Is the Firefox honeymoon over?

[Stephanos G.]

-{ Quote: "[Updated: 9/16/2005 7:22PM] Now that Firefox has become the first viable contender to Microsoft Internet Explorer in years, its popularity has brought with it some unwanted attention. Last week's premature disclosure of a zero-day Firefox exploit came a few weeks after a zero-day exploit for Internet Explorer appeared on the Internet. Firefox not only has more vulnerabilities per month than Internet Explorer, but it is now surpassing Internet Explorer for the number of exploits available for public download in recent months." }-

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/index.php?p=103

[Firecat]

Security Risks will always be there. Next moment, even Opera will have loads of exploits. But Firefox is still better than IE because FF is faster ;)

[Stephanos G.]

My Maxthon still looks faster than FF

[xxm]

don't look at the quantity, the severity is what matters

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: "But Firefox is still better than IE because FF is faster ;)" }-
IMHO that is a very bad argument!:-[

[Notok]

To me this just reenforces the idea that you shouldn't just use an alternate browser and run with the idea that everything will be just fine because you're not using IE. I My guess, though, is that they'll start releasing more malware that targets Java, which could affect any browser.. that's just my guess, though, as someone that's not in the security field.

Personally I use Firefox because I like it better as a browser, rather than security alone, and used Netscape and Mozilla before that. Security-wise, though, the Mozilla team does release security fixes a lot faster than Microsoft. So if you keep up-to-date, you're still better off. The component updater in v1.5 will make this a lot easier.

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: "http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/index.php?p=103" }-
Bad and sad news for the diehard Firefox fans....:P

[tuatara]

There are still people that believe that there never was someone on the moon.
And there are people that still believe Elvis lives.

So why shouldn't someone be allowed to think that IE is safer? ;D

I started with Mosaic (on Unix), and later on with Netscape/Mozilla and have did AND do a lot of testing with all kinds of browsers.

As long as the XP IE browser is completely intergrated in the OS,
and can't even be uninstalled,
and your system's updates can be done from the browser and even depends on the the browser.(major system changes)
I don't think it is wise to even compare this one with ANY other browser.
Cache problems with IE can even/and do slow-down your whole OS ;D

And remember, IE is made by the makers of the most UNSAFE OS in the world: (Windows XP).
The only OS where you need that many security tools..

But of course M. has the largest Marketing Budget of ANY company in the World, their propaganda makes everybody in the world buy Licenses.
While there are Free OS-es out there that are far better.

But it is not all bad, as long as there are people buying this,
there is still work for us, and the use for this kind of forums.

So always see the good in the bad ...

;D

See these links, for every pro IE and negative about FireFox
you can also get 2 links with the opposite, that is too simple ..

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1745091,00.asp

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2004-09-08-zombieinfect_x.htm

[chew]

tuatara

"While there are Free OS-es out there that are far better."

What free OS are there?

Would be nice to try some.

;D

[bigc73542]

If you are talking about Linux, it has a long way to go to even part way close to being user friendly. A lot of people don't want to have to be a programer just to get programs to work in Linux. i have tried at least twenty versions of Linux and they all have a long way to go. :-\

[tuatara]

There are FreeBSD , Solaris etc. and many more see freeos.com

The most professional OS is:
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp

:)

[AnthonyG]

-{ Quote: "If you are talking about Linux, it has a long way to go to even part way close to being user friendly. A lot of people don't want to have to be a programer just to get programs to work in Linux. i have tried at least twenty versions of Linux and they all have a long way to go. :-\" }-

Linux is very complicated to use. I have been using Xandros since April and i am still clueless on quite a bit. But the main thing is. is you feel like youve really accomplished something when you do something. With windows i just get irritated with it and annoyed with every hurdle and expect it to work perfectly. With Xandros i get really pleased when i learn how to solve a specific problem.

But the invention that everyone simply must try is Live linux OS. These run entirely from a CD. Nothing is installed on your hard drive and browsing the net is as far as i am aware completely safe as your using a CD to run your machine not your hard drive. Plus its linux which means its pretty much impervious to Spyware and viruses (there all made to infect a windows system).

Try it download Knoppix or Damsmall linux and burn it to cd and give it a go.

[tuatara]

-{ Quote: "it has a long way to go to even part way close to being user friendly" }-

Is an unsafe OS user friendly ???

And to use Knoppix etc. is easier then XP to use.

But of course, it is another OS.

But if you start using an OS for the first time, then perhaps XP is more difficult.

If your are talking about how the registry works, ain't exactly simple.
If you want to backup an installed program, that is not so simple.

The problem with XP is that is LOOKS simple, but in fact is not.
That is why all users are have that much problems with their OS.
Spyware,Trojans,Scripts that can be started from the MediaPlayer
etc. etc.

Just let someone try to UNinstall a program COMPLETELY, and see what is
left behind, in the registry and of systemfiles not so simple.

And the time that Unix was only text-based is a veryu long time ago.

[tuatara]

And it is not only safer and has better performance and up-times,
but IT IS FREE !!

You don't have to pay to the richest man in the world

did you know that Solaris is can be run on a system with
64 Processors or more ?

And that it was already FULLY 64bits more then 6 years ago?

And that there are many large companies and ISP's that store TERRAbytes of data on a system (fileserver) that is running a small unixversion that can be stored in firmware < 5 MB
And almost need NO support?

And supports fileaccess from almost any platform even from Windows ?

Sorry to say, but Unix is SAFER,Faster, More reliable and cheaper !

And if you choose the version that fits you, it is more easy to use!


;D

[bigc73542]

Not totally immune to all viri and malware

[tuatara]

Thanks for the examples, first of all Linux, was not mentioned by me here,
because it is the most immature version of Unix
But even then, look at what the impact is, the worm mentioned here
could perhaps open a shell to connect to another worm infected system.
This means that the worm can do something on USER-level,
and because normal users can't change your OS even that
doesn't harm your system.

But do i have to give some examples about what there is on malware
for XP

And have that compared with those for FreeBSD and Solaris.

Then you know what i mean.

For every 1 malware on those there are thousands on XP

The only serious argument, that i can find NOT to choose
FreeBSD or Solaris is that you don't have that much software available
as there is for XP

And if everybody only keeps buying XP that will not change,
but i am conviced they will FireFox and OpenOffice (a free Office software version also availble and compatible with Windows and MS office)
is increasingly growing in usage

[ErikAlbert]

The safest browser is a matter of dates and this article is just a close-up of ONE moment in time.
This article means nothing and won't change my mind about Firefox at all.
Firefox is alot more than safety only and everybody has his favorite browser.
This article is unfair, unintelligent and only looking for sensation (FUD) to scare Firefox users.
I'm confident that Mozilla will do their very best to make Firefox as safe as possible, like they always did.

[bigc73542]

Like I said in my first post in this thread i have used many distros and have been useing computers since they were young. And I still stand by my my personal opinion that unix or linux are not user friendly which makes not very viable as a desktop os. What defines a desktop os is that the average computer user can actually use it and linux or unix is not it. Get an average computer user to mount a cd burning program in linux or unix or have them try to get a modem connected to the net, even a hardware modem is a pain in the butt to get working. I will admit that broadband is another thing altogether. I will shut up now as I am definatly off topic

[tuatara]

-{ Quote: "I will shut up now as I am definatly off topic" }-

Oops , that must be the same here then, sorry

But for the record Bigc, i respect your opinion, and it is important
that both sides of the story can be told (as in this case).

There are always the people who love and hate a product,
and it is important that others can read their arguments.

So i am happy that we both could write those here.

[bigc73542]

The thing is I like a few distros, but not for me yet. :-\

[CrazyM]

Another article at SecurityFocus (http://www.securityfocus.com/) on Firefox vulnerabilities:
Mozilla's popularity stressing its security image (http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11327)

Regards,

CrazyM

[tuatara]

Oke, here again the opposite:

http://www.cleavelin.net/archives001/00002064.html

One other thing, since Firefox is open source you can't get payed
for writing a positive review or Propaganda
and there is not a company in the world regardless their branche
that payes more then Microsoft for that.

:P

BTW Another thing is HOW problems are solved,
from Outlook 0.0 Beta there was a problem that a virus could get access
at the contactlist ans spread itself by that.
For every new virus that exploited that, there was a new patch,
but the COULD NOT redesign Outlook to prevent this from happening again.
So 15 years later, the problems is still there every few months

ALL other mailclients have solved that already

But i will stop here, because i have no budget left,
so i have to go to work now, so the rest of the thread is for the payed
writers (joke).

;D

* PLEASE keep using Internet Explorer and don't use security tools!
if your pc gets in trouble/hangs i will help you if you pay me (2nd joke)

[JRCATES]

A few months back I said that as Firefox's POPULARITY increased, so would the amount of malware attacks (exploiting vulnerabilities) targetting it. A lot of folks seemed to operate under the belief and/or assumption that Firefox was DESIGNED better, and that it was a more secure browser. Hard to argue that point....and so I didn't (and I still agree that it is probably more secure currently). BUT....my main point of emphasis was that MARKETSHARE would dictate who malware authors went after - plain and simple. And since Firefox has evolved into a serious browser worthy of attention and have made the largest gains in marketshare in the browser category, apparently they have received some rather unwanted and undesirable attention - that of malware authors. But rest assured....whichever browser gains in popularity and dictates marketshare will always be the one more directly under attack. As Mozilla's marketshare increases...very likely so will the vulnerabilities and number of attacks. Just like as Microsoft's marketshare decreases....so will the likelihood and number of occurences of it's vulnerabilities being exploited. Basic supply and demand theory being executed and enacted in the software and computing world.....

[Stephanos G.]

Does the AV http scanning can decrease the dangers of vulnerabilities and number of attacks?

[-----]

-{ Quote: "Not totally immune to all viri and malware" }-

Indeed. Ask the korean linux users of firefox.. LOL

[Firecat]

The point is, security risks will always be there! IE may load pages better, Firefox may be faster, and Opera safer....sum up all the good and bad points of each browser, and they seem pretty much in the same league (at least in my experience).... :)

[fireflux]

-{ Quote: "A few months back I said that as Firefox's POPULARITY increased, so would the amount of malware attacks (exploiting vulnerabilities) targetting it. A lot of folks seemed to operate under the belief and/or assumption that Firefox was DESIGNED better, and that it was a more secure browser. Hard to argue that point....and so I didn't (and I still agree that it is probably more secure currently). BUT....my main point of emphasis was that MARKETSHARE would dictate who malware authors went after - plain and simple. And since Firefox has evolved into a serious browser worthy of attention and have made the largest gains in marketshare in the browser category, apparently they have received some rather unwanted and undesirable attention - that of malware authors. But rest assured....whichever browser gains in popularity and dictates marketshare will always be the one more directly under attack. As Mozilla's marketshare increases...very likely so will the vulnerabilities and number of attacks. Just like as Microsoft's marketshare decreases....so will the likelihood and number of occurences of it's vulnerabilities being exploited. Basic supply and demand theory being executed and enacted in the software and computing world....." }-


Again. The severity is more important than the quantity.

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "Again. The severity is more important than the quantity." }-
I second that.