IE Wins Malware-Blocking Tests

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
In a head to head comparison with Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Opera, Internet Explorer blew the competition away in blocking malware. The testing conducted by NSS Labs found that Internet Explorer was superior in the area of social-engineering attacks as well as ‘drive-by’ attacks.

When assessing IE 9 with application filtering turned on, the results were even more dramatic, taking that version to a mean blocking rate of 100 percent.
Click to expand...
 
That makes me feel pretty good. Ive been using IE9 about 75% of the time since it came out. For the first time, I like it better than the others. Good to see its finally as secure as the others.
 
While interesting, be sure to read the article and even the study results. There are caveats to the testing that limit what sorts of attacks were simulated, what features were turned on, or what features were left out of other browsers.

This isn't really a result that means IE9 is significantly more secure than, say, Firefox+NoScript.

There's really nothing about false positives, either.
 
I'm sure this will quickly devolve to "M$ paid these shillz!@#" but I'd like to say I'm liking IE9 as well, it's fast, I like the minimalist interface and it rarely crashes and never memory leaks ime. Security wise, I've been able to avoid malware (haven't had any since 2003 or so actually), though I do take the precaution of enabling active-x filtering (per site blocking of flash, etc.) and I feel safe since IE is sandboxed on modern Windows versions. I'm finding IE9 to be much like Windows 7, in so far as it's a huge improvement over the predecessors (though I think Vista was much better of an OS than IE8 was of a browser, but for it's time IE8 wasn't that bad either.)
 
I've always just been to lazy to switch off of IE. I never get viruses, I don't click shit I don't know, and I have all auto-plays disabled.

Same cannot be said for my friends, even those who are Firefox snobs. I swear, some of them get as bad as Apple people....
 
Ah, well that's impressive. I'll feel much safer while downloading Firefox/Chrome/Opera. :p
 
I dont get the craze with No Script either. Using it shuts off a lot of content on websites and you have to manually go in and allow it. Ive tried it a couple times and its way too much trouble.
 
Manually go in where to allow it? You do it right from the browser gui and don't go "in" anywhere. You allow trusted sites once and you won't be bopthered again. That makes FF+noscript+adblock far more secure than IE9. IE9 is only more secure out of the box using nub settings.
 
I don't even use noscript... I use FF w/adblock and no matter how many "possible" sources of Malware I hit up, i've never been infected.
 
i seen the IE9 big warning box come up and its very affective warning box as you have to click the little arrow at the bottom to allow the file to be opened (your talking like 3-4 clicks to run an bad file) where as most other browsers its just an small genetic warning, but i still would not use IE9 any way due to automatic install of malware when just viewing infected web site (norm google search fault most common way of getting fake malware hits), but keeps me in business cleaning pcs up (but i keep it installed and updated for security reasons)

Chrome it just warns some times it even auto trusts downloads exe files it think is trust worthy that's not very good, auto trust mite happen when lots of users have downloaded say an fake antivirus software or downloaded files from an trusted source

for most users on H are not likely to be daft enough to run an random exe that pops up any way, this is geared for normal users who "think" there pc will tell them when they have got an virus on there pc

i use opera so none of the IE issues never crop up for me, i even open bad sites see what they look like
 
Yeah ok, trying looking at porn for an hour using Opera and then do the same in IE and tell me it's secure. :rolleyes:
 
I just read this article on Maximum PC. IE9 was first (92%), fair enough but IE8 was 2nd by only a small margin (90%) and Firefox, Chrome and Safari were 13%?!?!?!

Is it just me or does that not sound right at all. I remember IE8 as being a malware magnet and I know IE9 is a superb browser but 92% vs 13% just seems a little skewed to me.
 
The problem is it also Blocks all the stuff you want and or need. So sure, blocking 100% of malware is great..if you don't want to actually use the internet.

Besides, it doesn't even work for 90% of the websites my users are required to use so it is a moot point. They use Firefox with adblock for everything except the two websites that are ie8 only.
 
it does not block, it just gives you the warning just makes it annoying enough for normal users not to run the malware (does not stop auto install malware) you can still run it just it has 2 or more steps to do before you can run something IE thinks is bad
 
Hmm its rather quiet in here.

Were the title "Chrome/Firefox wins Malware blocking tests" there would be 9 pages already of fanboy blustering.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
The problem is it also Blocks all the stuff you want and or need. So sure, blocking 100% of malware is great..if you don't want to actually use the internet.

Besides, it doesn't even work for 90% of the websites my users are required to use so it is a moot point. They use Firefox with adblock for everything except the two websites that are ie8 only.
Click to expand...

Lol... better than noscript by far. Never had issues with ie since ie7 at all, love it. Not sure what bad sites they have to use that do not support ie haha.
Ultima99 said:
Hmm its rather quiet in here.

Were the title "Chrome/Firefox wins Malware blocking tests" there would be 9 pages already of fanboy blustering.
Click to expand...

Too true, haha.
 
I use Firefox with adblock plus. I don't like NoScript. To me it's just an annoyance. I like IE9, but I still am going to stick with Firefox.
 
and how many of those people click yes yes to everything, even after warnings...

i have been a Chrome man myself, FF and no script did get annoying for me as i do alot of research and always finding new sites.

IE9 is nice, IE8 was great, but we all know many will still hate on IE no matter what version because it is IE and MS makes it.
 
heh.. I am a Chrome user.. have been for a long while now.. I couldn't switch back to IE if I wanted to.. My works website actually fucks up alot with IE & it works flawlessly with chrome or safari or Opera (basically everyone but customer service in the company uses Mac book's)..
 
MavericK96 said:
I've seen a SHIT TON of people who only use IE8 that get malware all the time. Can't say for IE9 because it hasn't been out that long, but IE8 is awful for malware.
Click to expand...

Yep, my dad is a prime example. Flat refused to use anything other than IE8 forever not matter how much I tried to talk him into Chrome or Firefox. He got loaded up on a regular basis and I was going over to his house at least once every few months to clean it off and get it back up and running again.
 
MavericK96 said:
I've seen a SHIT TON of people who only use IE8 that get malware all the time. Can't say for IE9 because it hasn't been out that long, but IE8 is awful for malware.
Click to expand...

I'll admit it isn't as good as IE9, but I've used it for a while and my parents still use it. I haven't seen anything that has been a problem since using it.

I'm on IE9 but I can't believe these claims on IE8 being a "magnet" since it has cured a lot of head ache for me.
 
It's either NoScript or disabling Javascript altogether. It's less of a PITA to use NoScript so that's it for me. It's saved my ass too many times.
 
MacLeod said:
I just read this article on Maximum PC. IE9 was first (92%), fair enough but IE8 was 2nd by only a small margin (90%) and Firefox, Chrome and Safari were 13%?!?!?!

Is it just me or does that not sound right at all. I remember IE8 as being a malware magnet and I know IE9 is a superb browser but 92% vs 13% just seems a little skewed to me.
Click to expand...

Basically any program which has direct access to the kernel like all the Internet Exploders is in it self a no no. So basically if you want your computer to be infected keep using MS products which have those abilities.

Even if they got 110% of malware blocking it still wouldn't matter because those test only skim the surface of what is out there and as soon as there is another way your browser will hand over the keys to your computer as soon as it encounters something that was not in the test but still will infect your computer.

Never trust any websites that publish this kind of stuff.
 
Big D. said:
Yeah ok, trying looking at porn for an hour using Opera and then do the same in IE and tell me it's secure. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I do this every day in IE9, before that IE8, before that IE7, never caught any malware.

Pieter3dnow said:
Basically any program which has direct access to the kernel like all the Internet Exploders is in it self a no no. So basically if you want your computer to be infected keep using MS products which have those abilities.

Even if they got 110% of malware blocking it still wouldn't matter because those test only skim the surface of what is out there and as soon as there is another way your browser will hand over the keys to your computer as soon as it encounters something that was not in the test but still will infect your computer.

Never trust any websites that publish this kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

IE does not run in Admin mode, if that's what you mean by 'has access to the kernel'.

And what are we supposed to trust, random forum posters who can't even get their basic facts right like "IE has access to the kernel"?
 
But you can bet that if those same tests showed how FF, Chrome or Safari out ferformed IE most everyone here would be using that site as a go to for others to show how great they are.

While I don't use IE anymore, been a few years now, I wouldn't have any problems going back to it if I had to.
 
03grandam said:
But you can bet that if those same tests showed how FF, Chrome or Safari out ferformed IE most everyone here would be using that site as a go to for others to show how great they are.

While I don't use IE anymore, been a few years now, I wouldn't have any problems going back to it if I had to.
Click to expand...

* outperformed *
 
I read the study but I don't "get it". With firefox, don't you need a plugin like webutation or WOT to get malware blocking capability? Why would they expect FF to block malware sites?
 
The problem with using NoScript for me is that you have to know what you're doing. Often website that provides video streaming for example, becomes non functional until you actually enable the correct script that allows the video player to work. If you allow the entire page, then you're allowing everything, all the ads starts popping up again and you might as well not use it.

While for most of us here, we probably know or at least could make a good guess which script needs to be enabled, the common users don't, and it is the common users who are the ones that gets infected with malware all the time.

So give them a browser with no script and the browser practically becomes non-functional for them.
 
Hornet said:
The problem with using NoScript for me is that you have to know what you're doing. Often website that provides video streaming for example, becomes non functional until you actually enable the correct script that allows the video player to work. If you allow the entire page, then you're allowing everything, all the ads starts popping up again and you might as well not use it.

While for most of us here, we probably know or at least could make a good guess which script needs to be enabled, the common users don't, and it is the common users who are the ones that gets infected with malware all the time.

So give them a browser with no script and the browser practically becomes non-functional for them.
Click to expand...

It's really not that bad though. But I do agree it's too big a hassle to have your grandmother use or something. NoScript is a milestone in browsing IMO. You use it and you're like... "Why wasn't it always like this?", it just fits perfectly, like butter and toast.
 
PornoSatan said:
It's really not that bad though. But I do agree it's too big a hassle to have your grandmother use or something. NoScript is a milestone in browsing IMO. You use it and you're like... "Why wasn't it always like this?", it just fits perfectly, like butter and toast.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I have my wife use IE9 or Firefox without NoScript on her computer, since she's not very technically inclined. As for myself though, I use NoScript 100% of the time and never have an issue with it. It's not really all that hard to use nor does it inconvenience me. You just enable scripts for sites that you trust and if there's a video or whatever that you want to watch, you click on the box where the video would be displayed to unblock that specific script.

It's all a matter of personal preference though. If people feel that they're safe enough with just IE9 or FF + Adblock, then that's their business. The scary part is though, that many of the new viruses are stealth rootkits that you won't even know you have. So simply saying that you've never gotten a virus doesn't mean that you haven't.
 
Wraith44 said:
Indeed. I have my wife use IE9 or Firefox without NoScript on her computer, since she's not very technically inclined. As for myself though, I use NoScript 100% of the time and never have an issue with it. It's not really all that hard to use nor does it inconvenience me. You just enable scripts for sites that you trust and if there's a video or whatever that you want to watch, you click on the box where the video would be displayed to unblock that specific script.

It's all a matter of personal preference though. If people feel that they're safe enough with just IE9 or FF + Adblock, then that's their business. The scary part is though, that many of the new viruses are stealth rootkits that you won't even know you have. So simply saying that you've never gotten a virus doesn't mean that you haven't.
Click to expand...


Same goes for FF + Noscript users. They could all be infected with stealth rootkits as well. I don't know about others, but I base my belief I haven't been infected on the fact that my AV has never found anything (malwarebytes), I haven't seen any site redirection or ads, and my bank statements have no items that I did not authorize, I also monitor my net connection and I see near zero net activity unless I'm downloading/uploading something. Also using x64 Windows, which blocks rootkit hooking with KPP and driver signing requirements. Now, there could be malware on the system regardless of all that, but I find it incredibly unlikely. But as I said, FF+NS users are in the same boat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top