UNSOLVED
Another side of Firefox
This was pulished in the latest Win XP Newsletter. It refrences an article on ZD Net.
Firefox: Honeymoon Over?
We've said before that the primary security advantage Firefox had over Internet Explorer was the fact that it was used by only a fraction of the computer using population. This made it a less attractive target for hackers - why waste your time and effort writing exploits for a program that would only affect a small percentage of users, when your IE exploits would reach so many more? This is called, in the IT security biz, security through obscurity. And contrary to popular belief, it works - for a while. The problem is that obscurity tends not to last. As more and more people have switched to Firefox for its security advantage, its own growing popularity has made it more of a target. Now, according to security expert George Ou, the tipping point has been reached: Firefox now has more vulnerabilities per month than IE. Read George's blog article on this at
http://www.wxpnews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=050920TI-Firefox
173
0
Posted September 20th, 2005 12:00
BUT, Firefox is quicker to offer patches than M$.173
0
Posted September 20th, 2005 14:00
i've recently read reports of FireFox (even when run under Linux) being infected by popups from Winfixer....173
0
Posted September 21st, 2005 01:00
How the story changes. First it was FireFox was safer/better, which now appears not to be true. Now the story is "it is fix faster". Inquiring minds wnat to now "What will it be tomorrow?"173
0
Posted September 21st, 2005 09:00
Well, contrary to popular belief, I don't use Firefox for the security, I don't go to "naughty" sites.
I use Firefox, because it opens webpages faster for me than IE. And the AdBlock feature blocks all ads. Even adframes.
I also got the free, ad free version of Opera, which is now free to the public (So I've heard)
So, if I am worried about security on certain sites, I'll use Opera.173
0
Posted September 21st, 2005 10:00
Firefox has exploits and security issues. They just have a policy of not making them public.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/security-bugs-policy.html
173
0
Posted September 21st, 2005 13:00
Very interesting. Now if I were paranoid, I would begin to wonder if "Open Source" is open only when it is convenient. Another way to look at it, quoting from http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/security-bugs-policy.html “Full information about security bugs will be restricted to a known group of people, using the Bugzilla access control restrictions described above. However that group can and will be expanded as necessary and appropriate.” This whole issue reminds me of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.” As a member in good standing for the Free Software Foundation, I think I will ask them if this policy is consistent with the GPL.
173
0
Posted September 24th, 2005 06:00
Find with Firefox, I cannot access some sites like hotmail.co.uk as I use the "wrong browser" - yet if I launch messenger first and then go to hotmail - I can! that is strange.79
0
Posted September 25th, 2005 12:00
As Denny stated, NO ONE can read/see any info regarding your computer and/or connection other than yourself. I have "no desire" to learn anything about someone else's computer or connections. The signature is nothing more than a neat little gimmick and no harm was or is intended. I have too much respect for people's privacy and this forum. I will refrain from posting this "signature" in the future.
oldfield
101 Posts
173
0
Posted September 20th, 2005 12:00
The link you posted just opens another screen with the original message you posted.
George