Is Firefox really safer?

I think it is apparent that most if not all big softwares have bugs and security holes in them. Personally I think that vulnerabilities are patched more frequently in Firefox than in IE. I am basing my opinion on the official numbers and frequencies of patches that come out for both of them. So in this regard, Firefox is safer (not to mention that IE is targeted more too).

 

In the end, that's what matters to me also.

Of course, that and the fact that Firefox is not part of the OS core.

 

Havn´t used Firefox for awhile so I don´t know how the latest version of NoScript works today. But when I used it before, the only way of really be secured against XSS was to only temp. allowing the scripts, even for trusted sites. If you allowed scripts for trusted sites permanently, then the protection only lasted until one of the whitelisted sites was compromised.

But I agree that the NoScript solution is more elegant compared to how Opera is handling it .

/C.

 

More targeted = more tested = more fixed.

I personally prefer Opera on XP, but on Vista IE in protected mode is my choice.

Reading: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/09/528963.aspx

 

Fascinated by this choice of phrase, so I cannot resist asking, please define elegant in this context. Thanx

 

It's not on or off permanently for all sites, and in 2 clicks you change a site's permissions
Doesn't ask questions, prompt you for anything (at least how i configured it).
Effective anti-XSS measure against untrusted sites, Opera afaik isn't (i would be happy to find out the contrary).

Yes. It can only protect you from non whitelisted sites.

 

As Pedro says, with NoScript you don't need to disable JS globally. Per-site options is what makes NoScript a more elegant solution than Opera's way of dealing with JS.

Anti-XSS protection

 

Joanna Rutkowska:

(invisiblethings, 17 Oct 2007)

 

I only use it for the extensions.
If Opera had something like that I'd use it instead.