| 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 |
 |
Firefox fix plugs security holes | |
|
||
| Time: 11:51 EST/16:51 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Thanks fast_math: The Mozilla Foundation released on Thursday an update to the Firefox Web browser to fix several vulnerabilities, including one that would allow domain spoofing. The open-source project released Firefox 1.0.1 to fix, among other bugs, a vulnerability in the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN), a standard for handling special character sets in domain names that lets companies register domain names that appear to be the same in different languages. The IDN vulnerability allowed an attacker to create a fake Web site on a non-Microsoft browser in order to pull off a phishing scam. A spoofed link would seem to be a legitimate URL in the address bar of affected browsers. But instead of taking the victim to the trusted site, the link would lead to a phony Web site with a domain rendered as the same address under the IDN process. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 351 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:05:46 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 22601 (69.194.226.220) at 2/26/2005 11:42:56 AM |
|
Sorry to burst your bubble, LinuxIsTheft, but re-read my earlier message, #21. I know that it is hard for you to deal with facts: but you should try, at least once in a while.
|
| #27 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/26/2005 12:19:26 PM |
|
#40 "So what you're trying to tell me, with a straight face I assume, is that you, on purpose, continue to use software that crashes and runs slowly for you... in hope that it will improve and to find out what all the buzz is about?"
That is correct. "You'll have to forgive me here if I don't believe you." Not my concern. "I'm not saying that FireFox can't crash, even though it doesn't and hasn't for me and I use it at work and home everyday, I just find it difficult to believe that anyone would continue to use something that continually crashes." Such is life. "You really must get a kick out of pain as I've said before! But hey, if you keep filling in those Quality Feedback Reports to help sort out all those issues you are having, then I'm right behind you using FireFox and helping to make it a better product." Exactly. "Why would someone want to do that? Not sure, why don't you ask the MS-only crowd here, they might have an answer for you." Not my concern again. I run FF and OOo. I like to speak from experience. "The rest of us try to use as many different OS' and applications as possible because we understand that with only a hammer in hand, everything starts to look like a nail." Exactly...yet another reason I run many different applications. "Psychologically you're an interesting person for getting a kick out of that!" Um, ok. "What's equally as interesting is that you don't seem to understand that any preaching (on either side) is subjective." Oh I do. But "the otherside" denies that. "Sure I've never had FireFox crash but that doesn't mean it really isn't crashing for you and vice versa you might be in that 0.1% of people that do not have any problems with IE!" But that isn't fact. There are substantially more than 0.1% that don't have problems. "That's really nice, especially those opinions passed off as facts, but my final comment had a smile on the end for a reason." Like I said.... |
| #28 By 10896 (24.25.182.11) at 2/26/2005 3:06:16 PM |
| Firefox is the typical open sores project, an endless release cycle to fix an ever increasing amount of security deficiencies. No patch for IDN to increase the download count and probably help hide the other 8 security deficiencies included with 1.0.1, in hope that nobody would notice. I am sure 1.0.2 is now being planned to fix another dozen or so security deficiencies that are being hidden from the unsuspecting masses. The whole Mozilla project from the beginning has been an endless cycle of security fixes. What is the total count, and the public is supposed to believe the open sores advocates and how secure their products are. |
| #29 By 11888 (64.230.49.108) at 2/26/2005 3:42:33 PM |
|
"Poor layout, lack of customization"
So does AW. How come I can't customize my layout to ignore AWBrian and Parkkkkkker so I can read intelligent discussion rather than silly ramblings? ClosedStandards is absolutely THE best part of this site. |
| #30 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/26/2005 4:28:53 PM |
|
"How?"
Re-Read my post. Comprehend. "Why not?" Similar to Adobe products. I don't find place of the menu items in logical places IME and IMO. "Why don't you use the bookmark manager? Sort all bookmarks by name or just the ones you select. " Because I don't want to use the MANAGER. I don't want to open yet ANOTHER window. YET another shortcoming of the LAYOUT and CUSTOMIZATION/UI. "What, and mess up your layout? You can position the buttons however you want on whatever toolbar, toolbars aren't limited to just buttons or bookmarks." I want to be able to move my toolbars. It's called customization and flexibility. FF doesn't have it. How would it mess up my layout if I WANT my layout to include the ability to move my toolbars. "People lock their toolbars in IE to avoid accidental repositioning of items." Of course they do. Because they are given the option to move them. For YEARS. "You're complaining about lack of options, what exactly do you mean then? " I don't want a THEME. I said I don't like the layout and customization. If I want a THEME, I could do that in IE. "I'm just pointing out that you have the potential to do it, which is more than what other applications offer. Again, what options are lacking?" Re-Read my post again. I know people have the potential to do it. People have the potential to write code into FF to take over the world. What's your point? "Why should a file manager be standard in a browser? More complexity than is necessary just becomes a security risk. " No, not really. It's a browser. I want to use it to BROWSE my system files. Something MANY and MOST people I know do this in IE as well. "Try FreeBSD and OS/2 as well, you have many choices available. Can't see why it crashed on Linux though, can you post the stack traceback? Anyway, what's your point?" Can't see why it crashed on Linux?!? I don't know hal. I don't write the linux/ff code. Do a google search. I am not the only one...by far. I have tried FreeBSD long ago. Not with FF, but I had enough issues with FreeBSD alone, I don't need to add FF to the fire. I guess that is what you tell everyone now? Oh, get a new OS so that FF works properly? That's ridiculous. So what's your point? This post was edited by AWBrian on Saturday, February 26, 2005 at 16:36. |
| #31 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/26/2005 7:50:02 PM |
| #51 Awesome! You are a woman after my own heart. |
| #32 By 12071 (203.217.78.107) at 2/26/2005 9:45:38 PM |
|
#44 More typical FUD from the MS apologist. You didn't even answer any of my questions Parkker! At this time there are only 2 outstanding bugs (one with a patch available if you really need it and the only only affecting the Apple JVM) compared to HOW many from IE? and HOW many are from 2002 and 2003? Stop trying to push water uphill, you're not going to win. Given Microsoft's track record (and current record as they are one and the same), you cannot possibly whinge about any other product on the planet without looking like a complete and utter ignorant hypocrite!
Come on, any other MS Apologists want to tell us where we can download nightly builds of IE? They should have started them now that they are busy trying to release IE7 as quickly as possible to shut FireFox down. AWBrian, can you tell us? What about lketchum the MS-boy? Can he? Surely at least one of you can tell us where we can download these nightly builds with all those patches in them? Are they really THAT difficult to find? #54 "No, not really. It's a browser. I want to use it to BROWSE my system files" Hal, he's a MS apologist, he firmly believes that IE is a core component of the OS which if removed stops the OS from functioning. This is the hammer approach of using the one tool for everything, rather than the best tool for each individual task. |
| #33 By 12071 (203.217.78.107) at 2/27/2005 12:00:42 AM |
|
#56 And still you cannot answer my questions! What's the matter? Are you stumped? Are you just going to continue to look stupid by ignoring them?
"FUD? 58 security issues in 12 months for Firefox is NOT FUD" Of course it's FUD... It's exactly what FUD stands for! You're trying to scare people by mentioning that FireFox has had 58 security issues without also telling them that there are only 2 outstanding ones. And unless you use Apple's JVM that makes it 1 that you could potentially be affected by. The FUD is that you are trying to scare people by throwing numbers into the air without explaining what they actually mean. Only a completely and utter moron would compare two numbers together and determine which product is more secure without knowing what those numbers actually mean! "If it was 580 security issues in 12 months instead of 58 you would still be saying Firefox was more secure." Yes I would! If there was just 1 or 2 outstanding bugs (which as I've mentioned SHOULD have been fixed by now - there's no excuse for them not being fixed) then that is still better than the numerous outstanding bugs in Internet Explorer. Bugs which has been there since 2002 and 2003! e.g. take a look at this highly critical bug (http://secunia.com/advisories/9534/) that's unpatched from the 14th Aug 2003. "You are the OSS zealot and Firefox apologist. " This coming from the MS zealot and apologist... That's "Fair And Balanced" I bet! Come back when you can answer the questions without spreading more irrelevant FUD. When Microsoft improves their track and current record of supplying patches then you can whinge about everyone else - until then you're just a hate filled FUD spreading ignorant hypocrite. |
| #34 By 12071 (203.217.78.107) at 2/27/2005 1:41:45 AM |
|
#59 *laughs* And you continue to ignore my questions! You're a joke Parkker you really are!
"Except for all the secret ones!!! The the ones that suddenly appeared in the following list:" Woooooah hold on there big boy! What the hell is a secret security issue? Because it's not listed on Secunia it's secret? Secunia aren't the be all and end all when it comes to reporting security issues. If you have a problem with Secunia not listing certain security issues - then talk to THEM about it. You, I and Mozilla have absolutely nothing to do with what Secunia list on their list. The only secret security issues are those that Microsoft don't tell you about! Like all those patches they release that fix multiple things but they don't tell you about all the things they fix. Why do they do this? So shmucks like you can continue to pretend that Microsoft have less security issues. "Anyone with access to bugzilla (someone pretending to be a developer) gets a preview of all the security issues in Mozilla/Firefox that are kept hidden" Do you ever stop and think about the crap that is continually spewing out of your mouth? How can something be kept hidden if it's all there in bugzilla for you to read about if you want? How is it kept hidden when you yourself can find it easily? You can whinge all you want about OSS, that's fine, but one thing that is done better than anyone else, is that all information is out in the open if you need it. "Firefox is full of security issues that are hidden in bugzilla until they are resolved." See above. "Firefox has an atrocious security record. They flaws that have yet to be fixed after 100's of days, they have partial fixes." And what do you say to those Internet Explorer flaws since 2002 and 2003? The ones that have existed 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times the length of those FireFox ones. Oh that's right, you can't see those flaws with those blinkers on your head! "Firefox is way worse that IE 6 over the last 12 months." Next you'll be claiming that IE was more secure in the 3rd week of January 2005. Start counting all those unpatches security flaws your browser has in it, then come back and continue whinging. With the way you carry on and the FUD you spread, one is left wondering why IE has so many unpatched flaws in it, and why there are unpatched flaws from 2002 and 2003 in it!! |
| #35 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/27/2005 9:12:31 AM |
|
"In that case, I did and they're addressed below"
To be honest Hal, you have not addressed them. "How can you count unfamiliarity against any application when it can be overcome?" True Hal. If someone put the glovebox of my truck underneath the spare tire, I could become familiar with it, and I could overcome it. Would I want to? No. I would like the glovebox in the normal spot or at least the flexibility to move it. But since I do have FF on my machine and have used it substantially, I will say it is better in the menu UI than all other 3rd party browsers. "Surely despite minor UI differences, many applications have gone on to become successful." No question there. Adobe is successful, but has a horrible menu layout (and stems from MAC) and in my business and graphic design, I know Adobe products inside and out. I have overcome and made myself familiar with it, but I **can** voice my opinion and say that I find the menu UI poor. "Windows didn't have the same layout, shortcuts, or continuity that MacOS applications did yet it went on to be the more popular solution even when MacOS was considered to be more user friendly." I think that Windows went on to crush Mac because of marketing and price. While I think the current Mac trails Windows XP in feature set, etc., I think through the Win9x era that Mac had it one up on Windows. "But the option's there and it works fine. Again, you're just talking about unfamiliarity as a shortcoming. " No I am not talking about that HAL! Quit putting words in my mouth. I am familiar with FF and the Bookmark manager. It *IS* a UI/Layout/Customization shortcoming when I want to sort the bookmarks list from the bookmarks menu and find a shortcoming in it as I presented earlier. "I'm not sure, how exactly would you lay out FF? Perhaps it can be done but not with the metaphors you are using." Hal, the only way it can be done as of right now is icon by icon. If I want to slide the menu bar below the bookmarks bar, or my custom bars below the Navigation bar I must do it icon by icon. "Really, are you going to say that since Firefox has no underlying OS it doesn't compare to IE either? " No. Of course not. But it was FF that added the ability to browse my system files, NOT me. And since I used that option with IE....and since FF is *supposedly* so much better than IE, one would suspect that it's system browsing ability should NOT be inferior..which it is. "It's a web browser. The Explorer file manager isn't really part of the web browser component. In fact if you're going to count that, it's absolutely horrible for FTP sites whereas Firefox is much better in this situation." Odd, I found the ftp in IE to be better than that of FF. The Firefox websites says "make the switch today". Well, If I use the folder option and IE's ability to browse my system files, how can I make "the switch today" if FF doesn't do what IE does? "The point is you're asking me to take your word for it, and I'm asking you to take my word for it." I don't care if you take my word for it or not. It's no loss for me either way. I can't change my past experience, nor can you. "Doesn't really work, does it? I could find claims of XP and IE crashing/BSODing as well, yet you claim it never happens." I claimed that *I* have not had Windows XP/IE etc. BSOD on me. I never claimed that my Windows XP/IE has never crashed however. And that was what I said about searching for Linux and Firefox crashes. I never said anything about it being BSOD, etc. "That's basically the same example reversed but again it doesn't seem to work, so what's the point?" Exactly. That is what I am waiting to hear. |
| #36 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/27/2005 9:35:06 AM |
|
Hal, let's make this easier. Tell me if you dispute any of the following facts:
Fact: Firefox, Mozilla and the OSS developers are encouraging others to make the switch from Internet Explorer. Fact: Firefox's system browsing ability is inferior to Internet Explorer's ability. Firefox gives you a web based view without the ability to delete, modify, rename or move files. In addition, you are unable to view properties, transfer or manipulate files within Firefox. Fact: All of the above can be done "within" Internet Explorer. In addition, I can browse the system files in the Explorer bar of Internet Explorer while still browsing the web from within IE. Fact: Internet Explorer users that make the "switch" will lose the system browsing ability that they experienced with Internet Explorer. Fact: Firefox does not have the ability to drag and drop the toolbars in your preferred location like Internet Explorer, Opera, older versions of Netscape, Slimbrowser, Maxthon, Deepnet Browser, Avant Browser. Fact: Firefox and Internet Explorer both have a Favorites/Bookmarks manager, but Internet Explorer allows you to sort your Favorites/Bookmarks from the file menu easier than Firefox because Firefox requires you to reopen the menu each time you sort. Fact: Firefox crashes on Windows systems as well as Linux systems. Fact: The download count for Firefox is NOT unique downloads but includes multiple downloads from single users as well as unique users. Fact: Firefox is not secure Fact: The majority of features in FF are available in other browsers and have been available for many years. Fact: And apologist is: noun: somebody who defends or justifies something: somebody who argues to defend or justify a particular doctrine or ideology Fact: Just because I defend my use and opinion of IE doesn't make me a Microsoft Apologist. I guess I would be an Adobe Apologist because I voice my opinion about Adobe PhotoShop 7.0 over competing products? Or am I a Nero (Ahead) Apologist for defending and justifying my use of their product over the competing products? Or..am I a Digital Dining Apologist because I prefer their dining room solution over Microsoft's dining room solution? (all of the above are facts and products that I use and prefer...on a daily basis. Fact: We are both entitled to our opinions, experiences and justification for use of any product. Fact: Hal and Brian both enjoy gaming :o) Are you disputing all of the above as factual Hal? |
| #37 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/27/2005 3:37:46 PM |
|
Thanks for your reply Hal. But everything I stated is indeed FACT.
Secondly you just have agreed with me on FF and my conclusions. You agree it's not secure, you agree it doesn't have the same feature set that IE has that I (or others) use, you agree that it introduced nothing innovative or new that isn't already out there. On top of that you continue to say "well, IE isn't this or that either" WHERE did I say it was? It's not me disputing all these FF facts or IE facts. It's me showing you and others that the OSS zealots don't think their precious opensource browser ISN'T secure, perfectly customizable, innovative with NEW features and doesn't accomplish everything that IE can. Hal, these are facts. They can't dispute them, yet they avoid them or they again turn on their wipers. I don't dispute that IE doesn't do everything, I don't disupte that's not secure. I never have and never will. BUT, it's the "otherside" that thinks FF's sh!t doesn't stink...but in fact, it does. |
| #38 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/27/2005 5:21:47 PM |
|
Hal wrote:
"Yes, we all know zealots are morons, but I don't understand why you are taking me up on this issue, I do not have the same point of view." I am not taking you up on the issue. You addressed me first. |
| #39 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/27/2005 5:28:17 PM |
|
"Opinions are being proclaimed as facts.
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences Opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof" Well stated. "The reality is these comments are pretty ridiculous and won't get anyone anywhere. We can continue to argue that FireFox is more (or less) stable/secure/etc. than IE, but where will it get us? If one doesn't even have an open-mind, and already has a negative attitude towards something they will find every flaw, everything they can do to support their argument. " I not only support that statement, but encourage abiding by it. "It's quite sad, that even an ActiveWin editor steps in and starts proclaiming opinions as facts." Please cite one opinion that I noted as a fact. Thank you. "Or due to FireFox crashing on his PC at least once-a-day that it's not a stable application." It's not a stable application in my opinion and experience. "I can tell you that I've only had FireFox (1.0+) crash once, and that's when I installed an unsanctioned "tab enhancements" extension which was not even listed at mozdev due to its instability. What we need is a controlled environment to pinpoint why it would be crashing constantly on your PC but not on mine. " You have been lucky. And I have seen it crash on multiple PC's, including Linux. "I understand that the site is not completely unbiased, but for an author to boast one way or another is considered unprofessional journalism." What author are you speaking of? The author of this article was showing us that a new version of FF 1.01 was out. Why would you consider him unprofessional? "And does not give the site or you credibility." Because we post an article about FF's new release, that makes us uncredible? "Now if you were to set up a controlled environment overseen by an unbiased person with several PCs running Windows and Linux, along with FireFox on reliable hardware and come up with a conclusion then that would give you credibility. " What are you talking about?! First you are talking about ActiveWin editors, then you talk about Authors, and now you are talking about setting up a controlled environment? With whom? Post back when you can figure out what you are talking about. |
| #40 By 37 (24.183.41.60) at 2/27/2005 6:13:45 PM |
|
Thanks for addressing my post Equilbrium.
Let me clarify, I am not an author for ActiveWin news articles that I post. I am a news poster, I update our content lists and FAQ's and do software/hardware reviews. I am glad that you addressed almost all of my questions above with the exception of one. You were not able to point out which items that I stated as FACT are actually an opinion. That is very important to me. When I made that list, I am confident that I can produce factual evidence, screenshots or cites to prove otherwise. Please do me a favor and point out which ones are NOT facts so that I can either correct myself, or provide you the factual details. As for a controlled environment, I have done so on different platforms. In fact, one person that is also on the AWIN staff can verify my experience with Firefox on Novell Desktop Linux. I have also tested it with Lindows. These are on actual different pc's with different hardware in which I currently have Firefox installed on as well. My current plan of action is to install my Virtual PC license on my production machines to also do more testing. This post was edited by AWBrian on Sunday, February 27, 2005 at 18:14. |
| #41 By 9589 (66.57.197.203) at 2/28/2005 1:08:33 AM |
|
So much time and effort wasted on debating the pros and cons of a piss ant program that will go the wasy of Opera and Nutscrape six months from now.
You all get a life! |
| #42 By 13030 (198.22.121.120) at 2/28/2005 11:01:52 AM |
|
AWBrian: Please cite one opinion that I noted as a fact.
I was wondering when the notorious AWBrian request for a cite would rear its ugly head... it only took until the 77th post! |
| #43 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 2/28/2005 1:58:49 PM |
|
"I was wondering when the notorious AWBrian request for a cite would rear its ugly head... it only took until the 77th post!"
LOL...figures. Nobody can provide a cite. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 351 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
12:05:46 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
