INteresting Article/Blog say IE safer than FireFox. - Mozilla

This is a discussion on INteresting Article/Blog say IE safer than FireFox. - Mozilla ; I wouldn't use IE if my life depended upon it, just for the principle of the matter. I get daily ZDnet, and cNet news updates. Truth is they are equal opportunity Bashes. Nothing or no body is sacred. I am ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: INteresting Article/Blog say IE safer than FireFox.

  1. INteresting Article/Blog say IE safer than FireFox.

    I wouldn't use IE if my life depended upon it, just for the principle of
    the matter.

    I get daily ZDnet, and cNet news updates. Truth is they are equal
    opportunity Bashes. Nothing or no body is sacred.

    I am not endorsing this opinion.

    I am posting this link to see what you think about the information.

    If people think this about FireFox. Why is Mozilla ditching Thunderbird?
    (Don't need an answer its a Rhetorical question). Perhaps we should be
    Focusing on TB and forget FireFox.

    here is the link:

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=474&tag=nl.e622

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  2. Re: INteresting Article/Blog say IE safer than FireFox.

    Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
    > I am posting this link to see what you think about the information.
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=474&tag=nl.e622


    The article says that IE6 SP2 should be safer because it has had fewer
    remote code execution vulnerabilities, but then the article expresses
    surprise that honeypot tests showed just the opposite.

    One problem is that the article focuses on the number of
    vulnerabilities, but does not mention either the severity of the
    vulnerabilities, or the time taken to fix them. AFAIK, most Firefox
    vulnerabilities are less critical and fixed more rapidly than the IE
    vulnerabilities are.

    I found it very curious that the article compared IE6 SP2 with FF 1.5
    and Opera 8.00, when the most recent (and therefore presumably safest)
    versions at the time of the tests were IE7, Opera 8.20, and FF 2.0.0.3.



  3. Re: INteresting Article/Blog say IE safer than FireFox.

    C A Upsdell > wrote:
    > Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
    >> I am posting this link to see what you think about the information.
    >>
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=474&tag=nl.e622

    >
    > The article says that IE6 SP2 should be safer because it has had fewer
    > remote code execution vulnerabilities, but then the article expresses
    > surprise that honeypot tests showed just the opposite.
    >
    > One problem is that the article focuses on the number of
    > vulnerabilities, but does not mention either the severity of the
    > vulnerabilities, or the time taken to fix them. AFAIK, most Firefox
    > vulnerabilities are less critical and fixed more rapidly than the IE
    > vulnerabilities are.
    >
    > I found it very curious that the article compared IE6 SP2 with FF 1.5
    > and Opera 8.00, when the most recent (and therefore presumably safest)
    > versions at the time of the tests were IE7, Opera 8.20, and FF 2.0.0.3.
    >
    >

    I t was noted on the first page of the article about comparing IE6,
    FF1.5and Opera 8. As well. Does seem like they could have compared FF
    2, IE 7, Opera 9. Maybe there was enough info to draw any accurate
    conclusions.

    As I said, I was only publishing the link to see what the people on this
    group thought. Also I noted I wouldn't use IE even if I were able to,
    just on principle.

    --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
    If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailtojones@kimbanet.com
    http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
    Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

  4. Re: INteresting Article/Blog say IE safer than FireFox.

    28 Aug 2007,"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T" in
    news:4IydnepIeqXjoEnbnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@mozilla.org:

    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=474&tag=nl.e622


    haven't read this but i've read most of that 'notorious' blog (?) page that claimed
    similar as this zdnet. btw, that blog made some solid points against favoritist
    fanboi-ism, but itself made some of the same errors.

    I'd guess that ff's biggest default vulnerability is java set on. legit claims of risk will
    be more numerous for software that has more features. using a rock for web
    browser is completely safe from phishing, but you won't see any text, images,
    utube videos, bad midi, "under construction" gifs, etc.


    i *believe* ie can be safe if you turn off everything possible (besides the ridiculous,
    form sending or images) and set all the "channels" etc to highest possible.


    weighing the usefulness of features against risk becomes too subjective. opera is
    said to be the most secure & lightest of popular browsers. but it's also got the
    greatest UI defects. that's why it hasn't yet attained general usage.

    i found ie7 on winxp to be slightly less usable than ie6, despite ie7's tabs. of
    course maxthon fixes ie6's feature-lacks, completely wiping ie7. ie7 by itself is
    already only slightly better than opera from usability perspective. if opera improved
    only one defect - offering full drag n drop - it would wipe ie7 and probably wipe
    maxthon.

    sloppy analogies:
    ie is like a 71 camaro, hot in the day, but has been burning a qt of oil a month
    since 1983. it's up to 2 qts now, and leaving a trail.

    ff is a 96 mustang, nothing esoteric, and with whatever options you want.

    opera is a race car, superfast off the line, hi cornering g's, but requires a crew of 7
    to refuel.


    --
    http://www.googlewhack.com/nack.htm

  5. Re: INteresting Article/Blog say IE safer than FireFox.

    "Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T" wrote in
    news:4IydnepIeqXjoEnbnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@mozilla.org:

    > I wouldn't use IE if my life depended upon it, just for the
    > principle of the matter.
    >
    > I get daily ZDnet, and cNet news updates. Truth is they are
    > equal opportunity Bashes. Nothing or no body is sacred.
    >
    > I am not endorsing this opinion.
    >
    > I am posting this link to see what you think about the
    > information.
    >
    > If people think this about FireFox. Why is Mozilla ditching
    > Thunderbird?
    > (Don't need an answer its a Rhetorical question). Perhaps we
    > should be
    > Focusing on TB and forget FireFox.
    >
    > here is the link:
    >
    > http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=474&tag=nl.e622
    >


    They don't say why they tested the obsolete version of FireFox
    instead of the current version. It sounds like an attempt to
    skew the results favorably towards IE.

    After all, when you release car crash test results, you crash the
    current model years. You don't compare the data of a 2007 chevy
    to that of a 1992 Ford; that would be dishonest. And so is the
    study cited.



    --
    Mozilla & Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org/
    Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird/Seamonkey solutions: http://ilias.ca/
    Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
    About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org

    Do not drink coffee in the morning or it will keep you awake
    until noon.


  6. Re: INteresting Article/Blog say IE safer than FireFox.

    C A Upsdell > wrote:
    > Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
    >> I am posting this link to see what you think about the information.
    >>
    >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=474&tag=nl.e622

    >
    > The article says that IE6 SP2 should be safer because it has had fewer
    > remote code execution vulnerabilities, but then the article expresses
    > surprise that honeypot tests showed just the opposite.
    >
    > One problem is that the article focuses on the number of
    > vulnerabilities, but does not mention either the severity of the
    > vulnerabilities, or the time taken to fix them. AFAIK, most Firefox
    > vulnerabilities are less critical and fixed more rapidly than the IE
    > vulnerabilities are.
    >
    > I found it very curious that the article compared IE6 SP2 with FF 1.5
    > and Opera 8.00, when the most recent (and therefore presumably safest)
    > versions at the time of the tests were IE7, Opera 8.20, and FF 2.0.0.3.
    >
    >

    There is a difference in the design concepts between IE and Firefox. IE
    was DESIGNED as an advertising medium, giving websites open license to
    control what you see, and how you see it, while FF was designed as a
    secure, user controlled browser. From the beginning FF was simply less
    subject to various abuses, and continues to be, even though IE7 is much
    safer than earlier versions. Both have their flaws, but EVERY time I
    use IE, I have to delete dozens of cookies from sites I didn't even
    visit! The thing just seems to attract spyware.


    --
    Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

+ Reply to Thread