Another IE 7 security flaw pops up - GET FIREFOX!

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Au79, Nov 1, 2006.

  1. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Au79

    The Doctor Guest

    The Doctor, Nov 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:S_V1h.95449$:

    >
    > http://ct.zdnet.com/clicks?t=16400320-b1b746848375c9be9555bf11dab3d02a-bf
    > &s=5&fs=0


    Vulnerability effects IE if the popup blocker is disabled (not the default).

    Regardless of the browser you use it will have vulnerabilities. I have tried Firefox and personally hate it. My
    browser of choice is Avant (IE shell with enhanced security). Security is but one feature of a browser. If all
    we cared about was security we would all be driving Volvo's and living in bunkers.

    Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox is more secure than IE.

    Reference:

    http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-6117896.html?tag=st.util.print

    People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure than product b. The fact of the matter is
    it's just not that simple. What's secure today can be totally insecure the next. Switching only gives you different
    problems.

    To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous extensions to Firefox. Extensions bypass all
    security in Firefox.

    Reference:

    http://www.rietta.com/firefox/Tutorial/security.html

    Find a well supported browser YOU like, learn and use it's security features, keep it and your OS up to date,
    practice safe surfing and you are likely as secure as you can be. In my experience (supporting 500+ users)
    nasties get on users computers not because of the browser they use but because they get sucked into
    installing malware. Social engineering can defeat even the best security as illustrated by this cartoon:

    http://outside.arc.ab.ca/staff/erkamp/security.jpg
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Nov 1, 2006
    #3
  4. Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    .....
    > Vulnerability effects IE if the popup blocker is disabled (not the
    > default).
    >
    > Regardless of the browser you use it will have vulnerabilities. I have
    > tried Firefox and personally hate it. My browser of choice is Avant (IE
    > shell with enhanced security). Security is but one feature of a browser.
    > If all we cared about was security we would all be driving Volvo's and
    > living in bunkers.
    >

    It's all about personal preferences. And deactivation of ActiveX for other
    sites except windows update.

    > Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox is more
    > secure than IE.
    >

    ......
    > People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure than
    > product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that simple. What's
    > secure today can be totally insecure the next. Switching only gives you
    > different problems.
    >

    It is a matter of diversity. A huge monoculture may be extincted by a single
    infection, while a good multitude of plants/browsers will make sure most of
    them survive. And, a monoculture always makes a nice target for attacks or
    gives bacteria/viruses/varmints/malware a nice playground to accumulate
    enough virulence to become a real danger.

    > To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous extensions
    > to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.
    >

    So does avant. Extensions to firefox are open source, which at least makes
    post-mortem debugging easier.

    The most important issue with windows still is surfing with admin
    permissions, without any warning and as default setting from the OS. Yet
    alone that makes windows a very questionable operating system.
    Not even in Vista that will change - just more annoying warnings to click
    away without a thought ...

    --
    vista policy violation: Microsoft optical mouse found penguin patterns
    on mousepad. Partition scan in progress to remove offending
    incompatible products. Reactivate MS software.
    Linux 2.6.17-mm1,Xorg7.1/nvidia [LinuxCounter#295241,ICQ#4918962]
     
    Walter Mautner, Nov 1, 2006
    #4
  5. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > Au79 <> wrote in news:S_V1h.95449$:
    >
    >>
    >> http://ct.zdnet.com/clicks?t=16400320-b1b746848375c9be9555bf11dab3d02a-bf
    >> &s=5&fs=0

    >
    > Vulnerability effects IE if the popup blocker is disabled (not the
    > default).
    >
    > Regardless of the browser you use it will have vulnerabilities.


    For sheer scope of vulnerabilities and endangerment of user's computing
    safety, IE takes is the clear winner. Your logic is keen to saying that all
    cars have the potential of crashing in a speedway, no matter what the make
    is; however, IE is like a 1978 Yugo that has seatbelts and Firefox is like
    a Volvo: If a malicious truck decided to ram your car off the road, your
    chances are with the better engineered product, and in this case, that
    would be Firefox.

    > I have
    > tried Firefox and personally hate it.


    That just sound like a personal problem.

    > My browser of choice is Avant (IE
    > shell with enhanced security).


    Other folk would prefer Opera, and yet others SeaMonkey. The point remains
    intact: IE sucks and it's just not safe for anyone. By your own admission,
    even you wouldn't dare use it straight.

    > Security is but one feature of a browser.
    > If all we cared about was security we would all be driving Volvo's and
    > living in bunkers.
    >


    Security is everyone's concern. Firefox is much more secure than IE and it
    does not cost a fraction of a Volvo. For a free download, users get to
    experience the safety, reliability, and efficiency that Firefox offers and
    IE does not.

    > Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox is more
    > secure than IE.
    >


    Who cares? The numbers speak for themselves.

    > Reference:
    >
    > http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-6117896.html?tag=st.util.print
    >
    > People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure than
    > product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that simple. What's
    > secure today can be totally insecure the next. Switching only gives you
    > different problems.
    >


    Nonsense. Switching to Firefox does not cause any problems.


    > To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous extensions
    > to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.
    >


    Again, you are using the browser of your personal choice, but you had to
    take the extra step to make it as secure as Firefox.

    > Reference:
    >
    > http://www.rietta.com/firefox/Tutorial/security.html


    The article is a tutorial on writing safe extentions for Firefox:

    "Firefox Extension Development Tutorial :: Security"

    It gives an example of an error that has been long resolved. This however
    pales in comparison to IE's myriad of patched and unpatched vulnerabilities
    that linger after many years of Microsfot's failed efforts to clean their
    act.


    >
    > Find a well supported browser YOU like, learn and use it's security
    > features, keep it and your OS up to date, practice safe surfing and you
    > are likely as secure as you can be.


    Agreed. But one can save much footwork by just using Firefox, which is
    inherently more secure than IE.


    > In my experience (supporting 500+
    > users) nasties get on users computers not because of the browser they use
    > but because they get sucked into installing malware. Social engineering
    > can defeat even the best security as illustrated by this cartoon:
    >
    > http://outside.arc.ab.ca/staff/erkamp/security.jpg


    True, if user awareness is 80% of the solution, then it behooves sysadmins
    to educate their users and select the better tool for the job. Did I
    mentioned that Firefox is much safer than IE7?

    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
     
    Au79, Nov 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox is
    > more secure than IE.
    >
    > Reference:
    > http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-6117896.html?tag=st.util.print


    You keep mentioning that. <g> I'll wager that if you called up the
    "security chief" at each and every browser company, they would *all* say
    the same exact things, even Mickeysoft. It's a matter of .. well .. not
    opening one's company up to lawsuits?

    "Our browser is more secure!"
    "I believed you and I got infected; I'm suing!!!

    > People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure
    > than product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that simple.
    > What's secure today can be totally insecure the next. Switching only
    > gives you different problems.


    Sure, that's true, but stop and think: which browser company issues
    patches quicker? (Mozilla vs. Microsoft)

    > To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous
    > extensions to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.


    Firefox was/is designed to be an unbloated slim browser. The user gets
    to choose what extra functionality s/he would like, rather than having
    to accept a boatload of stuff they will never use at all.

    Wouldn't you agree with this?

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Nov 2, 2006
    #6
  7. On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:16:41 +0000, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox is
    >> more secure than IE.
    >>
    >> Reference:
    >> http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-6117896.html?tag=st.util.print

    >
    > You keep mentioning that. <g> I'll wager that if you called up the
    > "security chief" at each and every browser company, they would *all* say
    > the same exact things, even Mickeysoft. It's a matter of .. well .. not
    > opening one's company up to lawsuits?
    >
    > "Our browser is more secure!"
    > "I believed you and I got infected; I'm suing!!!
    >
    >> People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure
    >> than product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that simple.
    >> What's secure today can be totally insecure the next. Switching only
    >> gives you different problems.

    >
    > Sure, that's true, but stop and think: which browser company issues
    > patches quicker? (Mozilla vs. Microsoft)
    >
    >> To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous
    >> extensions to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.

    >
    > Firefox was/is designed to be an unbloated slim browser. The user gets
    > to choose what extra functionality s/he would like, rather than having
    > to accept a boatload of stuff they will never use at all.
    >
    > Wouldn't you agree with this?


    Yet another IE problem:
    http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/20797/discuss

    Even if I used Gatesware, I certainly wouldn't touch IE. <shudder>

    --
    MicroSoft's original corporate home was very interesting.
    The Sundowner Motel in Albuquerque. The Sundowner was a seedy
    little Motel that was widely used by drug dealers and Hookers for their business.
    Microsoft was born in a Whore House! Doesn't that explain their Business ethics?
     
    William Poaster, Nov 2, 2006
    #7
  8. William Poaster <> loquaciously articulated in
    news:p:
    >
    > Yet another IE problem:
    > http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/20797/discuss
    >
    > Even if I used Gatesware, I certainly wouldn't touch IE. <shudder>



    You can even download the exploits. Quite interesting... You tried
    any of them?

    --

    Fear! It can sometimes be a useful emotion.

    For instance: let's just say you're an astronaut on the moon,
    and you fear that your partner has been turned into Dracula.
    The next time he goes out collecting the moon rocks,
    WHAM!!! - you just slam the door behind him and blast off.

    He might call you on the radio and say he's not Dracula,
    but you just say, "Ohhh, you just think again there, Batman."
     
    Bucky Breeder, Nov 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Au79 <> wrote in news:Jgb2h.99740$:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Au79 <> wrote in news:S_V1h.95449$:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> http://ct.zdnet.com/clicks?t=16400320-b1b746848375c9be9555bf11dab3d02a-bf
    >>> &s=5&fs=0

    >>
    >> Vulnerability effects IE if the popup blocker is disabled (not the
    >> default).
    >>
    >> Regardless of the browser you use it will have vulnerabilities.

    >
    > For sheer scope of vulnerabilities and endangerment of user's computing
    > safety, IE takes is the clear winner. Your logic is keen to saying that all
    > cars have the potential of crashing in a speedway, no matter what the make
    > is; however, IE is like a 1978 Yugo that has seatbelts and Firefox is like
    > a Volvo: If a malicious truck decided to ram your car off the road, your
    > chances are with the better engineered product, and in this case, that
    > would be Firefox.


    It's interesting that for the first 6 months of 2006 FF vulnerabilies exceeded IE's:

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060925-7818.html

    >> I have
    >> tried Firefox and personally hate it.

    >
    > That just sound like a personal problem.
    >
    >> My browser of choice is Avant (IE
    >> shell with enhanced security).

    >
    > Other folk would prefer Opera, and yet others SeaMonkey. The point remains
    > intact: IE sucks and it's just not safe for anyone. By your own admission,
    > even you wouldn't dare use it straight.


    I have no security issues with IE and use it's rendering engine. I am not found of it's user interface.

    >> Security is but one feature of a browser.
    >> If all we cared about was security we would all be driving Volvo's and
    >> living in bunkers.
    >>

    > Security is everyone's concern. Firefox is much more secure than IE and it
    > does not cost a fraction of a Volvo. For a free download, users get to
    > experience the safety, reliability, and efficiency that Firefox offers and
    > IE does not.


    My experience is that every security 'incident' that happens while browsing is not becuase of the browser
    they use it's becuase they said yes to something that they should have. No browser regardless of how
    'secure' it is will prevent social engineering attacks.

    >> Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox is more
    >> secure than IE.
    >>

    > Who cares? The numbers speak for themselves.


    What numbers?

    >> Reference:
    >>
    >> http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-6117896.html?tag=st.util.print
    >>
    >> People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure than
    >> product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that simple. What's
    >> secure today can be totally insecure the next. Switching only gives you
    >> different problems.
    >>

    >
    > Nonsense. Switching to Firefox does not cause any problems.


    Hmmm....this forum must be for something else:

    http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=38

    >> To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous extensions
    >> to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.
    >>

    >
    > Again, you are using the browser of your personal choice, but you had to
    > take the extra step to make it as secure as Firefox.


    Oh you mean I have to install it?

    >> Reference:
    >>
    >> http://www.rietta.com/firefox/Tutorial/security.html

    >
    > The article is a tutorial on writing safe extentions for Firefox:
    >
    > "Firefox Extension Development Tutorial :: Security"
    >
    > It gives an example of an error that has been long resolved. This however
    > pales in comparison to IE's myriad of patched and unpatched vulnerabilities
    > that linger after many years of Microsfot's failed efforts to clean their
    > act.
    >>
    >> Find a well supported browser YOU like, learn and use it's security
    >> features, keep it and your OS up to date, practice safe surfing and you
    >> are likely as secure as you can be.

    >
    > Agreed. But one can save much footwork by just using Firefox, which is
    > inherently more secure than IE.


    How EXACTLY is FF inherently more secure?

    >> In my experience (supporting 500+
    >> users) nasties get on users computers not because of the browser they use
    >> but because they get sucked into installing malware. Social engineering
    >> can defeat even the best security as illustrated by this cartoon:
    >>
    >> http://outside.arc.ab.ca/staff/erkamp/security.jpg

    >
    > True, if user awareness is 80% of the solution, then it behooves sysadmins
    > to educate their users and select the better tool for the job. Did I
    > mentioned that Firefox is much safer than IE7?


    Keep dreaming...that's like saying SUV's are safer than cars. You'll end up in the ditch real soon. Here is an
    interesting read (especially the part about changing browsers):

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/pulling.mspx
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Nov 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in news:ZFb2h.166783$QZ1.82234
    @bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox is
    >> more secure than IE.
    >>
    >> Reference:
    >> http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-6117896.html?tag=st.util.print

    >
    > You keep mentioning that. <g> I'll wager that if you called up the
    > "security chief" at each and every browser company, they would *all* say
    > the same exact things, even Mickeysoft. It's a matter of .. well .. not
    > opening one's company up to lawsuits?
    >
    > "Our browser is more secure!"
    > "I believed you and I got infected; I'm suing!!!


    I keep mentioning becase if you new anything about security metrics (which presumeably the security expert
    at Mozilla does) you would realize that things are just not that simple. This includes everything from the version
    you are using, how it's configured, extensions (and there versions), the OS (and it's patch level) and probably
    the most important the person using it.

    >> People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure
    >> than product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that simple.
    >> What's secure today can be totally insecure the next. Switching only
    >> gives you different problems.

    >
    > Sure, that's true, but stop and think: which browser company issues
    > patches quicker? (Mozilla vs. Microsoft)


    Again only one metric of many.

    >> To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous
    >> extensions to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.

    >
    > Firefox was/is designed to be an unbloated slim browser. The user gets
    > to choose what extra functionality s/he would like, rather than having
    > to accept a boatload of stuff they will never use at all.
    >
    > Wouldn't you agree with this?


    No I wouldn't. There are numerous features in FF that I have no interest in (inline spell checking for example).
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Nov 2, 2006
    #10
  11. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    William Poaster <> wrote in news:p:

    > On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:16:41 +0000, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >
    >> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>
    >>> Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox is
    >>> more secure than IE.
    >>>
    >>> Reference:
    >>> http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-6117896.html?tag=st.util.print

    >>
    >> You keep mentioning that. <g> I'll wager that if you called up the
    >> "security chief" at each and every browser company, they would *all* say
    >> the same exact things, even Mickeysoft. It's a matter of .. well .. not
    >> opening one's company up to lawsuits?
    >>
    >> "Our browser is more secure!"
    >> "I believed you and I got infected; I'm suing!!!
    >>
    >>> People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure
    >>> than product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that simple.
    >>> What's secure today can be totally insecure the next. Switching only
    >>> gives you different problems.

    >>
    >> Sure, that's true, but stop and think: which browser company issues
    >> patches quicker? (Mozilla vs. Microsoft)
    >>
    >>> To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous
    >>> extensions to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.

    >>
    >> Firefox was/is designed to be an unbloated slim browser. The user gets
    >> to choose what extra functionality s/he would like, rather than having
    >> to accept a boatload of stuff they will never use at all.
    >>
    >> Wouldn't you agree with this?

    >
    > Yet another IE problem:
    > http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/20797/discuss
    >
    > Even if I used Gatesware, I certainly wouldn't touch IE. <shudder>


    All browser have problems and will continue to have problems. Current there appears to be 2 DoS issues with
    FF:

    http://news.com.com/2102-1002_3-6131624.html?tag=st.util.print
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Nov 2, 2006
    #11
  12. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    Walter Mautner <> wrote in
    news::

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    > ....
    >> Vulnerability effects IE if the popup blocker is disabled (not the
    >> default).
    >>
    >> Regardless of the browser you use it will have vulnerabilities. I have
    >> tried Firefox and personally hate it. My browser of choice is Avant (IE
    >> shell with enhanced security). Security is but one feature of a
    >> browser. If all we cared about was security we would all be driving
    >> Volvo's and living in bunkers.
    >>

    > It's all about personal preferences. And deactivation of ActiveX for
    > other sites except windows update.
    >
    >> Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox is
    >> more secure than IE.
    >>

    > .....
    >> People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure
    >> than product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that simple.
    >> What's secure today can be totally insecure the next. Switching only
    >> gives you different problems.
    >>

    > It is a matter of diversity. A huge monoculture may be extincted by a
    > single infection, while a good multitude of plants/browsers will make
    > sure most of them survive. And, a monoculture always makes a nice
    > target for attacks or gives bacteria/viruses/varmints/malware a nice
    > playground to accumulate enough virulence to become a real danger.
    >
    >> To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous
    >> extensions to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.
    >>

    > So does avant. Extensions to firefox are open source, which at least
    > makes post-mortem debugging easier.
    >
    > The most important issue with windows still is surfing with admin
    > permissions, without any warning and as default setting from the OS. Yet
    > alone that makes windows a very questionable operating system.
    > Not even in Vista that will change - just more annoying warnings to
    > click away without a thought ...


    The most important issue IMO is getting users to NOT click on stupid things in the first place. Social engineering
    can defeat the best security.
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Nov 2, 2006
    #12
  13. Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>
    >>> Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox
    >>> is more secure than IE.
    >>>
    >>> Reference: http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-6117896.html?tag=st.util.print

    >>
    >> You keep mentioning that. <g> I'll wager that if you called up the
    >> "security chief" at each and every browser company, they would *all*
    >> say the same exact things, even Mickeysoft. It's a matter of .. well
    >> .. not opening one's company up to lawsuits?
    >>
    >> "Our browser is more secure!"
    >> "I believed you and I got infected; I'm suing!!!

    >
    > I keep mentioning becase if you new anything about security metrics


    You shouldn't assume that I don't.

    > (which presumeably the security expert at Mozilla does) you would
    > realize that things are just not that simple. This includes
    > everything from the version you are using, how it's configured,
    > extensions (and there versions), the OS (and it's patch level) and
    > probably the most important the person using it.


    My point was that you always post that link to Window's statement as a
    slug against Firefox, rather than point out that it applies to all
    browser companies and what all of those executives would say, had they
    been interviewed in a similar situation. She got "published" recently
    because she just started the new job.

    >>> People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure
    >>> than product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that
    >>> simple. What's secure today can be totally insecure the next.
    >>> Switching only gives you different problems.

    >>
    >> Sure, that's true, but stop and think: which browser company issues
    >> patches quicker? (Mozilla vs. Microsoft)

    >
    > Again only one metric of many.


    ...but true. <g>

    >>> To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous
    >>> extensions to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.

    >>
    >> Firefox was/is designed to be an unbloated slim browser. The user
    >> gets to choose what extra functionality s/he would like, rather than
    >> having to accept a boatload of stuff they will never use at all.
    >>
    >> Wouldn't you agree with this?

    >
    > No I wouldn't. There are numerous features in FF that I have no
    > interest in (inline spell checking for example).


    ...as I am sure there are features in Avant in which you have no
    interest.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Nov 2, 2006
    #13
  14. Au79

    tdstr Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    > Keep dreaming...that's like saying SUV's are safer than cars. You'll end up in the ditch real soon. Here is an
    > interesting read (especially the part about changing browsers):
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/pulling.mspx


    Well gee, I guess MS is the authority when it comes to browser security.
     
    tdstr, Nov 2, 2006
    #14
  15. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in
    news:KLt2h.8422$:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >
    >> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Even the new security chief at Mozilla will not state that Firefox
    >>>> is more secure than IE.
    >>>>
    >>>> Reference:
    >>>> http://news.com.com/2102-7355_3-6117896.html?tag=st.util.print
    >>>
    >>> You keep mentioning that. <g> I'll wager that if you called up the
    >>> "security chief" at each and every browser company, they would *all*
    >>> say the same exact things, even Mickeysoft. It's a matter of .. well
    >>> .. not opening one's company up to lawsuits?
    >>>
    >>> "Our browser is more secure!"
    >>> "I believed you and I got infected; I'm suing!!!

    >>
    >> I keep mentioning becase if you new anything about security metrics

    >
    > You shouldn't assume that I don't.
    >
    >> (which presumeably the security expert at Mozilla does) you would
    >> realize that things are just not that simple. This includes
    >> everything from the version you are using, how it's configured,
    >> extensions (and there versions), the OS (and it's patch level) and
    >> probably the most important the person using it.

    >
    > My point was that you always post that link to Window's statement as a
    > slug against Firefox, rather than point out that it applies to all
    > browser companies and what all of those executives would say, had they
    > been interviewed in a similar situation. She got "published" recently
    > because she just started the new job.


    I have nothing against FF. I have problems with people thinking that it's secure. It's not (nor is any other
    browser). The sooner people realize that regardless of the browser they use it's vulnerable and to assume
    otherwise is putting yourself at risk. Find a browser YOU like, learn and use it's security features and most
    importantly practice safe surfing and you are likely as safe as you can be.

    >>>> People want the one line answer that product a is better/more secure
    >>>> than product b. The fact of the matter is it's just not that
    >>>> simple. What's secure today can be totally insecure the next.
    >>>> Switching only gives you different problems.
    >>>
    >>> Sure, that's true, but stop and think: which browser company issues
    >>> patches quicker? (Mozilla vs. Microsoft)

    >>
    >> Again only one metric of many.

    >
    > ..but true. <g>
    >
    >>>> To get the functionality of Avant I would need to add numerous
    >>>> extensions to Firefox. Extensions bypass all security in Firefox.
    >>>
    >>> Firefox was/is designed to be an unbloated slim browser. The user
    >>> gets to choose what extra functionality s/he would like, rather than
    >>> having to accept a boatload of stuff they will never use at all.
    >>>
    >>> Wouldn't you agree with this?

    >>
    >> No I wouldn't. There are numerous features in FF that I have no
    >> interest in (inline spell checking for example).

    >
    > ..as I am sure there are features in Avant in which you have no
    > interest.


    Avant is my preferred browser but that doesn't mean there are things in it that I don't like or don't use. I have
    looked at pretty much every tabbed browser for Windows and it best met MY needs (Maxthon was a close
    second).

    Again I am not trying to badmouth FF or push IE. They both have their good and bad points but to simply
    state one is 'more secure' than the other is not possible (thus my reference to the Window article). If you
    want to say FF issues patches faster than Microsoft you will get no arguements from me. That in itself
    doesn't make it a 'more secure' browser.

    I would argue the biggest factor in browser 'security' is not the browser itself but the person using it. I have
    yet to see malware arrive on a system without user intervention.
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Nov 2, 2006
    #15
  16. Au79

    Fuzzy Logic Guest

    tdstr <> wrote in
    news::

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >> Keep dreaming...that's like saying SUV's are safer than cars. You'll
    >> end up in the ditch real soon. Here is an interesting read (especially
    >> the part about changing browsers):
    >>
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/pulling.mspx

    >
    > Well gee, I guess MS is the authority when it comes to browser security.


    I suspect that MS knows more about browser security than you do. In addition this column is not written by a
    MS employee and barely mentions anything regarding Microsoft.
     
    Fuzzy Logic, Nov 2, 2006
    #16
  17. Au79

    tdstr Guest

    Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    > tdstr <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>> Keep dreaming...that's like saying SUV's are safer than cars. You'll
    >>> end up in the ditch real soon. Here is an interesting read (especially
    >>> the part about changing browsers):
    >>>
    >>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/pulling.mspx

    >> Well gee, I guess MS is the authority when it comes to browser security.

    >
    > I suspect that MS knows more about browser security than you do. In addition this column is not written by a
    > MS employee and barely mentions anything regarding Microsoft.


    Irrelevant if the writer works for M$ or not. M$ published it.

    Oh, you suspected wrong.
     
    tdstr, Nov 2, 2006
    #17
  18. Fuzzy Logic wrote:

    > I would argue the biggest factor in browser 'security' is not the
    > browser itself but the person using it. I have yet to see malware
    > arrive on a system without user intervention.


    For this statement, I do wholeheartedly agree.

    The rest of our conversation is more or less now a matter of semantics,
    so we'll put it to rest.

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Nov 2, 2006
    #18
  19. On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:00:33 -0600, tdstr wrote:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >> tdstr <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>> Keep dreaming...that's like saying SUV's are safer than cars. You'll
    >>>> end up in the ditch real soon. Here is an interesting read (especially
    >>>> the part about changing browsers):
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/pulling.mspx
    >>> Well gee, I guess MS is the authority when it comes to browser security.

    >>
    >> I suspect that MS knows more about browser security than you do.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......etc.

    >> In addition this column is not written by a
    >> MS employee and barely mentions anything regarding Microsoft.

    >
    > Irrelevant if the writer works for M$ or not. M$ published it.
    >
    > Oh, you suspected wrong.


    --
    MicroSoft's original corporate home was very interesting.
    The Sundowner Motel in Albuquerque. The Sundowner was a seedy
    little Motel that was widely used by drug dealers and Hookers for their business.
    Microsoft was born in a Whore House! Doesn't that explain their Business ethics?
     
    William Poaster, Nov 2, 2006
    #19
  20. Au79

    Au79 Guest

    tdstr wrote:

    > Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >> tdstr <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> Fuzzy Logic wrote:
    >>>> Keep dreaming...that's like saying SUV's are safer than cars. You'll
    >>>> end up in the ditch real soon. Here is an interesting read (especially
    >>>> the part about changing browsers):
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/pulling.mspx
    >>> Well gee, I guess MS is the authority when it comes to browser security.

    >>
    >> I suspect that MS knows more about browser security than you do. In
    >> addition this column is not written by a MS employee and barely mentions
    >> anything regarding Microsoft.

    >
    > Irrelevant if the writer works for M$ or not. M$ published it.
    >
    > Oh, you suspected wrong.


    It's the "fuzzy" in logic.

    --
    ....................
    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
    http://rixstep.com/1/20040719,00.shtml
    http://free.thelinuxstore.ca/
     
    Au79, Nov 3, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Agent777
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    486
    Ralph Fox
    Jun 9, 2005
  2. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    518
  3. Au79

    Microsoft hit by another unpatched IE flaw

    Au79, Apr 7, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    383
  4. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    ANOTHER security flaw in M$IE being exploited

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Mar 26, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    445
    Bette Noir
    Mar 28, 2006
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Another Fundamental Windows Security Flaw

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 24, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    788
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Sep 9, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page