12 reasons not to use IE

Everyone has their reasons (valid ones and user choices) for using a given Browser

 

While that write-up doesn't apply to IE9 users, it certainly is a reminder to all those less knowledgeable users including me still using IE on Windows XP.

 

While the article may not cite IE9, again, there are so many counterpoints as to the merits of every Browser available and those that are able to justify with plausible citations as to why one is better than the other or others.
I still use IE8 under Windows XP and have no issues.

 

.

Internet Explorer 9's cloud security gives huge malware blocking boost


"A test of browser security against socially engineered malware aimed at European computer users has shown Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9 (IE9) browser to be vastly superior to the competition.

In tests conducted online by NSS Labs in April IE9 caught 92 per cent of threats, with IE8 catching 90 per cent. By contrast Safari 5, Chrome 10 and FireFox 4 all caught just 13 per cent, with Opera only blocking one in twenty.

Rick Moy, president of NSS Labs, told V3.co.uk that Microsoft scored so highly because the tests were conducted online, rather than offline in a laboratory, and this allowed the Redmond's browsers to use reputation engines in the cloud to boost their effectiveness.

"This is where the cloud sourcing model really works," he said.

"Because of sheer number of inputs Microsoft has from its market footprint the company can get a huge hit rate advantage. Of all the Windows clients running IE, a large percentage are sending back information, so Microsoft knows where people are going and what to block."

Another point in Microsoft's favour was the application checking facility added to IE9 he said. This uses a combination of software blacklists and whitelists to speed up the checking process and allows more efficient security.

In comparison to previous tests all browsers registered an improvement, with the exception of Firefox. This may be be because an older version of the browser was used, or be down to a regional weakness in the European market the report found.

The tests defined socially engineered malware as any contact that requires the user to download malware, rather than a drive-by download where simply visiting an infected website with an unpatched browser is enough. Moy estimated that between a half and three quarters of all malware relies on social engineering."

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2094...9s-cloud-security-huge-malware-blocking-boost


NSS Labs Full Test Report here: http://www.nsslabs.com/assets/noreg-reports/2011/nss labs_q2_2011_browsersem_FINAL.pdf

.

 

Yup. Smartscreen has proven to be very effective when I used IE9 in my test VM. Quite a lot of downloads were outright blocked.

 

For what its worth, NSS was paid by Microsoft to run that test, and the terms were set up by Microsoft. Its really a "first party" test, and you have to question the validity of the comparison then..

I'm not saying smart screen is useless or doesn't work... I just don't think you can take that report with any assumption of validity..

 

The same is said every time another NSS labs test comes up, I doub't they're going to keep changing companies until no one finds a test suspicious.

Microsoft have an AV lab powering their SmartScreen, Google (which Chrome and Firefox use) probably don't (notice probably, I've heard nothing to state otherwise). Even if it's not as high as the test claims, the positions of the browsers are probably legit.

 

As far as I can tell, no.

Last 3 lines on page 3 (Executive Summary) expclicitly say that this report was NOT funded by any parttaking vendor and that all vendors were allowed to participate at no cost incurred.

Of course they (NSS Labs) could be outright lying but I doubt anyone would take that risk with such a publicly scrutinized publication. It would be commercial and credibility suicide if they were somehow found out.



Actually I think Microsoft are on to something good here. Given that the most widely used route for distributing malware today is social engineering it only makes sense to mainly focus on reducing the risk of user assisted (PEBKAC) infections. Hopefully other browser vendors will follow suit and come up with similarily effective solutions. Competition is awesome sometimes.

Also, the fact that they (MS) have managed to clean up their act since the crazy early XP days and are now leading the field in some areas concerning practical consumer security makes me think that people should give Microsoft more credit than they currently get.

Cheers



PS. Fanboi disclaimer: posted with Google Chrome on OS X 10.6.8.

 

I haven't used IE on my home computers for years predominantly for a variety of reasons, mainly because there are better options (well that & I think that IE's rubbish).

11. Anyone running a 64 bit version of Windows 7 may have to deal with the confusion over 32 and 64 bit versions of Internet Explorer. There is no such confusion with Chrome and Firefox.

I wonder when 64 bit versions of Chrome or Firefox will appear?

 

64bit versions of Firefox are already here for Windows. Chrome's got 64bit in the works and I believe you can get 64bit Chrome for linux.

 

All NSS labs tests have been funded directly or indirectly by Microsoft...

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/security/how_nss_labs_tested_ie_8s_security.html

http://www.esecurityplanet.com/feat...ernet-Explorer-9-King-of-Malware-Fighters.htm

People who are citing this as proof of IE's security are essentially just buying into a marketing campaign. Its like citing the fact that 4 out of 5 dentists use colgate as a reason to say colgate is the best tooth paste... despite the fact you are only citing something said in a colgate commercial.

 

Why don’t people spend their time proving inconsistencies / lies about different Labs findings than to simply continuing to associate these with “marketing campaigns”. ?

 

Because its not my job to do that. I think its smarter to simply ask "if this works so well, why did Microsoft have to pay someone to demonstrate how good it is. Wouldn't it be mentioned by third party sources who aren't on Microsoft's payroll?

I guess your reaction is typical though... How many people fall for the lines on those late night commercials saying how their weight loss products are proven to reduce pounds fast... or how some financial guru has devised a PROVEN system to make a lot of money... and FAST! I mean, we know the announcer is paid to say that, and all of those testimonials are paid for... but do we have any evidence that it doesn't work? No? Well, then I guess it is true... where is my credit card?

I don't suppose you want me to prove the Ab-ascisor isn't really going to help anyone lose weight, do you?

 

hpmnick,

That lab report is in my opinion just as valid as any other report I've read (regardless of whether Google, Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla.org, Opera or anyone else is funding) until someone comes along to disprove the authenticity of the statistical material or the methodology of the test. Wholesale discrediting of a test simply by association is poor form. Read the NSS Labs report first and then feel free to pick it apart and/or prove that it's false and that M$ is evil.

Not about to get myself dragged into an e-argument here though so that will be all from me in this thread.

Cheers

 

Maybe so, BUT how else could Microsoft get its point across? How many independent comparative tests of browser security have you seen ?? Microsoft is supposed to be patient and wait until some independent lab takes an interest in this and finds time to squeeze it in between their monthly AV tests

Also there is a good explanation as to why IE9 was so successful:

"Internet Explorer's positive showing appears to be thanks to two embedded technologies; Smartscreen URL Filter, a cloud-based system that checks URLs against a master database. This is present in both IE 8 and 9 and seems to work more or less identically in both.

In addition, IE 9 has added a second system, SmartScreen Application Reputation which on the basis of this test offers browser users a remarkably effective level of download block protection. Chrome, Firefox and Safari all use a rival URL checking system, Google's Safe Browser Feed, which as previous NSS Labs tests have suggested, is now falling some ways behind.

"The significance of Microsoft's new application reputation technology cannot be overstated. Application Reputation is the first attempt by any vendor to create a definitive list of every application on the Internet," the authors conclude. "

http://www.pcworld.com/article/235887/ie_wins_malwareblocking_tests.html

btw: I carry no brief for IE - I use FF. Just sayin.

 

This is an age old argument, used in many subject areas, that has been proven wrong time and time again. In the area of logic and debate, you cannot use the argument that your position is correct until its proven wrong. Quite the opposite. If you make a claim, it should be supported with factual and unbiased evidence before it can be regarded as being true.

If I were to make a claim saying that aliens lived on the dark side of the moon, is it up to you to prove me wrong? Of course not. That is just silly.

As far as whether the many NSS labs studies are valid, its very obvious why paying someone to produce a report could lead to biases behavior. If you pay someone $100,000 to produce a report for you, the odds of them coming back with a report that bashes the company's product is very low. Its called Experimenter's bias ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter's_bias ), and its why scientific studies (typically) aren't published when there appear to be conflicts of interest.

So, scientifically speaking, the act of accepting money from a company related to the testing will invalidate the tests. From that perspective, the original claim is yet to be supported, and there is no public evidence to support it.

 

Microsoft has ~30 billion dollars of cash sitting around. They have their own website, a marketing department, and the means to get the word out on their own. The fact that they chose to pay another company to say this, and make it appear that an independent security lab came to this conclusion without bias, is very dishonest IMO.

I'm sure if Microsoft came out themselves and said "our new IE blocks 100% of all malware", there would have been several security researchers willing to put that to the test... Of course, that would have resulted in dissenting opinions... so its easier just to pay someone to say this for you.

Even if NSS could somehow represent themselves as unbiased, despite being given money from Microsoft (or its partners), Microsoft has the opportunity
to pick a researcher that they think will agree with them. If only 1% of researchers feel the same as Microsoft, MS can still cherry pick the one company that they KNOW will print what they want to be printed.

Don't get me wrong though.. I actually think that IE is technically more secure than Firefox on windows 7 (mainly due to the sandboxing feature / low IL). This is more about the difference between science and marketing. Educated individuals SHOULD be able to spot the difference between something that is scientifically valid and unbiased, and marketing (which is by definition, biased and funded information).

 

Internet Explorer Users Are Dumber, Study Shows

July 30, 2011

An old geek adage has become much more believable as a new study has found evidence that Internet Explorer users are generally dumber than Chrome and Firefox users.

A company called AptiQuant, a self-proclaimed "world leader in the field of online psychometric testing," published the results of an online study that tested the IQs of users and grouped the results according to which browser respondents used.

The study found that users of Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Opera were all slightly above average in IQ test results, but Microsoft Internet Explorer users tended to be lower on the IQ scale.

These results aren't surprising because browsers such as Chrome, Firefox and Opera are generally used by professionals and other assorted "geeks," while Internet Explorer is the default option on Windows computers and is mostly used by the inexperienced and those who don't even know there are other options.

The data breakdown between multiple versions of Internet Explorer further supports this theory. The users of the oldest versions of Internet Explorer, such as IE6 and IE7, scored lower than users of more recent versions, such as IE8 or IE9.

Interestingly, Internet Explorer did show up higher in the results, but only with users who used the Google Chrome Frame plugin to augment their Internet Explorer browser. In this case, it's still more of a win for Google than it is for Microsoft.

Opera users will be happy to know they averaged the highest IQ scores of all the browsers. Firefox, Chrome and Safari scores were relatively similar to each other, but lower than that of Opera.


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/30/internet-explorer-users-are-dumber-study-shows/