Firefox Tops Vulnerability List

http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3847461

 

I'm not surprised, IE has had years of being hacked to utter pieces because of it's popularity, it's that "advantage" that makes it a lot more secure than what it used to be (hence only 15%) and especially with the security additions in IE8.

Firefox on the other hand is basically just going through this phase as it's gaining such a rapid popularity.

 

Apples to Oranges. Firefox is open-source which means more vulnerabilities will be found faster. It also means they are patched faster. If M$ opened the IE code, you would see a spike in discovered vulns.

 

Or maybe it just means there's a LOT of vulnerabilities to be found in Firefox.

Considering how IE not being open-source back in 2004-2006 didn't stop it from being the most vulnerable browser with the biggest number of security holes, this claim sounds like wishful thinking to me.

 

You seem to be under the assumption that because it is Open Source exploits will be found and fixed faster, let me remind you that it has been open source for over 9 years. It makes 0 difference if software is open or closed source.

Oh and there is issues with firefox that date back to 2000 that still haven't been fixed, in this perspective, you could say that a paid for company has greater resources and motivation to fix such issues.


That being said, I'm not bashing firefox, it is my main browser. Although I am considering IE64 when I install Win7 64.

 

Impressive, just like saying Chinese have more people than any other country. And ...
It's still whoever uses IE that gets owned, while Firefox users do not ... Simple, really.
Mrk

 

A classic example of the "still stuck in 2004" mentality.

 

Could you elaborate?

 

IE is a very secure browser, quite possibly much more so than Firefox.

 

From the article: "'...a fair amount of the vulnerabilities have come by way of plug-ins.'" Most plugins are 3rd-party. It doesn't seem fair to count them as being part of Firefox's vulnerabilities.

 

Agreed.

Agreed again.

 

Go to any spyware/malware cleaning forum and see who the users complaining are, IE users whining about their latest vundo, bundo, psoso or whatever infections.
Mrk

 

Maybe.

It sounds.

We could argue on this forever, but it does not make 0 difference. The ability to read the code or not obviously makes a big difference. In what way, is the 'good' ole, never ending discussion that leads to Interstate 666. Grabbing a beer with your friends is a better option.

That's probably true, but speaking for myself, there isn't an alternative to Firefox in light of many extensions i use, and how configurable it is.

 

Unfortunately true.

 

What data are you referencing? I think it is pretty much accepted that most open-source projects patch vulnerabilities faster than the closed-source projects.

 

I'm referencing no data, but what does speed of fixing an exploits have to do with making the browser more secure..? I already told you there are problems with the prowser that date back to 2000 like javascript traps.

I also don't see how it is "widely accepted" that they are fixed faster, what data are you referencing there? If you're talking about specifically IE vs Fx then you are correct in that specific situation.

 

To be clear, i was referring to the Firefox issues part, not " that a paid for company has greater resources and motivation to fix such issues" part. And this is important, because you have Windows to prove it.
Seriously, i don't believe that part, at all.

 

The first thing that needs to be done to get Mozilla to stop these constant leaks is to make them realize that there is a problem, because I think it's pretty evident by now that Mozilla will never learn by itself.

As long as users continue to blindly swallow the same old rhetoric that Mozilla trots out every single time reports like these surface (and there have been quite a few since quite some time ago), Mozilla's sloppy coding practices aren't going to change anytime soon.