| 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 |
 |
Symantec: Mozilla browsers more vulnerable than IE | |
|
||
| Time: 15:16 EST/20:16 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
Mozilla Web browsers are potentially more vulnerable to attack than Microsoft's Internet Explorer, according to a Symantec report. But the report, released Monday, also found that hackers are still focusing their efforts on IE. The open-source Mozilla Foundation browsers, such as the popular Firefox, have typically been seen as more secure than IE, which has suffered many security problems in the past. Mitchell Baker, president of the foundation, said earlier this year that its browsers were fundamentally more secure than IE. She also predicted that Mozilla Foundation browsers would not face as many problems as IE, even as their market share grows. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 323 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
2:30:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 32132 (142.32.208.233) at 9/23/2005 7:45:30 PM |
|
#27 "fixes them more quickly" is not the same as getting the patches out to users.
Automatic Updates bundles patches togther monthly to aim for a balance of timeliness vs. too many patches. Most Firefox users are running vulnerable versions because patching daily is getting a little tiresome, and most users never, ever patch daily. Do you have one bit of evidence that IE needed anywhere close to 53 patches this year as Firefox did? This post was edited by NotParker on Friday, September 23, 2005 at 19:45. |
| #27 By 15406 (24.43.125.29) at 9/23/2005 9:03:11 PM |
| #29. Educating you is getting really tiresome, Parrkkker. I believe that, in a previous post, we had established that IE has had more critical flaws than FF had total flaws. I also recognize that you are desperate to not be proven wrong and have your MS fantasies dashed, but it's getting pathetic watching you bend over backwards to justify your wild claims. But I'll throw you a bone. This week, Firefox had more patched flaws than IE. There. Hopefully you'll be able to sleep tonight. |
| #28 By 37 (207.118.174.116) at 9/24/2005 10:34:42 AM |
|
"#17 By chris_kabuki (789 Posts) at 9/21/2005 9:14:50 PM [Delete | Nullify]
'Pot.. Kettle.. Black..' - You should be able to answer that one yourself - you're consistently defending Microsoft! " Clueless as usual. Avoid the big problems with FF by diverting the attention to fanboy flamebaiting. Wanna come back later when you GROW UP. FIREFOX AND THUNDERBIRD are not secure. In fact, it appears that Thunderbird is even LESS secure on its own open source OS. |
| #29 By 37 (207.118.174.116) at 9/24/2005 10:36:32 AM |
|
Lookout Express is bubblegum music. Dang opensores peeps don't know the difference.
http://home.att.net/~bubblegumusic/lookout.htm |
| #30 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 9/24/2005 9:22:46 PM |
|
I could have sworn there were 30 comments in this thread before AWBrian chimed in. Now we're back at 3 even though 3 new comments have been posted, this being the third.
#27, #28 "Wanna come back later when you GROW UP.".... "Dang opensores peeps" Such a great example you set :) I'm not diverting attention away from anything, I never have, it's just getting tiresome to argue with Parkkker and yourself when you two need to be re-educated each time a similar story to this one comes out. If your only playing card is sheer number of vulnerabilities then congratulations you will more than likely win with that card each time against an Open Source product - it's just the nature of the beast. That in itself is a little sad in my opinion as it lends some credence to security through obscurity (i.e. source code not available) working which in reality is nothing more than a false sense of security. Even this report by Symantec only looked at Vendor-acknowledged bugs! What kind of idiotic means of measurement is that? You could have used the same statistics and written a story about how Mozilla is more upfront and honest when it comes to security bugs as they actually acknowledge them! The problem with Parkkker's and your argument is that they never move away from the quantity of bugs and look at the severity of them. Even you would have to admit that 100 minor security holes is not at bad as a single remote exploit hole, but you never look behind those numbers that you're quoting to see what it all means. Secondly neither Parkkker nor yourself look at the time required for clients to GET those patches. Surely you would agree that turn around time is important. Notice I didn't include Parkkker because with comments like "who cares about a patch on Bugzilla" that he made in one of those deleted comments it clearly shows that he doesn't get it. No not everyone wants a patch off Bugzilla and most people shouldn't take it - but it's comforting to know that for those that DO want it or DO need it, one is available straight away. With Internet Explorer, you and I have to wait until Microsoft decide to release a patch, which could be in a month, or 2 months or we could be waiting several years based on the security vulnerabilities in Secunia that haven't been fixed since 2003! Just take a look at all those remote code execution holes in IE posted on http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html. You've been waiting 179, 142, 137 etc days for a fix - and all you can do it hope that Microsoft releases one. There is no Bugzilla equivalent where you can get the patch to protect yourself sooner - Microsoft have basically told you "tough sh*t" and you've accepted that as the best form of practise. But you guys keep playing that quantity card if it helps you sleep at night and I will continue to use the products that suit my needs (including security needs) regardless of who made them. But who knows maybe this comment will get deleted too. |
| #31 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 9/26/2005 5:58:51 PM |
|
You just don't get it, do you chris_kabuki. You REALLY don't understand.
I don't care if IE had 500 BILLION patches to fix security issues....LAST MONTH. Point *I* am making is that Firefox is touted as "Secure" by the developers and all the blind followers. "Secure". Remember that. Yet the patches and current outstanding security issues must be "non"existent to them. Firefox is NOT secure. Firefox is touted as being secure. Do you get the picture? Why do you bring me in the picture with Parker? Show me where I have said IE is secure, or where I said IE is more secure than Firefox? I haven't. Again, you miss my point EVERY SINGLE damn time. I deleted 3 comments. They were comments by someone who had accidently posted the same thing 3 times in a row using Opera, and they had went back and editted their messages so that they were blank. I deleted the blank messages. Do you assume the worst from me already? If that is the case, report me to Bob for your inference of me censoring. I have not. I assume the best in people. You assume the worst. Oh well. |
| #32 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 9/26/2005 11:19:26 PM |
|
#31 "Point *I* am making is that Firefox is touted as "Secure" by the developers and all the blind followers."
And exactly the same can be said about IE - it too is touted as "Secure". Now I apologise if you have in some way been hurt or scarred by someone touting Firefox as "secure" - that's something you'll just have to learn to move on from. Perhaps you need to get the context for those particular touts, namely that compared to the alternatives Firefox is "Secure". Whether it is or not is another matter and one I'm sure we'll never agree on - once again based on past comments you have made. "Why do you bring me in the picture with Parker?" Because the two of you are the most vocal when it comes to "open sores" and complaining about Firefox when the alternatives are even worse. Do you not like to be sided with Parkkker? "Show me where I have said IE is secure, or where I said IE is more secure than Firefox? I haven't." Well you have either forgotten what you have said or you're outright lying... "I will stick with the most popular, most widely used, and most secure browser on the market, IE." (http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=30574&Group=1) "And I do believe that IE is MORE secure than Firefox." (http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?ThreadIndex=32711&Group=3) I can keep going with the Google searches if you'd like... there's plenty more examples... "Do you assume the worst from me already?" No I don't - we have a difference of opinion but that's about it. I never said that you deleted those comments, I didn't know who did or for what reason, I just mentioned that some comments were deleted. I'd definitely never take it to the point of reporting someone for deleting comments - let's not go overboard about it - they're just forum comments! "I assume the best in people. You assume the worst. Oh well." Assuming that I assume the worst in people is your way of showing that you assume the best in people? Sorry, aside from Parkkker perhaps, I do not assume the worst in anyone, regardless of any difference of opinions that we may have. |
| #33 By 37 (67.37.29.142) at 9/27/2005 11:30:26 AM |
|
""I will stick with the most popular, most widely used, and most secure browser on the market, IE."
""And I do believe that IE is MORE secure than Firefox." I guess you too missed the sarcasm in my comments. |
| #34 By 899255 (216.152.251.66) at 3/29/2013 12:04:51 PM |
| The man's admissions came afterwards he was entered into the Cedar bungalow Pre-Trial to vex roughly all those confusing hands as in fire hook. [url=http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/]online casino uk[/url] <a href="http://www.onlinecasinoburger.co.uk/">http://www.onlinecasinotaste.co.uk/</a> Get to Cognize the you can't invariably move back them, but you just use them to spiel. http://www.onlinecasinoburger.co.uk/ |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 323 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
2:30:44 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
