FireFox is a security mess

[Saucy]

[Firefox update fixes bug brace]

"...Mozilla has pushed out a new version of Firefox that fixes a brace of
security bugs, barely a fortnight after its last update..."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/31/firefox_update/

Like I've said over and over .. FireFox is raw .. untried .. and more holes
than swiss cheese. Internet Explorer is the system that has gone through the
fires of security hell to emerge on the other side as IE7.

Saucy

 

[Jeff N.]

IE is such a useless browser, I'll take the risk...

Jeff

Saucy wrote:
> [Firefox update fixes bug brace]
>
> "...Mozilla has pushed out a new version of Firefox that fixes a
> brace of security bugs, barely a fortnight after its last update..."
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/31/firefox_update/
>
> Like I've said over and over .. FireFox is raw .. untried .. and more
> holes than swiss cheese. Internet Explorer is the system that has
> gone through the fires of security hell to emerge on the other side
> as IE7.
> Saucy

 

[Ian Betts]

"Jeff N." <jjnorton1@comcast.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eTwMG530HHA.2484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> IE is such a useless browser, I'll take the risk...
>
> Jeff
>
> Saucy wrote:
>> [Firefox update fixes bug brace]
>>
>> "...Mozilla has pushed out a new version of Firefox that fixes a
>> brace of security bugs, barely a fortnight after its last update..."
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/31/firefox_update/
>>
>> Like I've said over and over .. FireFox is raw .. untried .. and more
>> holes than swiss cheese. Internet Explorer is the system that has
>> gone through the fires of security hell to emerge on the other side
>> as IE7.
>> Saucy
>
>
>
Oh dear anti Firefox now. IE is not a patch on FF and if you know how to use
it there are not holes in it. Like any other good product research is
ongoing and I expect and get regular update free from mozilla.



--
Ian

 

[Alias]

Saucy wrote:
> [Firefox update fixes bug brace]
>
> "...Mozilla has pushed out a new version of Firefox that fixes a brace
> of security bugs, barely a fortnight after its last update..."
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/31/firefox_update/
>
> Like I've said over and over .. FireFox is raw .. untried .. and more
> holes than swiss cheese.

Not what the article you quote says. Ergo, it's your ill informed
opinion and not based on facts.

> Internet Explorer is the system that has gone
> through the fires of security hell to emerge on the other side as IE7.
>
> Saucy

IE 7 is still more vulnerable than Fire Fox and always will be, just
like Windows is more vulnerable than Linux or the Mac and always will be.

--
Alias
To email me, remove what's invalid

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:


>
>
> IE 7 is still more vulnerable than Fire Fox and always will be, just
> like Windows is more vulnerable than Linux or the Mac and always will be.
>


Only in your dreams you liar!
Frank

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> IE 7 is still more vulnerable than Fire Fox and always will be, just
>> like Windows is more vulnerable than Linux or the Mac and always will be.
>>
>
>
> Only in your dreams you liar!
> Frank

Blustering again, eh? Nothing I stated is a lie and you can't prove
otherwise. All you can do is scream, shout and bluster all over the
place like a deranged orangutan.

--
Alias
To email me, remove what's invalid

 

[Jeanette]

Jeanette wrote:

Almost every windows update has an IE security fix in it. Firefox
instead of doing security patches releases a new version. They are
finding and patching holes quickly instead of waiting a month to release
them.

If you desire real security in Firefox you can use the no script plugin
which allows you to view sites without using java script, which is what
is usually the source of exploits.

No Script plugin allows you to determine trusted sites to whitelist so
they can run scripts.

Saucy wrote:
> [Firefox update fixes bug brace]
>
> "...Mozilla has pushed out a new version of Firefox that fixes a brace
> of security bugs, barely a fortnight after its last update..."
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/31/firefox_update/
>
> Like I've said over and over .. FireFox is raw .. untried .. and more
> holes than swiss cheese. Internet Explorer is the system that has gone
> through the fires of security hell to emerge on the other side as IE7.
>
> Saucy
>

 

[Saucy]

"Jeanette" <jrusso2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23AzPR340HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Jeanette wrote:
>
> Almost every windows update has an IE security fix in it. Firefox instead
> of doing security patches releases a new version. They are finding and
> patching holes quickly instead of waiting a month to release them.
>
> If you desire real security in Firefox you can use the no script plugin
> which allows you to view sites without using java script, which is what is
> usually the source of exploits.
>
> No Script plugin allows you to determine trusted sites to whitelist so
> they can run scripts.
>
> Saucy wrote:
>> [Firefox update fixes bug brace]
>>
>> "...Mozilla has pushed out a new version of Firefox that fixes a brace of
>> security bugs, barely a fortnight after its last update..."
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/31/firefox_update/
>>
>> Like I've said over and over .. FireFox is raw .. untried .. and more
>> holes than swiss cheese. Internet Explorer is the system that has gone
>> through the fires of security hell to emerge on the other side as IE7.
>>
>> Saucy
>>


Hi Jeanette:

You are wise there because you hit one of the nails on the head. Scripting,
whether IE or FF [or any other] is a major source of exploit.

Here, I browse with it off. If the site seems 'legit' and I want to see it
better etc. etc. I add it to my Trusted Zone [which is raised to
medium-high+ rather than the default medium] and refresh. I also use a
hosts file which dead-sinks [to localhost] many of the advertisement domains
such as double-click [which also contain scripts].

I personally got one virus since 1996 and that is because I ignored a
warning to patch while running IIS on Windows 2000 - my bad. Otherwise,
AFAICT, I've not been exploited even once. But I attribute that muchly to
turning off scripting for general browsing and only allowing it for
seemingly legitmate websites.

Nevertheless, IMHO, FF is, well, unproven. Its exploits are more basic and I
would venture there are many yet to be uncovered. IE, on the otherhand, is
much more tried, the discovered exploits are more esoteric [and difficult]
and it probably doesn't have too many more majors ones yet to find.

Saucy

 

[Alias]

Saucy wrote:
> "Jeanette" <jrusso2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23AzPR340HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Jeanette wrote:
>>
>> Almost every windows update has an IE security fix in it. Firefox
>> instead of doing security patches releases a new version. They are
>> finding and patching holes quickly instead of waiting a month to
>> release them.
>>
>> If you desire real security in Firefox you can use the no script
>> plugin which allows you to view sites without using java script, which
>> is what is usually the source of exploits.
>>
>> No Script plugin allows you to determine trusted sites to whitelist so
>> they can run scripts.
>>
>> Saucy wrote:
>>> [Firefox update fixes bug brace]
>>>
>>> "...Mozilla has pushed out a new version of Firefox that fixes a
>>> brace of security bugs, barely a fortnight after its last update..."
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/31/firefox_update/
>>>
>>> Like I've said over and over .. FireFox is raw .. untried .. and more
>>> holes than swiss cheese. Internet Explorer is the system that has
>>> gone through the fires of security hell to emerge on the other side
>>> as IE7.
>>>
>>> Saucy
>>>
>
>
> Hi Jeanette:
>
> You are wise there because you hit one of the nails on the head.
> Scripting, whether IE or FF [or any other] is a major source of exploit.
>
> Here, I browse with it off. If the site seems 'legit' and I want to see
> it better etc. etc. I add it to my Trusted Zone [which is raised to
> medium-high+ rather than the default medium] and refresh. I also use a
> hosts file which dead-sinks [to localhost] many of the advertisement
> domains such as double-click [which also contain scripts].
>
> I personally got one virus since 1996 and that is because I ignored a
> warning to patch while running IIS on Windows 2000 - my bad. Otherwise,
> AFAICT, I've not been exploited even once. But I attribute that muchly
> to turning off scripting for general browsing and only allowing it for
> seemingly legitmate websites.
>
> Nevertheless, IMHO, FF is, well, unproven. Its exploits are more basic
> and I would venture there are many yet to be uncovered. IE, on the
> otherhand, is much more tried, the discovered exploits are more esoteric
> [and difficult] and it probably doesn't have too many more majors ones
> yet to find.
>
> Saucy

Um, Netscape was around before Internet Exploder. Fire Fox is based on
Netscape so the new kid on the block is IE, not FF.

--
Alias
To email me, remove what's invalid

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IE 7 is still more vulnerable than Fire Fox and always will be, just
>>> like Windows is more vulnerable than Linux or the Mac and always will
>>> be.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Only in your dreams you liar!
>> Frank
>
>
> Blustering again, eh? Nothing I stated is a lie and you can't prove
> otherwise. All you can do is scream, shout and bluster all over the
> place like a deranged orangutan.
>

hehehe...no wittle liar man...you're still just a wittle liar.
Frank

 

[Mike]

"Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23DQJzR40HHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> IE 7 is still more vulnerable than Fire Fox and always will be, just like
> Windows is more vulnerable than Linux or the Mac and always will be.


Yes because it has more market share than Linux or Mac and always will. If
Linux had 93% share and Windows had less than 1% which do you think would be
more vulnerable? Which would the malware authors target?

Mike

 

[Alias]

Mike wrote:
> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:%23DQJzR40HHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> IE 7 is still more vulnerable than Fire Fox and always will be, just
>> like Windows is more vulnerable than Linux or the Mac and always will be.
>
>
> Yes because it has more market share than Linux or Mac and always will.
> If Linux had 93% share and Windows had less than 1% which do you think
> would be more vulnerable? Which would the malware authors target?
>
> Mike
>

Your ignorance of the Linux architecture is showing. Do more research
instead of parroting the MS FUD.

--
Alias
To email me, remove what's invalid

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

"Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:uhjwDE50HHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Nevertheless, IMHO, FF is, well, unproven. Its exploits are more basic
>> and I would venture there are many yet to be uncovered. IE, on the
>> otherhand, is much more tried, the discovered exploits are more esoteric
>> [and difficult] and it probably doesn't have too many more majors ones
>> yet to find.
>>
>> Saucy
>
> Um, Netscape was around before Internet Exploder. Fire Fox is based on
> Netscape so the new kid on the block is IE, not FF.


Even though Saucy is a dumbass, to be fair, IE was based on Mosaic, which
was the first popular www browser.

ss.

 

[Mike]

"Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:e2pOd150HHA.5532@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> Yes because it has more market share than Linux or Mac and always will.
>> If Linux had 93% share and Windows had less than 1% which do you think
>> would be more vulnerable? Which would the malware authors target?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> Your ignorance of the Linux architecture is showing. Do more research
> instead of parroting the MS FUD.

So the "Linux architecture" will prevent social engineering attacks, which
are the most common today since XP SP2? If all the dumb Windows users
suddenly became dumb Linux users, there would be no more malware?

Your ignorance of how malware works is showing. Do more research instead
of parroting the Linux FUD.

Mike

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Mike [Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:24:18 -0400] wrote:

>Yes because it has more market share than Linux or Mac and always will. If
>Linux had 93% share and Windows had less than 1% which do you think would be
>more vulnerable? Which would the malware authors target?

Malware authors can *only* target *vulnerabilities*, not market share.

Marco

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Mike [Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:36:35 -0400] wrote:

>"Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:e2pOd150HHA.5532@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>> Yes because it has more market share than Linux or Mac and always will.
>>> If Linux had 93% share and Windows had less than 1% which do you think
>>> would be more vulnerable? Which would the malware authors target?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>
>> Your ignorance of the Linux architecture is showing. Do more research
>> instead of parroting the MS FUD.
>
>So the "Linux architecture" will prevent social engineering attacks, which
>are the most common today since XP SP2? If all the dumb Windows users
>suddenly became dumb Linux users, there would be no more malware?
>
>Your ignorance of how malware works is showing. Do more research instead
>of parroting the Linux FUD.

What has an attack by social engineering got to do with malware
exploiting a vulnerability in *any* operating system?
Do you realize how huge the difference is between the two?

Marco

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:


>
> Your ignorance of the Linux architecture is showing. Do more research
> instead of parroting the MS FUD.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------


It's you my friend, who is the one deluding himself. No house, no car,
no safe and no software has been designed, built or developed that is
immune to being broken into. Especially if it's open source!
If you think otherwise, then you are either badly misinformed or so
extremely devoted to the linux cause that is has blinded you of any
reasonable semblance of intelligent reasoning.
Frank

 

[Terry R.]

On 7/31/2007 11:43 AM On a whim, Synapse Syndrome pounded out on the
keyboard

> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:uhjwDE50HHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Nevertheless, IMHO, FF is, well, unproven. Its exploits are more basic
>>> and I would venture there are many yet to be uncovered. IE, on the
>>> otherhand, is much more tried, the discovered exploits are more esoteric
>>> [and difficult] and it probably doesn't have too many more majors ones
>>> yet to find.
>>>
>>> Saucy
>> Um, Netscape was around before Internet Exploder. Fire Fox is based on
>> Netscape so the new kid on the block is IE, not FF.
>
>
> Even though Saucy is a dumbass, to be fair, IE was based on Mosaic, which
> was the first popular www browser.
>
> ss.
>
>

Based on and released first are two different things:

1994 Former head of Mosiac Development at NSCA, Marc Andreesen created
new company, Netscape Communications Corporation, which released
Navigator in October.

1995 Spyglass, Inc which had commercialy licensed and forked
development of the Mosiac browser from NCSA, has it's web browser
development licensed by Microsoft, which was then incorporated into the
release of Windows95 as Internet Explorer 1.0.

Netscape WAS released before IE. Mosaic was released in 1992.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Saucy]

First web browser:

Orig. Name: WorldWideWeb
Renamed: Nexus
Author: Tim Berners-Lee
Date: 1990
Written on: NeXT computer
Written in: Objective-C

Saucy

 

[Frank]

Marco Desloovere wrote:

> Mike [Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:24:18 -0400] wrote:
>
>
>>Yes because it has more market share than Linux or Mac and always will. If
>>Linux had 93% share and Windows had less than 1% which do you think would be
>>more vulnerable? Which would the malware authors target?
>
>
> Malware authors can *only* target *vulnerabilities*, not market share.
>
> Marco

Uhhh...marco...so if there were not windows then there would not be any
malware?
Is that what your saying marco buddy?
Frank