Path #1: Trusted

1 Sent by server www.briskoda.net

Fingerprint: 66f069b8641bab4a017d8bf34f738fb85bc84eb0

RSA 2048 bits (e 65537) / SHA256withRSA

2 Sent by server RapidSSL SHA256 CA - G3

Fingerprint: 0e34141846e7423d37f20dc0ab06c9bbd843dc24

RSA 2048 bits (e 65537) / SHA256withRSA

3 In trust store GeoTrust Global CA Self-signed

Fingerprint: de28f4a4ffe5b92fa3c503d1a349a7f9962a8212

RSA 2048 bits (e 65537) / SHA1withRSA

Weak or insecure signature, but no impact on root certificate

Configuration

Protocols

TLS 1.2 Yes

TLS 1.1 Yes

TLS 1.0 Yes

SSL 3 No

SSL 2 No

Cipher Suites (SSL 3+ suites in server-preferred order; deprecated and SSL 2 suites at the end)

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc030) ECDH 256 bits (eq. 3072 bits RSA) FS 256

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02f) ECDH 256 bits (eq. 3072 bits RSA) FS 128

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) ECDH 256 bits (eq. 3072 bits RSA) FS 256

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc027) ECDH 256 bits (eq. 3072 bits RSA) FS 128

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) ECDH 256 bits (eq. 3072 bits RSA) FS 256

TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc013) ECDH 256 bits (eq. 3072 bits RSA) FS 128

Handshake Simulation

Android 2.3.7 No SNI 2 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (0x5) No FS RC4 128

Android 4.0.4 TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

Android 4.1.1 TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

Android 4.2.2 TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

Android 4.3 TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

Android 4.4.2 TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc030) FS 256

Android 5.0.0 TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02f) FS 128

Baidu Jan 2015 TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

BingPreview Jan 2015 TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc030) FS 256

Chrome 43 / OS X R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02f) FS 128

Firefox 31.3.0 ESR / Win 7 TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02f) FS 128

Firefox 39 / OS X R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02f) FS 128

Googlebot Feb 2015 TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02f) FS 128

IE 6 / XP No FS 1 No SNI 2 Protocol or cipher suite mismatch Fail3

IE 7 / Vista TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

IE 8 / XP No FS 1 No SNI 2 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (0x5) No FS RC4 128

IE 8-10 / Win 7 R TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

IE 11 / Win 7 R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) FS 256

IE 11 / Win 8.1 R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) FS 256

IE 10 / Win Phone 8.0 TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

IE 11 / Win Phone 8.1 R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256 (0xc027) FS 128

IE 11 / Win Phone 8.1 Update R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) FS 256

Edge 12 / Win 10 (Build 10130) R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc030) FS 256

Java 6u45 No SNI 2 TLS 1.0 TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA (0x5) No FS RC4 128

Java 7u25 TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA (0xc013) FS 128

Java 8u31 TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (0xc02f) FS 128

OpenSSL 0.9.8y Protocol or cipher suite mismatch Fail3

OpenSSL 1.0.1l R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc030) FS 256

OpenSSL 1.0.2 R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc030) FS 256

Safari 5.1.9 / OS X 10.6.8 TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

Safari 6 / iOS 6.0.1 R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) FS 256

Safari 6.0.4 / OS X 10.8.4 R TLS 1.0 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA (0xc014) FS 256

Safari 7 / iOS 7.1 R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) FS 256

Safari 7 / OS X 10.9 R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) FS 256

Safari 8 / iOS 8.4 R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) FS 256

Safari 8 / OS X 10.10 R TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384 (0xc028) FS 256

Yahoo Slurp Jan 2015 TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc030) FS 256

YandexBot Jan 2015 TLS 1.2 TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (0xc030) FS 256

(1) Clients that do not support Forward Secrecy (FS) are excluded when determining support for it.

(2) No support for virtual SSL hosting (SNI). Connects to the default site if the server uses SNI.

(3) Only first connection attempt simulated. Browsers tend to retry with a lower protocol version.

® Denotes a reference browser or client, with which we expect better effective security.

(All) We use defaults, but some platforms do not use their best protocols and features (e.g., Java 6 & 7, older IE).

Protocol Details

Secure Renegotiation Supported

Secure Client-Initiated Renegotiation No

Insecure Client-Initiated Renegotiation No

BEAST attack Not mitigated server-side (more info) TLS 1.0: 0xc014

POODLE (SSLv3) No, SSL 3 not supported (more info)

POODLE (TLS) No (more info)

Downgrade attack prevention Yes, TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV supported (more info)

SSL/TLS compression No

RC4 No

Heartbeat (extension) Yes

Heartbleed (vulnerability) No (more info)

OpenSSL CCS vuln. (CVE-2014-0224) No (more info)

Forward Secrecy With modern browsers (more info)

Next Protocol Negotiation (NPN) No

Session resumption (caching) No (IDs assigned but not accepted)

Session resumption (tickets) Yes

OCSP stapling No

Strict Transport Security (HSTS) No

Public Key Pinning (HPKP) No

Long handshake intolerance No

TLS extension intolerance No

TLS version intolerance No

Incorrect SNI alerts No

Uses common DH primes No, DHE suites not supported

DH public server param (Ys) reuse No, DHE suites not supported

SSL 2 handshake compatibility Yes

Miscellaneous

Test date Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:15:03 UTC

Test duration 118.87 seconds

HTTP status code 301

HTTP forwarding http://www.briskoda.net PLAINTEXT

HTTP server signature LiteSpeed

Server hostname li703-226.members.linode.com

SSL Report v1.19.33

Copyright © 2009-2015 Qualys, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions

Please note, the site no longer supports old versions of SSL or IE6 :-D

OOOPS, for some reason formatting has failed.

It all looked a lot neater in the preview.

I know about SSL Labs (I'm rocking an A+ score with 400/400 and do SSL things 8 hours a day...) but that doesn't really have anything to do with the location of an IP address. All I'm saying is that GeoIP stuff isn't infallible, and the fact you got a warning is not 100% conclusive in itself but needs to be combined with other security measures and a bit of common sense. In fact, I'd say GeoIP is probably the least reliable of all that, compared with checking the owner of an IP address, making sure the certificate validates up to a sensible root (and not a fake one inserted by the likes of Superfish), etc.

So what av are you using Ian?

AVAST, MBAM and Spybot S&D are the front line, with a few specialist programs for monthly scans.