FireFox is a security mess

[Terry R.]

On 7/31/2007 2:54 PM On a whim, Saucy pounded out on the keyboard

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

And your point? Was FIRST browser ever in question?

--
Terry R.

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

 

[Saucy]

"Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:uahGt870HHA.4932@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
> And your point? Was FIRST browser ever in question?
>


Boring.

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

"Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:es5Y3b70HHA.3768@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>>> Um, Netscape was around before Internet Exploder. Fire Fox is based on
>>> Netscape so the new kid on the block is IE, not FF.
>>
>>
>> IE was based on Mosaic, which was the first popular www browser.
>>
>
> Based on and released first are two different things:
>
> Netscape WAS released before IE. Mosaic was released in 1992.
>

Firefox was based on Mozilla which was based on Netscape.

IE was based on Mosaic.

Alias said that IE was the 'new kid on the block', as Firefox was based on
Netscape.

I doubt that the code for Firefox and Netscape was any more similar than IE
was to Mosaic's.

ss.

 

[Terry R.]

On 7/31/2007 6:13 PM On a whim, Synapse Syndrome pounded out on the keyboard

> "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:es5Y3b70HHA.3768@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Um, Netscape was around before Internet Exploder. Fire Fox is based on
>>>> Netscape so the new kid on the block is IE, not FF.
>>>
>>> IE was based on Mosaic, which was the first popular www browser.
>>>
>> Based on and released first are two different things:
>>
>> Netscape WAS released before IE. Mosaic was released in 1992.
>>
>
> Firefox was based on Mozilla which was based on Netscape.
>
> IE was based on Mosaic.
>
> Alias said that IE was the 'new kid on the block', as Firefox was based on
> Netscape.
>
> I doubt that the code for Firefox and Netscape was any more similar than IE
> was to Mosaic's.
>
> ss.
>

I don't see the comment that way. "Based on" wasn't the issue.
Netscape was released before IE regardless of what program either was
"based on". That would be like saying Windows was "based on" Apple's GUI.

--
Terry R.

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

 

[Synapse Syndrome]

"Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:e3NdEF$0HHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> I don't see the comment that way. "Based on" wasn't the issue. Netscape
> was released before IE regardless of what program either was "based on".
> That would be like saying Windows was "based on" Apple's GUI.
>

The whole conversation is about Firefox, and Netscape was only mentioned to
say that Firefox has a older ancestry than IE, when it has not.

ss.

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Frank [Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:06:35 -0700] wrote:

>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?

*Any* operating system will be under attack by malware authors.
Just like *any* bank will continue to be targeted by bank robbers.

Marco

 

[Alias]

Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Frank [Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:06:35 -0700] wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> *Any* operating system will be under attack by malware authors.
> Just like *any* bank will continue to be targeted by bank robbers.
>
> Marco

And some banks are harder to attack than others. Windows is easy and
Linux is nigh near impossible.

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

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:48:22 +0200] wrote:

>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>
>> *Any* operating system will be under attack by malware authors.
>> Just like *any* bank will continue to be targeted by bank robbers.
>>
>> Marco
>
>And some banks are harder to attack than others.

Harder is not equivalent to impossible.

>Windows is easy and
>Linux is nigh near impossible.

I don't know what sources you use to base your opinion on, but I had a
look at http://www.securityfocus.com/bid to compare the vulnerabilities
between Linux Kernel 2.6.22 and Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium,
and for both systems the message reads:
"No matching vulnerabilities found".

Marco

 

[Alias]

Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:48:22 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>> *Any* operating system will be under attack by malware authors.
>>> Just like *any* bank will continue to be targeted by bank robbers.
>>>
>>> Marco
>> And some banks are harder to attack than others.
>
> Harder is not equivalent to impossible.

Never said it was.

>> Windows is easy and
>> Linux is nigh near impossible.
>
> I don't know what sources you use to base your opinion on, but I had a
> look at http://www.securityfocus.com/bid to compare the vulnerabilities
> between Linux Kernel 2.6.22 and Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium,
> and for both systems the message reads:
> "No matching vulnerabilities found".
>
> Marco

Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.

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

 

[Vista User]

"Marco Desloovere" <marco_desloovere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jjf1b39r99b2joggjdboqdotquktl4kh2d@4ax.com...
> Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:48:22 +0200] wrote:
>
>>Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>>
>>> *Any* operating system will be under attack by malware authors.
>>> Just like *any* bank will continue to be targeted by bank robbers.
>>>
>>> Marco
>>
>>And some banks are harder to attack than others.
>
> Harder is not equivalent to impossible.
>
>>Windows is easy and
>>Linux is nigh near impossible.
>
> I don't know what sources you use to base your opinion on, but I had a
> look at http://www.securityfocus.com/bid to compare the vulnerabilities
> between Linux Kernel 2.6.22 and Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium,
> and for both systems the message reads:
> "No matching vulnerabilities found".
>
> Marco

Try Vendor: Microsoft
Title: Windows Vista
Version: Select Version

You will see 1 page

Try Vendor: Ubuntu
Title: Ubuntu Linux
Version: Select Version

You will see 11 pages.

I'll stay with Vista.

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Vista User [Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:54:31 -0700] wrote:

>"Marco Desloovere" <marco_desloovere@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:jjf1b39r99b2joggjdboqdotquktl4kh2d@4ax.com...
>>
>> I don't know what sources you use to base your opinion on, but I had a
>> look at http://www.securityfocus.com/bid to compare the vulnerabilities
>> between Linux Kernel 2.6.22 and Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium,
>> and for both systems the message reads:
>> "No matching vulnerabilities found".
>>
>> Marco
>
>Try Vendor: Microsoft
>Title: Windows Vista
>Version: Select Version
>
>You will see 1 page
>
>Try Vendor: Ubuntu
>Title: Ubuntu Linux
>Version: Select Version
>
>You will see 11 pages.
>
>I'll stay with Vista.

You forgot to select the version.
Vista Ultimate has 22 open vulnerabilities, Vista Home Premium none.
Strange...

Marco

 

[Marco Desloovere]

Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:

>Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.

Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
substantiate your claims?

Marco

 

[Alias]

Marco Desloovere wrote:
> Alias [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:47:29 +0200] wrote:
>
>> Well, people have posted that they've gotten viruses with Hasta La
>> Vista, Baby right here in this very news group. For grins, I went round
>> the Net looking for dodgy sites and clicked on any and everything. Then
>> I ran AVClam and nada, zilch.
>
> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
> substantiate your claims?
>
> Marco

For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For proof
on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything that looks
like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for yourself.

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

 

[Saucy]

"Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>> < chop >
>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>> substantiate your claims?
>>
>
> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For proof
> on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything that looks
> like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for yourself.
>
> --
> Alias


In other words, no.

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:


> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.

BULLSH*T!!!
You're just a fukkin lying linux loser!!!
No more of your incessant lies dick head!
Frank

 

[Alias]

Saucy wrote:
> "Alias" <iamalias@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:eBvfoMJ1HHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Marco Desloovere wrote:
>>> < chop >
>>> Can you show any credible *objective* sources with detailed results to
>>> substantiate your claims?
>>>
>>
>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup. For
>> proof on Ubuntu, install it, visit dodgy sites, click on everything
>> that looks like you shouldn't and then do a virus scan and judge for
>> yourself.
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>
>
> In other words, no.

Not for people who lack reading comprehension skills like you. The above
is an objective test.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>
>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.
>
> BULLSH*T!!!
> You're just a fukkin lying linux loser!!!
> No more of your incessant lies dick head!
> Frank
>

Don't have a stroke, Frank.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>
>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.
>>
>>
>> BULLSH*T!!!
>> You're just a fukkin lying linux loser!!!
>> No more of your incessant lies dick head!
>> Frank
>>
>
> Don't have a stroke, Frank.
>

Don't lie you as*hole jerk!
No more lying, ok?
Frank

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> For viruses hitting Hasta la Vista, Baby, read this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>
>>> BULLSH*T!!!
>>> You're just a fukkin lying linux loser!!!
>>> No more of your incessant lies dick head!
>>> Frank
>>>
>>
>> Don't have a stroke, Frank.
>>
>
> Don't lie you as*hole jerk!
> No more lying, ok?
> Frank

You're the liar. Here's proof that Ubuntu 7.04 has NO vulnerabilities:

Provided by Kevin:

If You Look At The Current U.S.A. Government's Software Vulnerability
List At http://www.uscert.gov, There Is Only 1 Active Vulnerability For
The Linux Kernel And None For The Ubuntu 7.04 Software, Just FYI.

Hasta la Vista, virus prone big time.

Ubuntu Feisty Fawn, not virus prone.

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[ArameFarpado]

Em Terça, 31 de Julho de 2007 14:47, Saucy escreveu:

> [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..."

Mozilla fixes it's exploits before they are exploited... this means it is
the safest browser that exists.