| 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 |
 |
IE9 versus Chrome: which one blocks malware better? | |
|
||
| Time: 10:31 EST/15:31 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Andi Stabryla | ||
|
Last week I looked at a fascinating sample of malware that specifically targeted users of Google Chrome. Over the past few days, I’ve been looking more closely at this particular malware attack, which appears to be widespread and extremely persistent. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:59:06 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/26/2011 11:59:06 AM |
| Over Under: 11.5 |
| #2 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 4/26/2011 12:57:18 PM |
|
Another crap article by Ed 'Micro' Bott. I understand that URL filtering is another layer in security, but I'm baffled as to how Bott can claim that AV signatures can't keep up with the evolving threat but somehow a Microsoft-maintained blacklist will overcome this problem. Then there's the privacy issue of sending every single URL you visit to MS. Then there's the problem of legit sites that get owned through a massive exploit. Wasn't it only a few months ago that 200,000+ sites got owned in a single day due to some common flaw? And how exactly is this blacklist to be updated when Bott claims that the AV crowd supposedly can't detect the evolving threats?? Only MS and their super-secret decoder ring can figure it out? These days, advanced AV engines also scan URLs, so tell me why I should have faith in MS doing what Bott claims the AV guys can't do? Bott also contrasts the messages you receive when downloading an executable, and he praises FF for having scary language whereas Chrome has none. It seems to me that "This program may damage your computer!" warnings for every executable downloaded will be quickly tuned out just like the UAC prompts are by most users.
To me, it looks more like a Google-slam. A good Microsoft foot soldier attempting to show IE better than Chrome because it has this nifty feature that's not all that useful in practice. |
| #3 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/26/2011 1:49:41 PM |
|
And under it is - The number of hours it would take Latch to post a rebuttle pooh-poohing another pro-MS article.
I knew I should have bet the house! |
| #4 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 4/26/2011 2:30:45 PM |
|
#3: If you were smart, you would doubled-down on a microbot coming in and explaining how very wonderful both Mr. Bott and Microsoft are, in perpetuity, throughout the Universe. Or that I'm a big poopie-head for not loving MS unconditionally. One of the two.
What can I say? I know the smell of horse manure and I don't like it, and I'll speak out against it every time. If you've got something I said to refute, I'm all ears. I know that Ed Bott is renowned for his constant MS fluffery. Maybe I just have very little patience for boogeyman marketing disguised as analysis. Looks like Ed's trying to put a little Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the minds of potential Chrome users. Not hard to guess which FUD factory he fronts. |
| #5 By 2 (24.239.197.85) at 4/26/2011 8:34:38 PM |
| now now, play nice! |
| #6 By 8556 (173.27.244.6) at 4/27/2011 5:41:27 PM |
| In my experience, neither one is really better at blocking malware as both let the user blindly install the latest malware because the user isn't asking themselves if their actions are appropriate, and they okay everything. Only a sandbox program, like Sandboxie, protects the users from themselves, when they actually use the Sandboxed Web Browser. |
| #7 By 2960 (72.205.26.164) at 4/28/2011 12:24:14 PM |
| I've already seen my first IE9 drive-by malware install, so I'm not convinced it's better. |
| #8 By 2960 (72.205.26.164) at 4/28/2011 12:25:28 PM |
|
And Bob is right on target.
The real failure here is you still can't (realistically) run a Windows Box locked down in a corporate environment. Far too many issues come up, and your help desk would have to double it's staff from the issues/complaints from users. |
| #9 By 28801 (68.44.220.197) at 4/28/2011 9:50:59 PM |
| #8: I beg to differ! My company runs IE 6 for many users in lock down mode with no issues. |
| #10 By 8556 (173.27.244.6) at 4/29/2011 12:26:01 AM |
| #9: I presume you use policies to prevent any installs that aren't from a specified location or installed by an admin. That'll work. But, every company is different. Some CEO's defer to the IT people and others are just idiots. |
| #11 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/29/2011 11:44:19 AM |
| The point is, IE (even version 6) can be tightly secured. Idiots will ruin security on any browser. |
| #12 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 4/29/2011 2:59:29 PM |
| #11: Considering MS' efforts with all their various versions of IE and the alphabet-soup of technologies they crow about in it, they still can't seem to stop a driveby download. That being said, I'm not sure about how confident you should be that IE6 is 'locked down'. Maybe it's Lisa Simpson's rock keeping the tigers away. |
| #13 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 4/29/2011 3:50:56 PM |
| I am not sure of any browser being completely "locked Down", but if you take the proper precautions you can minimize risk. That is true for any browser as you can see from this thread. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:59:06 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
