Printable View
I suppose there would be a general consensus that what constitutes "important" would be largely subjective. An interesting read, at any rate.Quote:
Just days after the launch of open-source browser Firefox 1.0, Microsoft executives defended Internet Explorer, saying it is no less secure than any other browser and doesn't lack any important features.
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+says+F...l?tag=nefd.top
Interesting.........
"Because IE is ubiquitous, you hear a lot more about it, but I don't think that Internet Explorer is any less secure than any other browser out there," English said.
Errr...think Mr English....think realy hard. Your only an Executive, no need to put any conviction in a statement to press.
Well, well Mr English, heres virus in ye eyes.
"Bofra worm bypasses antivirus systems
Dangerous new strain exploits unpatched IE buffer overflow"
I wonder if he would consider this important!!
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1159349
You have to remember that it's very early days for Firefox right now and the hackers out there will be flexing their fingers and taking that on as well as IE. Also any possible expolitations found in IE are always going to be much more important right now because it is the browser that everybody uses. If Firefox takes a good amount of market share, then expect more attcaks, and more ways to exploit weaknesses.
Except for the important difference that Firefox is designed for the user, whereas IE is not.
Firefox doesn't have buggy crap like ActiveX that only exists as a way to try to destroy java, for example.
Microsoft uses IE for a lot of nefarious purposes that have nothing to do with making a good browser.
Microsoft has nothing to worry about from Firefox because most computer users don't even know what spyware is. Most don't even know enough to keep their antivirus software up to date. As long as IE comes along free with computer systems and there is a happy little icon on the desktop that takes people to the internet they won't change to anything else. Most people are dumb, this is what Microsoft is counting on.
Sounds like the naive fellow from a certain BOFH article:Quote:
From the originally posted URL
... IE undergoes "rigorous code reviews" and is no less secure than any other browser.
Sure! In an ideal world, no software would escape the development phase with even a single bug left. But you can probably count the number of large bug-free programs in the marketplace on the fingers of one hand..... in unary.....Quote:
"It could be a bad application, but in my final year I did a paper of software testing standards, and I can assure you very little is released in the market that hasn't undergone stringent testing."
And if this doesn't make you boggle, you've never used tabbed browsing:
It would be funny if it wasn't so stupidly lame.Quote:
From the originally posted URL
... features such as tabbed browsing are not important to IE users.
Bwahahahahahaha *choke on coffee for a while* bwahahahahahahaha.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
And if this doesn't make you boggle, you've never used tabbed browsing:
Quote:
From the originally posted URL
... features such as tabbed browsing are not important to IE users.
It would be funny if it wasn't so stupidly lame.
More than 640k of memory isn't important to them either, right?
I'd say its Microsoft in general that is being targeted not IE in particular, IE is just an easy way to get at them. I doubt Firefox will be a target.Quote:
Originally posted by Kraxe
You have to remember that it's very early days for Firefox right now and the hackers out there will be flexing their fingers and taking that on as well as IE.
I'd have to disagree.
If this was a purely MS thing, then there wouldn't be as much a concern on security in the unix world. Hacks for semi-commonly run pieces of software show up quite a bit as do patches for various apps. MS just seems to be particularly vulnerable.
-K
Everyone and everything that's on the internet is (a) accessible and (b) potentially a target. I say "potentially" because there's a fair few IP addresses, so you might slip "under the radar" so to speak, but it's not worth relying on this.
Non-Microsoft products ARE targeted. Apache has had its share of buffer overrun and other exploits. If my memory serves me, the standard *ix ftpd (FTP daemon) has been hit at times. What's the difference?
Firstly, Microsoft products seem to have a lot more bugs, exploitabilities, etc than others. Perhaps this is simply because Unix has been around a lot longer than Windows, and Unix utilities have been through all the strife already - back before The Media(tm) got hold of The Internet and The World Wide Web, and every exploit was big news. Plus, MS software is so prevalent, every time one system is cracked, the vulnerability can be exploited in many places, so everyone hears about it.
Secondly, once some problem is found, it's up to Microsoft to fix it. With open source programs, the admin of the particular site attacked may code a patch. It's important to them, so they fix it NOW. Whereas MS take a good bit longer, and package the fix with a few other patches... and then someone finds a problem with one of the other things changed in Service Pack 42, and so people don't apply it, etcetera...
I'm not Microsoft-bashing here. This same phenomenon can happen in any proprietary system; and it probably does, but on a much smaller scale, because no other proprietary software enjoys such prevalence as MS junk^H^H^H^Hstuff.
(Yeah, you've caught me hating Microsoft. But I didn't write this BECAUSE I hate 'em. I write this because their software stinks like Camberwell Station plus napthalene, and I hate 'em for the same reason.)