«

wrote:
> I hate to break this to everyone, but according to
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks...22/701346.aspx
>
> IE7 is now the safest browser.
>
> Now that you are all beginning to delete Firefox and install IE7,
> there is GOOD NEWS. The good news is that Firefox 2.0x is only a tiny
> precentage of a point below IE7.
>
> On the other hand, Opera comes in as the worst on all accounts.
>
> What shocks me is that IE6 is safer than Firefox 1.x
>
> Here is what they list:
>
> Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.x
>
> 5.42% of all Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.x installations were
> detected as being insecure.
>
> This is based on 211,521 system installations.
>
> ---------
> Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x
>
> 9.94% of all Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x installations were
> detected as being insecure.
>
> This is based on 132,336 system installations.
>
> ------------
> Firefox 2.0x
>
> 5.47% of all Mozilla Firefox 2.0.x installations were detected as
> being insecure.
>
> This is based on 166,856 system installations.
>
> ------------
> Firefox 1.x
>
> 38.16% of all Mozilla Firefox 1.x installations were detected as being
> insecure.
>
> This is based on 39,930 system installations.
>
> --------------
> Opera 9.x
>
> 12.39% of all Opera 9.x installations were detected as being insecure.
>
> This is based on 46,034 system installations.
>
> -------------
> Opera 8.x
>
> 98.81% of all Opera 8.x installations were detected as being insecure.
>
> This is based on 3,878 system installations.
>
> ------------
> Opera 7.x
>
> 88.78% of all Opera 7.x installations were detected as being insecure.
>
> This is based on 820 system installations.

The fact that "installations" are detected as insecure does not directly
reflect on the browser used. It's a measure of how users set up their
security systems more than anything else. If I decide not to use my
firewall and, as a consequence, make my system insecure how is that a
reflection on Firefox?


--
Regards

Steve G

SteveG <_@_._> wrote in
news:IOcPh.2813$ k:
> John may (or may not) lack comprehension skills but I have to tell you
> that "validify" is NOT an English word. I'm guessing your American and
> exercising your "right" to make up words just because you don't know the
> correct one to use. Try "validate" instead
>
> <flame proof jacket now donned in anticipation of impending tirade> <BCG>

I do have comprehension skills i just think this guy who started this is a
troll who is in love with microsoft

Le Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:03:51 -0500, businessman a caressé son clavier pour
nous dire dans ce qui suit :

>>> IE7 is now the safest browser.
>>
>>A look at the source discounts this immediately. Also, this is the same
>>troll who argued for weeks about a moot point in an another group.
>
> Trolls such as yourself are automatically added to my kill filters.

*Your* post is *the* troll ....

--
Utiliser le butineur, le courrielleur, le lecteur de nouvelles
et l'OS avec lesquels vous vous sentez le plus sécurisé

>>What shocks me is that IE6 is safer than Firefox 1.x

I find that VERY hard to believe.

On 2007-03-30, <> wrote:

> I hate to break this to everyone, but according to
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks...22/701346.aspx
>
> IE7 is now the safest browser.

The common denominator on these seens to be Windows. Get rid of Windows
and your spyware issue vanishes.

--

John ()

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:38:32 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:05:11 +0000 (UTC), john sumner
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> wrote in
>>> news::
>>>
>>>> Neither. Just sharing what I found on the website link that I
>>>> included in my post. If you actually read my whole post, Firefox 2.0x
>>>> came in almost identical, just a fraction of a percent lower. On the
>>>> other hand Firefox 1.x did not come in good. On the other hand, Opera
>>>> was very poor.
>>>>
>>>> I dont believe everything I read on websites, so I was hoping to get
>>>> some useful feedback on this. Unfortunately your reply did not fall
>>>> into the "useful" category.
>>>>
>>> And your point being?
>>
>> Apparently you lack reading comprehension !!!!!
>>
>> Now putting aside trolls such as yourself who only waste bandwidth,
>>
>> Does anyone on here have any security facts to share. I'd like to
>> validify this. I find it kind of hard to imagine that IE6 was more
>> secure than Firefox 1.x. I have not tried IE7, so I can not
>> personally comment. I was always under the impression that FF was
>> pretty secure, at least that is what everyone kept saying, but if this
>> information is accurate, all versions of FF prior to 2.0x was not very
>> secure at all, and IE6 was actually more secure. If anyone has any
>> facts or know of other websites, I'd sure like to know what is true.
>>
>>
>
>John may (or may not) lack comprehension skills but I have to tell you
>that "validify" is NOT an English word. I'm guessing your American and
>exercising your "right" to make up words just because you don't know the
>correct one to use. Try "validate" instead
>
><flame proof jacket now donned in anticipation of impending tirade> <BCG>

Thanks That word had me stumbling..... now I know !!!!

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:44:31 GMT, Zaghadka <>
wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:13:00 -0500, in alt.fan.mozilla,
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>I
>>have a life outside of my computer.
>
>As do I. ;^)
>
>Your reply has little to do with browser security, however. If you came here to
>bash Linux, you came to the wrong group. Go to a Linux group, pick a distro,
>and talk about it, and they will be able to tell you about what is wrong with
>their implementation of Linux, and Linux in general, because there is plenty.
>
>I will say that the underlying security model in Linux is better than that of
>Windows, and that's why Windows has all those Admin context exploits on it.
>When a software developer doesn't have the sense to keep the cursor rendering,
>or the JPEG rendering, or Windows Metafile *rendering* out of the ROOT/Admin
>context, anything can happen. ;^)
>
>Windows has had exploits, both in GUI Plus (JPEG exploit), WMFs (backdoor), and
>cursor rendering (arbitrary code launch) that will allow an attacker to take
>control of your system. In other words, in Windows, you can get rooted just by
>viewing a picture.
>
>And don't get me started about the OS contexts in Windows that even *allow*
>something like a "rootkit" to exist in the first place.
>
>So are you sure about your choice of OS and how "easy" it is to operate, or are
>you simply ignorant and lulled into a *false* sense of security?
>
>Good, I'm glad you think you've made the right choice. But don't click on any
>phishing links in your emails, if you can tell the difference, because your
>choice is going to get your box zombied if you're not careful, and it may have
>nothing to do with your choice of *browser*.
>
>Sony would've rootkitted your machine just for autorunning a CD.
>
>I run Windows XP as my primary OS as well, and it takes a *lot* of time and
>work to secure it properly. It is, to my mind, no "easier" than Linux, and
>certainly more dangerous.

You are right. I did not come here to bash Linux. I did not bring it
up either. I dont think I was bashing it when I said I want nothing
to do with it. I'll leave it for the high school crowd, which seems to
be where it gets used the most.

And for the record I dont click on ANY links in my email, in fact I
use a text only Win3.x email software and that is all I will ever use.
Outlook Express is pure garbage. In fact of all the Microsoft
software, I consider OE to be the worst of the worst. I completely
deleted it from my drive. I use email to communicate, not to look at
stupid and irritating smiley faces that dance around my screen. HTML
email is purely assenine.

Now back to determining which browser is the most secure !!!!

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:09:00 +0000 (UTC), john sumner
<> wrote:

>SteveG <_@_._> wrote in
>news:IOcPh.2813$. uk:
>> John may (or may not) lack comprehension skills but I have to tell you
>> that "validify" is NOT an English word. I'm guessing your American and
>> exercising your "right" to make up words just because you don't know the
>> correct one to use. Try "validate" instead
>>
>> <flame proof jacket now donned in anticipation of impending tirade> <BCG>
>
>I do have comprehension skills i just think this guy who started this is a
>troll who is in love with microsoft

I am the guy that started this thread, and I amd not a troll, because
I DID NOT make the website that listed these facts and figures.
Why dont you go to the site yourself. Look at the bar on the left.
Each of these 3 browsers are listed with several versions. I am
trying to get opinions. I find it hard to believe that FF 1.x was
less secure than IE6. I will not say what I believe about IE7 since I
have not used it. I would hope that MS fixed the security issues, but
they dont always keep up with things.

GO HERE:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks...22/701346.aspx

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:56:49 -0500, John Thompson
<> wrote:

>On 2007-03-30, <> wrote:
>
>> I hate to break this to everyone, but according to
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks...22/701346.aspx
>>
>> IE7 is now the safest browser.
>
>The common denominator on these seens to be Windows. Get rid of Windows
>and your spyware issue vanishes.

It's easy to talk, isn't it !!!!
I'd love to get rid of Windows, but these days one cant do much with
DOS, and OS2 is dead. Of course there's always the Macintosh if one
can afford them.

On Mar 30, 6:32 pm, business...@nomail.com wrote:
> GO HERE:http://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks...22/701346.aspx

I don't think its fair to quote or listen to them. I mean, do you
know what msmvp stands for? Its "Microsoft Most Valuable
Professional." They're the "Ultimate Destination for Blogs by
Current and Former Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals."

So, of course those people will say IE is the best.