| 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 |
 |
Microsoft warning over browser security flaw | |
|
||
| Time: 08:35 EST/13:35 GMT | News Source: BBC | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Microsoft has issued a "critical" warning over a newly-discovered flaw in Windows. In a security advisory, the company warned of a loophole that could be used by malicious hackers to steal private information or hijack computers. The bug potentially affects every user of the Internet Explorer web browser - around 900 million people worldwide. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 165 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:26:28 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 1/31/2011 9:37:03 AM |
|
Microsoft, please. Just stop. Please. You can't make a decent browser that doesn't get owned monthly. You can't or you would have by now, so please do us all a favour and just stop trying. Yes yes, I know you'll get it right next time and this browser is MUCH better than your last browser, which was MUCH better than the one before that. Too bad that, in the end, nothing really changed.
To anyone still using this shoddy tapestry of bugs called Internet Explorer: www.opera.com www.mozilla.com/firefox www.google.com/chrome Any of the above will give you a better experience without the constant ownage. |
| #2 By 432 (67.58.196.92) at 1/31/2011 10:30:59 AM |
|
#1 - Unless of course you need GPO control, and an entreprise ready browser that easily controlled, locked down and deployed.
Don't get me wrong, I love FireFox, Chrome, Safari (Opera not so much)...but for a corporate environment, IE is the only one ready to roll. |
| #3 By 23603 (192.228.19.2) at 1/31/2011 12:00:12 PM |
|
@latch
You do know that Firefox has way more securiy issues (See Secunia web site) Chrome does not work on all web site. Opera??? what is that? It actually still exist? You know, sometimes, you need to give and take. IE 8 is perfect for me. (and 60% of all Internet users) There is a security issue in IE ? ....Fine with me, has long as Microsoft has the guts to let the public know about it...and there are working on a fix. And you do know that driving Toyota can kill you right ??? |
| #4 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 1/31/2011 12:31:39 PM |
|
#2: I would guess that people who need GPO control over their browsers are a small subset of the total userbase using IE.
#3: You do know that Firefox has way more securiy issues Silly me, I thought the severity of the bug was the key factor. I'll take a hundred data leak bugs over a remote code exploit any day. btw what do you consider 'way more'? I can't remember the last time there was a major web alert for FF users to batten down the hatches from this month's own-your-box exploit the same way IE seems to. Chrome does not work on all web site. It's been working fine for every site I have gone to for the past several months. Are you sure you aren't just FUDding here? Or do you have any concrete examples of a critical site that Chrome munges enough to not use Chrome as a browser?? Opera??? what is that? It actually still exist? Yes, and millions of people use it. The fact that you aren't too current on things online reflects poorly on you, not Opera. Or are you saying that sticking with IE and its issues is better than finding out about alternatives? IE 8 is perfect for me. It works well for cybercrooks, too. (and 60% of all Internet users) Are you trying to imply here that large market share somehow equals quality or even satisfaction? You have noticed that their share has been steadily declining over the years, right? I guess that means a lot of people have figured something out that you haven't. Fine with me, has long as Microsoft has the guts to let the public know about it...and there are working on a fix. A never-ending stream of security issues is fine by you? Would you tolerate such shoddy product if it wasn't MS? I know you are attempting to defend IE, your browser of choice, but you haven't said anything at all to support IE. You've just listed a bunch of specious arguments full of fallacies. |
| #5 By 241766 (209.87.228.158) at 1/31/2011 1:08:43 PM |
|
#3:
Chrome does not work on all web site. Links please. You know, sometimes, you need to give and take. Yes. Apparently, you will give MS your loyalty, and cyber-crooks will take over your system. Good plan. IE 8 is perfect for me. (and 60% of all Internet users) I am glad it is perfect for you. What evidence do you have that it is perfect for 60% of internet users? What percentage of those who use it do so because they don't know of any alternatives, or simply use it because it came with their system and it is good enough, or don't know that the alternatives are better? Let's see some citations for your 60% claim. There is a security issue in IE ? ....Fine with me, has long as Microsoft has the guts to let the public know about it...and there are working on a fix. What about all the issues that have existed, and still exist, that MS doesn't tell you about or even work on a fix for, until it becomes public knowledge? There have been many cases of major IE bugs that only came to light years later when the discoverer got pissed off and went, or threatened to go, public with the exploit, and only then did MS acknowledge the exploit and promise a fix sometime soon. And you do know that driving Toyota can kill you right ??? Would you keep driving a vehicle if you got a recall notice every month or two for a defect that could possibly cause your vehicle to drive itself off the road, or have the transmission randomly fall off if you drove past the wrong shop, or have the brakes fail if someone in another car flicked their high beams at you in the right sequence? You probably wouldn't, but MS should get a pass for effectively the same result? That seems strange and illogical to me. YMMV. |
| #6 By 23603 (192.228.19.2) at 1/31/2011 1:30:55 PM |
|
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
@4 and @5 Same old comment, same old reply.... BOOOOOOOOORING If there was 1 perfect browser out there, I would the first one using it. But the reality is that software is not perfect....nothing is perfect.... IE is far from perfect, so is Opera and Firefox Nothing is perfect, live with it... |
| #7 By 241766 (209.87.228.158) at 1/31/2011 1:36:38 PM |
|
#6:
Amazing powers of deflection. Good example of how not to answer a question or comment with a sensible response. Letter perfect avoidance of meaningful dialog. Typically dull witted and meaningless. Let us know when you actually have something insightful to say. |
| #8 By 23603 (192.228.19.2) at 1/31/2011 2:23:37 PM |
|
@7
Ah yes of course... Just because you replied with "inline comments" does not make it a "meaningful dialog" and especially does not make it like you have something "insightful to say" either. I am just sick and tired of people like, just bashing for no reason. I sincerely think that Microsoft is getting better and better every year, in software developpement, integrated security. MS is also getting better in providing information on bug and security issue. Did you brought a constructive comment to this dialog ? |
| #9 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 1/31/2011 2:40:17 PM |
|
#6: Same old comment, same old reply.... BOOOOOOOOORING
They're the same old comments because they're still just as valid as when they were first made. As for your boredom, I would think that keeping your system unowned would be of enough interest, but I guess I'm wrong. Nothing is perfect, live with it... If it was perfect you would switch, but if it's only demonstrably better & safer, you'll stay where you are??? Bizarre. You know, to me it sounds like you use IE only because it's from Microsoft, but you don't really have a valid reason why you still use it when others ask. IE offers zero real advantage over other browsers, but seems to have a serious and ongoing security deficiency. MS isn't loyal to you; why are you so loyal to them? |
| #10 By 16797 (99.236.146.135) at 1/31/2011 5:15:10 PM |
|
#9 IE has many advantages on local networks. Most internal web apps are created to make use of Windows authentication. IE supports it out-of-the-box (plus, admin can easily adjust sites in Local zone and bunch of other settings, etc), easy on admins and invisible to users.
Standardizing on one browser internally helps developers and QA guys, administrators, users, help desk, etc. Those are all good reasons to go with IE on local networks. Security, meh, I didn't see any problems at work in like.. years. Not even sure that it was IE related (or was it that SQL Server thing?). |
| #11 By 23603 (96.20.121.224) at 1/31/2011 7:42:05 PM |
|
#9
Obviously , you have never managed a desktop/server field. There is no way to manage 400 or 1000 or 20 000 desktop with Firefox/Opera/Chrome. IE8 has like 400 GPOs to manage and standardize. Bizarre. You know, to me it sounds like you HATE IE only because it's from Microsoft.. |
| #12 By 28801 (68.44.220.197) at 1/31/2011 10:00:25 PM |
| Just talked to one of our desktop guys last week. He said that once we roll out Windows 7 we will be eliminating Firefox because it can't be managed. He said Chrome is getting there but that IE 8 then 9 will remain the standard because of how easy it is to manage. |
| #13 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 2/1/2011 8:21:35 AM |
|
#10: While enterprise management is the one place where IE excels, the vast majority of users do not need this nor is it something of a killer feature that makes you put up with the rest of IE's problems just to have.
#11: Obviously , you have never managed a desktop/server field. Obviously. So you're hanging your hat on the enterprise management as the reason why you personally use and defend IE? Do you use IE at home? You know, to me it sounds like you HATE IE only because it's from Microsoft. No, I hate IE because of stories like this one, which happen month after month. |
| #14 By 16797 (99.236.146.135) at 2/1/2011 9:55:45 AM |
|
#13 "No, I hate IE because of stories like this one, which happen month after month. "
It's not that you're criticizing IE, it's that you're never criticizing any other browser. You're just like hear nothing, see nothing, say nothing when it comes to Firefox, for example. And, frankly, you sound like a broken record :-( |
| #15 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 2/1/2011 10:13:25 AM |
|
#14: You're just like hear nothing, see nothing, say nothing when it comes to Firefox, for example.
This is a Windows site, and as such it seems to favour IE stories over any other browser. If this site started posting stories about the monthly Firefox remote code exploit (which doesn't happen as far as I'm aware), I would start criticizing them so your argument is a bit of a strawman. I've criticized them here on AW in the past when they've deserved it AND AW has felt fit to post about it, but this isn't about me. And, frankly, you sound like a broken record :-( That's fine as my message hasn't changed: IE is a piece of crap. It's MS's crap security in IE that's the broken record here, in more ways than one. When MS stops releasing crap in the form of IE, I'll stop ragging on them about it. |
| #16 By 16797 (99.236.146.135) at 2/1/2011 3:02:10 PM |
|
#15 But don't you think that something like MS Connect or any of MS forums would be MUCH better place if you want to tell them something?
Wrong place, wrong audience. We all already know what you have to say every time you post :( |
| #17 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 2/1/2011 3:58:51 PM |
|
#16: But don't you think that something like MS Connect or any of MS forums would be MUCH better place if you want to tell them something?
"They" already know, I'm sure, so telling them their crap product is crap is pointless. I prefer to come here and mock them. Actually, that's not even it. Maybe it's the high microbot quotient here. I love to argue with people who try to defend an indefensible position. That's why I used to have so much fun with parkkker and St. Ketchum of Redmond. They were such company men that if MS said the sky was green, they'd argue to the end of time that the sky was green. It's the same as arguing with religious zealots. We all already know what you have to say every time you post :( Who is this 'we' you claim to speak for? The same could be said of a lot of people here. I don't recall you ever calling out Ketchum for his pro-MS opinions. Not even once. At any rate, EQ23 has run off without providing that list of sites munged by Chrome, so now's the time to look at Bing cheating and copying Google's results? Who wants to defend MS against that one? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? |
| #18 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 2/2/2011 6:00:57 AM |
|
Good morning, Latch, all,
Nice to see you are all still kicking among the living. Let me start by saying that IE on Vista/Win7 remains the safest browser to use and rather than re-stating why (I've actually saved a post to copy and paste listing why to save some time each time it might be needed), let me propose we consider a world without IE. Say there was no IE at all. There would be browsers, of course. FF/Moz, Chrome and other webkit variants and let's toss in Opera to make it interesting. Let's assume there was Chrome as the dominant browser - used by say, 66% of all people on the Internet. To start with, since there was no IE, there would be no securable objects framework from Microsoft, so Chrome would have to come up with something else with which to create its Sandbox. There would be no UIPI brokering agent to handle passes from that sandbox up into user space and there would be no InPrivate browsing mode for it to leverage, or zones exposed to object level security. There may be something else like these, but someone would have to invent them and create frameworks for others to use. Since Chrome, opposite its plugins DOES NOT broker or protect these now - even with the ability existing within Microsoft's frameworks, one can probably assume that they would not do so in a world without IE, or Microsoft. (again, just observing what they do, and do not do, so no speculation is required about it). Currently, Microsoft does broker ALL IE add-ins. So without IE, assuming Chrome would rule, wouldn't it be attacked and exploited either as, or more frequently than IE is now? Without IE being the object of so much criminal attention, wouldn't Chrome or FF/Moz be? Would hackers/crackers and criminal gangs suddenly go away? Would people be safer? Perhaps in the short term - until criminals focused on whomever the leader was and that leader would have to address flaws exposed to glaring scrutiny. In such a world, would Latch, et al, decry Chrome as the porous mess that it actually is, and without a Microsoft to focus on, would Google become the object of Latch's vented spleen, or would the world suddenly become all lollipops and candy canes? |
| #19 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 2/2/2011 6:56:22 AM |
|
#17: "I don't recall you ever calling out Ketchum for his pro-MS opinions."
Because more often than not, Lloyd offers constructive opinions - positive and negative. he doesn't just sit on the sidelines and snipe. This is a Microsoft forum. Most of the people here are enthusiastic users of one or more Microsoft products, yet at one time or another I have seen just about everyone here bitch about something MS did or didn't do. On the other hand, I can't remember you ever saying anything positive about Microsoft. Really? MS has done nothing positive in your eyes? You remind me of FOX news talking about Obama. |
| #20 By 241766 (209.87.228.158) at 2/2/2011 11:42:35 AM |
|
#18:
Since Chrome, opposite its plugins DOES NOT broker or protect these now - even with the ability existing within Microsoft's frameworks, one can probably assume that they would not do so in a world without IE, or Microsoft. (again, just observing what they do, and do not do, so no speculation is required about it). Currently, Microsoft does broker ALL IE add-ins. This, of course, may or may not be a valid statement. This would depend entirely on whether or not these broker or protection methods are encumbered by patents. It may be that certain frameworks would be invented and used by others if not for the insane state of patent law as applied to IT today. The reasons that Google, Mozilla, Apple, et. al. don't implement the managed objects may be more legal than technological. I don't know this for sure, but it is worth considering as a possibility, as I don't have insider knowledge on what the licensing terms may be to use these likely patented technologies. So without IE, assuming Chrome would rule, wouldn't it be attacked and exploited either as, or more frequently than IE is now? Without IE being the object of so much criminal attention, wouldn't Chrome or FF/Moz be? Absolutely. In such a world, would Latch, et al, decry Chrome as the porous mess that it actually is, and without a Microsoft to focus on, would Google become the object of Latch's vented spleen, or would the world suddenly become all lollipops and candy canes? If Chrome was indeed such a porous mess as you claim it to be, and it caused the same level of drive-by own-your-box exploits that IE is known for, then it would indeed get the negative press and wrath that IE deservedly gets. Same goes for Firefox. On a side note, I wonder if the pro-IE crowd would be as vocally defending of IE if it, like the other browsers, had no managed object support. This seems to be the main item cited for why pro-IE posters believe that IE is better than Firefox/Chrome/Opera/Safari. IE 8 is a vast improvement over IE 6, but keep in mind that MS dropped IE development, and only started again when Firefox started to become a competitive force in the browser space. |
| #21 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 2/2/2011 12:29:04 PM |
|
@20,
Hi, TSC, there are no restrictions on the use of the Secureable Objects Framework, or the UIPI and related technologies. Google uses them now, just not as completely as does MS for IE. The IE team takes responsibility for third-party add-ons in many contexts - this one being among them. Google does not and as such, Plug-ins are not subject to brokering. Any developer may freely use these frameworks and I have published links in Awin previously as part of observations of the new Windows version in late 2006 and early 2007 - these frameworks first appeared in Vista with IE 7 - when Protected Mode first appeared. Since, and despite even security hackers stating clearly what the case was, Google has allowed others to persist the myth that their sandbox was anything other than an implementation of Microsoft's Secureable Objects Framework - despite their clear admission, the IT press has persisted in crediting them with not only better security, but something unique. Neither is true. @18, my central question remains: would Chrome, or any other browser be any more secure, or secureable in a world with no IE? Since they do not have their own means to isolate Chrome now and they use the same protecting IE (only less fully), what would they use? What approach would work better? I'd like to know, because if there is a better way out there, I want to test it and recommend it if it proves to be more effective. Thank you, Lloyd |
| #22 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 2/3/2011 10:37:04 AM |
|
#18: Let me start by saying that IE on Vista/Win7 remains the safest browser to use...
Good morning! Allow me to start by saying that a lie doesn't become more believable the more times it's told. Say there was no IE at all. Where's the 'andnothingofvaluewaslost' Slashdot tag when I need it... there would be no securable objects framework from Microsoft, so Chrome would have to come up with something else with which to create its Sandbox You mean like all the others who have created sandboxes long, long before MS did? Like that? There may be something else like these, but someone would have to invent them and create frameworks for others to use. You say that like it's a bad thing. Leave it to someone other than MS and maybe it won't be full of security bugs and patents. So without IE, assuming Chrome would rule, wouldn't it be attacked and exploited either as, or more frequently than IE is now? And here's where I blow a hole the size of Montana in your argument. You, and many others trying to explain away IE's horrid security, make this bizarre assumption that all browsers are essentially equal with an endless array of security issues. IE is exploited so much because 1) it's the default Windows browser and 2) it's easy to exploit. Microbots tend to focus on point 1 but for some strange reason they ignore point 2. You also make the false assumption that criminals focus solely on IE and not on FF or Chrome, and that if only they looked at FF/Chrome then the security issues would come pouring out like a burst dam. This is simply not the case. With both alternatives having significant market share (Chrome just passed 10% IIRC and FF is over 25%?), I"m sure all browsers are being scrutinized. Good thing for non-IE users that your claims of IE superiority and listing of all the nifty IE technologies does nothing to stop the eternal IE Bendover of the Month. Meanwhile, I only hear about FF/Chrome exploits after they have been patched. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 165 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:26:28 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
