| 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 |
 |
Jeff Jones: Internet Explorer and Firefox Vulnerability Analysis | |
|
||
| Time: 06:26 EST/11:26 GMT | News Source: Microsoft | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
For most people, their web browser is central to their interaction with the Internet, connecting to global web sites and helping them consume online services providing everything from booking flights to banking services to online shopping. This reality makes browsers a key tool when evaluating the security experience of users as the browser interprets Web content and programs delivered from around the world. Over the past few years, there has been much discussion of the need for improvements in browser security, but few hard data studies performed to support assertions concerning the security of available browsers. This report documents the results of my analysis of Internet Explorer and Firefox vulnerabilities over the past few years since Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP SP2 became available and Mozilla launched Firefox. The report in detail examines vulnerabilities over the past 3 years, breaks them down by severity, looks at version-over-version trends for each browser and finally examines how each browser is doing in terms of unfixed vulnerabilities. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 399 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:09:43 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2231 (72.5.151.4) at 12/4/2007 7:12:40 AM |
|
No analysis is valid unless ALL vulnerabilities are public.
http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2007/11/30/critical-vulnerability-in-microsoft-metrics/ |
| #2 By 12071 (124.168.186.163) at 12/4/2007 7:45:26 AM |
| This has already be shredded to bits in it's original thread. Is Microsoft running a mass security FUD campaign at the moment? They figured out that fixing bugs is too time consuming... it's better to let PR FUD do it's job. |
| #3 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 12/4/2007 10:13:31 AM |
|
we're little and poor and community based.... - that is what FF would have us believe...
That's the part that just makes me wanna puke. Forget the security numbers BS for now... FF/Moz are bank-rolled to whatever they need from Google. Many 10's of millions. They are not some humble community activity, but a "front" for Google. Where is the outcry about how fundamentally dishonest they are and how insincere they are about all this "community" developed crap? They are most commercial - just as Google is. Until they come clean on this point, I'm not giving much credibility to anything else they have to say. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/4/2007 10:55:14 AM |
|
#3: The ActiveWin admins need to look into how parkkker hacked Ketchum's account here...
we're little and poor and community based.... Mozilla as an org is small, community-based and a non-profit organization that is reliant on donations. All of that is true. That's the part that just makes me wanna puke. Yet you have no problem with the myriad statements MS makes that are blatantly false. Bizarre. FF/Moz are bank-rolled to whatever they need from Google. Many 10's of millions. They are not some humble community activity, but a "front" for Google. Google is their major patron, but I am unclear on how you presume that means they are a front for Google. People donate money all the time to a variety of causes and organizations. Does that make those causes and organizations "fronts" for those who made the donations? Do oyu have any actual facts that can show that Mozilla is an agent of Google's? Where is the outcry about how fundamentally dishonest they are and how insincere they are about all this "community" developed crap? What dishonesty are you referring to? If you're looking for an outcry against something, perhaps you should investigate the lack of an outcry about Microsoft blatantly bribing that Nigerian company to displace Mandriva. They are most commercial - just as Google is. They are a non-profit foundation. Until they come clean on this point, I'm not giving much credibility to anything else they have to say. What point are you talking about? You've made a bunch of unrelated statements and seem to be trying to imply some sort of unethical behaviour that isn't apparent to me. It's amazing that you can be so up in arms about some supposed chicanery on Mozilla's part, but you have no problems with anything Microsoft does. Amazing. Fantastically hypocritical, but amazing none the less. |
| #5 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 12/4/2007 11:26:47 AM |
|
#4, MS is a commercial corporation that makes no bones about its intent to compete.
That is accurate, and also honest. FF/Moz pretend to be something they are not. They are a commercial enterprise - fronting to the benefit of a larger commercial enterprise - that is how I see them and I submit that any presentation to the contrary, is not accurate. I think they are a front for Google. Google pays their way. Google benefits. They need to stop with the nonsense and simply admit what they are. |
| #6 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 12/4/2007 11:50:27 AM |
|
#5: If you can prove that they are a "for profit" organization, then we can discuss their alleged fraud. Otherwise, they are a non-profit organization, as they declare themselves to be, until proven otherwise. There is no law that I am aware of that says that a non-profit foundation can only have so much in donations before they no longer qualify as a non-profit. Google competes against Microsoft. If they wish to donate to other organizations, even non-profit ones, to help that goal, as a for profit enterprise, which Google most certainly is, then that is their right.
Once again, I ask. Where is your proof? FYI: Pointing to a blog entry you previously wrote does not constitute proof. Repeating what you have already said does not constitute proof either. |
| #7 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 12/4/2007 12:00:40 PM |
| #6, The same as it is the right of MS to compete??? |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/4/2007 1:08:29 PM |
|
#5: They are a commercial enterprise - fronting to the benefit of a larger commercial enterprise - that is how I see them and I submit that any presentation to the contrary, is not accurate.
And you would be wrong. I think you need to take off the tinfoil hat you've accused me of wearing. If everything is as you say then you would think that Mozilla would be in breach of US federal law. I think they are a front for Google. Google pays their way. Google benefits. Correction: Google pays their way. Everyone benefits. Even you. Without Firefox and other Mozilla projects, MS would have little interest in continuing to develop in areas it thought it had already "won". {i]They need to stop with the nonsense and simply admit what they are. Your accusation holds no water, and they certainly have no obligation to address your supposition of what they are or aren't. |
| #9 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at 12/4/2007 1:14:14 PM |
|
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-9776759-46.html
"The Firefox browser may not be as independent as previously thought. Mozilla essentially owns Firefox, and it proved so when it flexed its muscles last year in forcing Debian to rename its browser IceWeasel. However, the open secret in the tech sector is that at the end of the day, Google calls the shots. As this blog post will explain, when a pro-user security feature in the browser threatens Google's business model, it is the feature that is made to compromise--not the search engine. First, a few highlights of the Firefox-Google relationship. Fact: $56 million of the $66 million that Mozilla made in 2006 came from Google. The vast majority of this was due to the fact that Google is the default search engine for queries entered into the Firefox search bar. While Apple also gets a nice chunk of change from Google for the search bar in its Safari browser, Apple has enough other sources of revenue that it can easily walk away from Google's cash. Fact: Users who enter keywords or misspelled URLs into the Firefox 2.0 location bar will essentially be running a Google "I'm Feeling Lucky" search. That is, they will be taken to the first result for a Google search query for those terms. Fact: In addition to the Google cash flowing to Mozilla, a number of Google engineers spend significant amounts of time working on Firefox. This includes Ben Goodger, the former lead developer, and still a major contributor for the browser. Yes, other companies pay developers to work on Firefox, but none throw as many overall corporate resources at the browser. Fact: Two key features of the Google Toolbar for Firefox were rolled into the Firefox 2.0 browser and are turned on by default: Google Browse By Name and Google Safe Browsing for Firefox (now the Phishing Protection feature in Firefox 2.0). These two features, while useful, are more than just the application of a useful patch. They result in millions of Firefox browsers regularly polling Google servers for core information. Fact: The Google Anti-Phishing relationship will be expanded in Firefox 3.0. While Google currently is the default provider of a blacklist of known phishing sites to the browser, this will be enhanced to include a blacklist of sites that serve up malicious software. Fact: Google pays AdSense publishers (Web site owners) $1 for each new user who installs Firefox + Google Toolbar as a result of a referral link from one of their pages." |
| #10 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at 12/4/2007 1:14:38 PM |
|
... continued
"The close relationship between Google and Mozilla leads to a number of serious conflicts of interest. The end result is that users' online privacy and security take a backseat to the protection of Google's revenue streams. I will now explore two particularly chilling examples of this conflict of interest. Ad blocking The AdBlock Plus Firefox extension is getting to be extremely popular. It has been featured in The New York Times, and it is regularly included in various "top 10" lists of Firefox extensions on major blogs and other popular Web sites. For those of you who have not yet tried it out, AdBlock Plus (and its essential sidekick, the Filterset G Updater) completely revolutionizes the Web-browsing experience. After surfing without ads for the last few years, having to use a public computer without AdBlock Plus is a frustrating, distracting, and unpleasant experience. While AdBlock Plus is fantastic at getting rid of most banner ads, it doesn't do the best job of targeting Google's text-based advertisements. This is where another immensely useful extension, CustomizeGoogle, comes in handy. In addition to blocking Google's text ads (on all Web sites, including Google Web properties such as Gmail and Google Calendar), the extension also protects user privacy. With CustomizeGoogle installed, the search engine's tracking "cookies" are not accepted. This means that users cannot be tracked across multiple sessions. They can deny the search engine knowledge of which links a user clicks on from the results page of a search. Given the cavalier attitude that the company has to user privacy (tracking users via cookies, unless the user leaves a two-year gap between visits to a Google Web property), CustomizeGoogle is one of the few ways that users can take proactive steps to protect their own privacy online. This begs the question: why doesn't Firefox adopt the features of AdBlock Plus and CustomizeGoogle? While the terms of Google's contract with Mozilla are not public, even if Mozilla were contractually free to include anti-Google-tracking features, it would not be a wise move, business-wise. After all, it is not too smart to anger the company that provides more than 85 percent of your financing. This is all conjecture, of course, but why else would the Firefox team not roll in the features of two extensions that are widely popular and that do so much to protect users from annoying advertisements and creepy privacy intrusions online?" This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 at 13:16. |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/4/2007 2:37:26 PM |
| #10: Even if we assume their conjecture to be correct, ..... so what? I still fail to see what the fuss is all about. I mean, really. Neither you nor Ketchum seem to have a problem with MS blatantly bribing a company to displace a competitor, or subverting a global standards body by stuffing committees with stooges or bribing them to vote a certain way, or stealing other company's technology, or being convicted of illegally abusing their monpoly. But when you think Mozilla is taking steps to not piss of its largest benefactor, suddenly the sky is falling? Do you not see just how absurd you look? With Google & Mozilla, where is the wrongdoing? Where is the smoking gun? You're hung up on an appearance of conflict of interest, but that charge (if even true at all) pales in comparison with Microsoft's actions. The fact that you're fussing about this just looks petty, or an attempt (once again) to deflect attention away from Microsoft. We know this is parkkker's specialty, but I thought Ketchum was above such small tactics. You can attempt to dismiss Mozilla all you want, but that doesn't change reality. Honestly, if you held your precious Microsoft to the same standard you're applying to Mozilla, you'd be a Linux VAR. |
| #12 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 12/4/2007 2:58:04 PM |
| #11: The problem is clear. The problem they have with Mozilla and Google is that they are not "Microsoftian" enough. Google and Mozilla don't do evil on the same scale as Microsoft, so the Microbots have a hard time understanding them. When all you know is evil, any amount of good is seen as being a bad thing. |
| #13 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at 12/4/2007 3:05:11 PM |
|
#11 I see you are still mad someone wants a document standard that isn't as flawed as ODF. ODF is patented by Sun and the committees were owned by IBM.
#12 Not planning on addressing anything substantial are you? Yawn. The three stooges always can be counted on to be dishonest hate spewers. And to avoid substance such as comments #9 and #10. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Tuesday, December 04, 2007 at 15:06. |
| #14 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 12/4/2007 4:03:10 PM |
|
Latch, again, you miss the larger point and real issues:
Microsoft competes. I expect them to and I expect a competitor to act like one - even taking their lumps as they go along. Then there is Google - forget Moz - they don't exist, not really - they are Google as far as I can tell. I see nothing good in Google at all, but I do see a great deal of danger - where privacy is subverted and individuals reduced to slaves - all in the name of some greater good that no one wants. I want companies to compete - I want some to win and some to lose. Without this process - without giants there is nothing. No dragons to slay - no bigger than big to take on. I can't possibly get you to understand how I think, or why. It is about doing it in the open - about facing challenges even when you know you're going to lose and it is as much about dying well as it is living like it matters. When entities are protected and laws perverted to protect that which doesn't need it or want it is when people are seen as too weak to matter. It's all about respect - as in respecting the smallest company as much as one does a Microsoft, or GE, or General Motors. It is the ideal that merits the respect. I don't see FF/Moz that way, or Google that way. To them no one matters - not Microsoft and not you and certainly not me. Microsoft does not do that. I can see and feel their respect - for even the smallest of users and companies. I don't want it any other way - no protection - no quarter - no expectation for either. Google doesn't do that. FOSS/OSS doesn't do that - words like, "Community, movement, foundation...." they make me sick when used in the context they are. They all subvert - the second they convince one person that "all will be made fair" for them. BS. Bring on the sweat and the tough people that do it on their own and ask nothing from anyone. That I can respect. |
| #15 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 12/4/2007 5:58:39 PM |
|
Wow... shock... horror... the two most rabid fanboys are against FireFox and would prefer to use the piece of sh*t browser that is IE7 with it's broken standards support and poor developer tools because it's eating in Microsoft's market share. How did we not see this one coming?
And then there's lketchum who can always be relied upon on write paragraphs upon paragraphs of propaganda against the EU, Google and generally anyone that dares to stand in Microsoft way in one way or another. Going on and on about how he doesn't trust anyone other than Microsoft. Given the evidence presented against Microsoft in just the antitrust case alone only the truly blind, ignorant or fanboy wouldn't see the hypocrisy in not trusting anyone else but at the same time trusting Microsoft. #9/#10 Aside from your usual off topic ramblings about nothing in particular, is there a reason why you ignored the follow up article where Mozilla responded? Not that any of this changes anything as the accusations from both lketchum and yourself are just that, unsubstantiated accusations. http://www.cnet.com/surveillance-state/8301-13739_1-9813407-46.html |
| #16 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 12/4/2007 6:13:36 PM |
|
Chris you just don't get me...
It is not about trusting Microsoft... it is about understanding them and knowing up front that they will compete to win. That's honest. That I can fight. I can't fight lies or subversion - no one can - that is what supports corruption - the corruption of what it is to be human. FF/Moz and Google need to simply "be" - to exist as they are and compete out in the open - not just for dollars, but ideas. Until they do that, I will not trust them, or use their products. |
| #17 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 12/4/2007 7:33:29 PM |
|
314,16: You should consider a career as a politician. I have never before seen someone outside the realm of politics bob & weave, shuck & jive so much to avoid answering any of the direct points put in front of them, and instead weave a grand tapestry of rationalizations, explanations and other assorted apologia. But then it's no mystery why you don't respond on point; it's nigh impossible to defend the indefensible, so better to remain quiet or dance all around the issue. You might also have a promising career as a spokesman for Big Tobacco or the oil industry.
Here's what I see: a man who has no problems at all using and promoting the software of a convicted antitrust violator (both in the US and EU) with a long history of screwing competitors, customers and partners alike using a wide variety of dirty tricks and unethical or illegal business practices. Yet this same man has a big problem with a second company that has yet to do anything anywhere close to the scope and magnitude of evil as the first company. You're the guy that will happily do business with a serial killer while complaining about litterbugs. You are obvious and incredible, and no amount of your bafflegab will hide the fact that you are an idealogue, pure & simple. |
| #18 By 23275 (71.12.191.230) at 12/5/2007 1:14:48 AM |
|
#17, Latch, I have to hand it to you - what you lack in brains and class oyu make up for with nerve...
Get this - no "man" likes Google. Know why? Because we understand that subversion does not happen overnight - it slinks in - it creeps up and it steals slowly. Now... I am plenty old enough to have seen in many times... I watched it slowly consume one society after another. You may well be right about MS and what they have done - I just don't know, and here's the kicker... I don't care. At many levels, I compete with them and sometimes, win. What I do like about them is that they are open and up front in the only way that matters - they play rough. Fine. That I can accept. Smash mouth business - just as it should be. Charity and generosity? Oh yes, that is all there, too - where it belongs [outside the boardroom]. Take the field in business and one had better be on his/her game - just as it should be. What I can't stomach is BS. BS like crap wrapped in lies. That is how I see FF/Moz and their relationship with Google. I'd consider using their stuff if they were candid with themselves - it's just all that man-goo they are willing to swill that makes me so ill. So quick to hide behind words, governments and "langauge" You don't get that, because any enemy of any free man, company or state is wonderful to you - pure and simple. So you'll let Google do whatever they want with you, your thoughts, and everything men like me seek to preserve and protect - in exchange for what? Free software, or a victory over the great satan Microsoft? At what price? Nah.... not here, Latch - not so long as men like me own our own businesses and load our own ammo. It's business and wussies are shown no mercy. So tell your pals at FF/Moz/OSS/FOSS to hang a shingle and compete out in the open - when they do and make a better "thing" I'll consider buying it. Until then... stay in the car. |
| #19 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 12/5/2007 7:33:35 AM |
| Looks like this conversation has jumped the shark... |
| #20 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 12/5/2007 8:56:46 AM |
|
#19: Thanks Fonz.
#18: I agree with some of what you say (or at least understand) but isn’t the surreptitious nature of Google’s relationship with Firefox just taking competition to the next level – kind of like Microsoft’s “donation” to SCO? I like Microsoft because I use and make a living from their products. They allow me to get the job done quickly and efficiently, but to suggest that they compete more “cleanly” than Google because they are open about the fact that they “compete” is ridiculous. Analogy time (No Cars). Does a cheap shot from a clean hockey player, rather than a goon, make it any more cheap? This post was edited by rxcall on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 at 09:04. |
| #21 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 12/5/2007 9:53:45 AM |
| Hey, everyone is allowed to have the occasional "tin foil hat" day. |
| #22 By 821588 (120.32.144.65) at 9/4/2012 9:46:14 PM |
|
http://www.montblancpens-sales.org/ mont blanc pens
http://www.prada-australia.org/ prada australia http://www.lisseurstyler-france.com/ lisseur ghd http://www.drdrebeats-singapore.org/ beats by dr dre http://www.prada-outlet.net/ prada handbags http://www.straightenersaustralia-ivstyler.com/ ghd straighteners australia http://www.ergobabycarrier-australia.com/ ergo baby carriers http://www.chihair.ca/ CHI Hair |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 399 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:09:43 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
