Mozilla browsers more vulnerable than IE

Allow me to summarize the article, and translate it into English:

Symantec: "Please stop using Firefox. It negates the need for you to buy our products! Internet Explorer plus Norton Systemworks makes for a really great computer!"

It looks like Symantec is finally issuing a companion to their annual "OS X users are delusional about their security (buy our software!)" reports. (I use the term "reports" lightly.)
 
Terpfen said:
Allow me to summarize the article, and translate it into English:

Symantec: "Please stop using Firefox. It negates the need for you to buy our products! Internet Explorer plus Norton Systemworks makes for a really great computer!"

It looks like Symantec is finally issuing a companion to their annual "OS X users are delusional about their security (buy our software!)" reports. (I use the term "reports" lightly.)
Click to expand...

I like your summary...my thoughts exactly :) But it is a truthfull article to a certain extent. IE6 only had 6-8 more vulnerabilities from 08/04-08/05. But out of those, IE had alot more High/Extreme vulnerabilities. IE6 / Firefox Reports from Secunia.
 
PaHick said:
I like your summary...my thoughts exactly :) But it is a truthfull article to a certain extent. IE6 only had 6-8 more vulnerabilities from 08/04-08/05. But out of those, IE had alot more High/Extreme vulnerabilities. IE6 / Firefox Reports from Secunia.
Click to expand...


It really doesn't matter. The user is what matters. If the user is unaware of the threats pretty much no browser is going to stop them from handing over that personal information, downloading that fun game, or looking at porn. Saying FF is better then IE or vise versa means absolutly nothing to the average user, who is more then likely still using IE.

:)

BTW.. IE7 is quite a nice change, and I hope it only gets better.
 
Of COURSE Mozilla/Firefox is more vulnerable to an attack than IE. Someone who wanted to wreak some real havoc would start marking viruses for Firefox, and that would really blindside a lot of people who think that just because they browse without IE, they are protected from all the dangers of the internet. Open-source technology is always going to be more vulnerable to attack from people who wish to use open-source for malicious intent....simply because people who work to protect open-source software by providing fixes are not going to come up with fixes at a fast enough rate because they are often working for free for "the greater good." Sure, open-source does promote ingenuity and team cooperation, but it is also extremely vunerable because everyone knows the source code and everyone knows how to exploit it.

Though I use Firefox almost exclusively, I've never really believed the myths people try to come up with to justify their use of Firefox over any other browser including IE. Firefox takes a very long time to start, eats up RAM, and since users still browse with it at a minority rate, the algorithms it uses to analyse page code are often considered alternative and not the basis for rational web design decisions. In other words, IE is still the gold standard for compatibility in design. In addition, tabbed browsing is simply a farse. IE's tabs are simply in the taskbar, and Firefox's tabs are closer to the top of the window. Tabbed browsing is NOT a reason to switch to Firefox, especially since there are many programs available to make true tabbed-browsing in IE. Not to mention, as the article points out, Firefox is quite vulnerable to attacks because its developers have speant more time perhaps coming up with neat add-ons than with adding protective measures to keep intruders out.
 
I think this is an outcry on Symantec's part. Mozilla is threatening their company because there is no need for Norton to protect Firefox like they do Internet Explorer. They are publishing these findings to make the people who took a while to switch to Firefox in the first place think twice and switch back and continue to purchase their products.

This is completely a marketing tactic.
 
LoStMaTt said:
I think this is an outcry on Symantec's part. Mozilla is threatening their company because there is no need for Norton to protect Firefox like they do Internet Explorer. They are publishing these findings to make the people who took a while to switch to Firefox in the first place think twice and switch back and continue to purchase their products.

This is completely a marketing tactic.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting opinion with some theoretical substance, but I disagree that there is no need for Symanetec to protect Firefox. I think Symantec came out with the study to try to get people who currently use Firefox to download Symantec products, not to switch back to IE. Whether or not it's a marketing tactic, I think Symantec is right about the basic argument that Firefox is vulnerable to more flaws than IE.
 
Don't forget that it also said in there that there were only 3 unaddressed exploits for firefox whereas there were like 13 for IE. In light of that... I don't think the idea that patches aren't coming fast enough for the freeware browser is true.

To say that IE's tabbed browsing is in the task bar is a fallacy. That is not tabbed browsing, that is regular browsing. The convenience of tabbed browsing is to cut down on the number of windows and to make it easier to switch between pages and to have a keyboard shortcut to do it (and alt-tab is not an alternative because it doesn't keep you in IE necessarily).
 
As someone said...it is the user that counts more...not what is used.

If you surf pornagraphy site and the like all day then you are more likely to get something bad then someone who doesn't. If you routinely open blind links and click on pop-ups and such...bad things happen.

Personally I haven't had a virus or anything I don't want installed on my computer going on over 5 years now.
 
More FUD from the Symantec machine. Business must be bad for them, they've been making fallascious claims against OS X and now Firefox, applied for patents on old technology that's just been a normal part of AV software (for future patent infringement suits most likely), filed another IP suit against McAfee, made claims they knew about some virus' ahead of time, but never warned anyone except "select" customers.

Pretty shady practices over at Symantec lately. :rolleyes:
 
A post on Slashdot I thought was interesting:

How many of these vulnerabilities were discovered or aided because of the very fact that the Mozilla family of products are open source, open to the intense peer scrutiny of the community, one of the core, fundamental facets of the Mozilla products, and open source projects in general, that will help quickly make them more secure? Do they even grasp this concept?

How quickly and effectively were the Mozilla/Firefox vulnerabilities patched in comparison to IE?

Is there any consideration given to the fact that Internet Explorer is a decade old and integral to the OS, and STILL routinely has extremely critical vulnerabilities, and may have an untold number of yet-to-be-discovered critical vulnerabilities?

Assuming customer choice is important, a customer can elect to not use Firefox and remove it from their system. Can the customer remove IE? Can the customer even elect to not use IE, or does the OS still force them to use IE for some tasks?

I could go on, but I think it goes without saying that at best this "report" uses extremely flawed logic to draw its conclusions, and at worst, Symantec is shilling for Microsoft.

Or both.
Click to expand...

I figured I'd save myself some time and just post it rather than rewrite it in my own words.
 
1tbs4life said:
A post on Slashdot I thought was interesting:



I figured I'd save myself some time and just post it rather than rewrite it in my own words.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have pasted it better myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top