On CBS MoneyWatch: 29 Fees We Hate to Pay
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 6 of 35:
Next »
« Previous
By you can assume your MUCH safer
PhDude: "I use Mozilla too, but that doesn't mean that I feel safe. It means I feel safer. If Mozilla grows in popularity to IE/OE, I expect to see frequent exploits too."

The scripting components in Mozilla must be a hell of a lot more secure than Microsoft's Internet Explorer.

If you have a look at the vulnerabilities in Microsoft IE, a lot of the newer discovered vulnerabilities seem to exploit familiar vulnerabilities that has already been patched.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030604155119/http://pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/
In fact a lot of older vulnerabilities, supposedly fixed have been rentered as new vulnerabilities by combining it with other vulnerabilities.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030622002321/pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/6may03notes.html
Microsoft's approach to security of IE has been dubbed "patch and pray", fixing problems closer to the interface instead of dealing with the underlying design flaws that lead to the problem in the first place.

By the way, over the same time period, Netcape and Mozilla underwent the same scrutiny as Internet Explorer by most of the same Security "experts" who discovered vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer. Check their websites.
Posted by: David Mohring   Posted on: 03/20/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

It figures  Squawkbox | 03/19/04
And want to come to a Linux box near you  FilledOut | 03/19/04
ActiveX was an exploit waiting to happen  Chad_z | 03/19/04
ActiveX exploits are why I'm using Firefox  jfrankcarr | 03/20/04
Don't assume you're safe ...  George Jay | 03/20/04
By you can assume your MUCH safer  David Mohring | 03/20/04
Well, now you're getting somewhere  jfrankcarr | 03/21/04
And people laughed...........  nite_w0lf | 03/19/04
Blame Norton  boxmonkey | 03/20/04
You have to use ActiveX in this case  jfrankcarr | 03/20/04
Active X for security?  michael-t | 03/20/04
Dogs and fleas  bjbrock | 03/20/04
Dogs and fleas  seosamh_z | 03/21/04
Re: Dogs & fleas  MammyNun | 03/23/04
But...  DragonBRockin | 03/20/04
Hey, where's No_Ax?  Chad_z | 03/20/04
Security Programs Becoming Major Infection Vector  Aphelion | 03/21/04
Re: Security Programs Becomming Major Infection Vector  GraysonPeddie | 03/22/04
virus authors  angrymuthu | 03/21/04
The .net Framework might be better...  GraysonPeddie | 03/21/04
The .net Framework might be better...  seosamh_z | 03/21/04
It's always the "next" version with MSFT  Chad_z | 03/21/04
It's always the "next" version with MSFT  seosamh_z | 03/22/04
.net is 10 years LATE  michael-t | 03/21/04
.net is 10 years LATE  seosamh_z | 03/22/04
MS and 'modern' technologies ....  michael-t | 03/22/04
Anybody notice...  Yen_z | 03/21/04
Substitute Java and ...  ShadeTree | 03/22/04
ActiveX is far more than scripting  jfrankcarr | 03/22/04
Mixing metaphors.  ShadeTree | 03/22/04
Sorry, but you are quite confused  jfrankcarr | 03/22/04
you mean jsp, lets be clear - not Sun Java  JWatson77 | 03/24/04
then again MS Java did have a few vulnerabilities  JWatson77 | 03/24/04
What Idiot Uses ActiveX for Security? Only Symantec...  brenthawkinsmd | 03/22/04
activex? lol  JWatson77 | 03/24/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
Click Here
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here