| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
This week in security | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Multiple vulnerabilities that could allow an attacker to install malicious code or steal personal data have been discovered in the Mozilla Suite and the Firefox browser. Ian Latter, senior security consultant at Internet security specialist Pure Hacking, said that most of the vulnerabilities are based on the way the applications handle JavaScript. Another issue could allow malicious scripts to gain access to random pieces of memory, he said. As security bugs swarm around the Firefox browser, volunteer marketers want to shore up the open-source project's security message. While the Mozilla Foundation made patches available for significant new security holes, Firefox partisans finally acknowledged that the core sales pitch for their browser may be vulnerable. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 300 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:46:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 16451 (65.19.17.123) at 4/25/2005 9:36:04 AM |
|
"The versions of Firefox up to version 1.0.3 have had terrible security risks," wrote one participant for the volunteer Firefox promotion
Parkkkkkkkkkkkkker, you dog! |
| #2 By 23275 (209.149.207.40) at 4/25/2005 6:39:51 PM |
|
Against what one would have to characterize as "modest" scrutiny, the truth about the security model available to FF/Moz has fallen well short of the editorial hopefulness expressed only a few short months ago.
Taking nothing away from the developers at all, this is and was to be expected. Balance this against the continuing improvments in commercial software security where it may be aregued that far more scrutiny and governance are applied, and one has a very strong case in favor of the value presented in commercial products - they "cost money" for exactly the opposite reasons that OSS is represented to be free. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/25/2005 11:57:09 PM |
|
#4, It's very simple from my perspective and it's not about money.
When there is a sense that there is ownership, people respond differently - where there is risk, there is concern, oversight, governance, persistence, patience, a plan and very often - provided one stays at it, good results. It costs and again, money is only one thing it costs, but it is a driver. When anything has no cost, it is much harder to attach and sustain all of the above to it - at least for long enough for it to compete effectively. So, again, without taking anything away from the devs of FF/Moz [they deserve every credit], it isn't even close to the same as commerical variants for the reasons listed above. All of the elements that make up a success are simply not available to the model. The devs themselves cannot easily sustain the effort. Giving them a pass on security just because was/is wrong and naive. The truth of that is unfortunately, being revealed. In a real small nutshell, commercial software is strong for the same reasons anything one owns that cost him/her is often better, or at least better supported and at the same time, anything that is free is less likely to be so. #5, Yikes! This post was edited by lketchum on Monday, April 25, 2005 at 23:58. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 300 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:46:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
