So you think Firefox is safer than IE?

floppybootstomp

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
20,281
Reaction score
1,794
The head of threat intelligence at Symantec argues that Mac OS X and Mozilla Firefox users are fooling themselves if they think they’re impervious to attack. Out of 38 vulnerabilities discovered in the first half of 2005, 25 were for Mozilla browsers and only 13 for Internet Explorer. Recent trojan discoveries demonstrate that as OS X increases in popularity, it will get more attention from potential attackers. The Register has the full story.

Here
 
Anything that becomes popular gets the attention - from both sides ;)

I personally think the more popular it get's the more vulnerable it will be and more updates would be needed to protect it.
 
Indeed, most alternative browsers only prove more impervious to spyware and viruses as a result of those spyware and viruses being AIMED at Internet Explorer, not neccesarily because they ACTUALLY pocesses any better security features.

Mozilla Firefox is usually agreed to be the most reliable and secure alternative browser, although I much prefere Opera out of ease of use, and I can't say that's ever given me problems either.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you're doing, you should ALWAYS have a firewall open anyway.
 
floppybootstomp said:
The head of threat intelligence at Symantec argues that Mac OS X and Mozilla Firefox users are fooling themselves if they think they’re impervious to attack. Out of 38 vulnerabilities discovered in the first half of 2005, 25 were for Mozilla browsers and only 13 for Internet Explorer. Recent trojan discoveries demonstrate that as OS X increases in popularity, it will get more attention from potential attackers. The Register has the full story.

Here
Click to expand...


Well..... the statistics are slightly out of wack here.
Out of 38 vulnerabilities discovered in the first half of 2005, 25 were for Mozilla browsers and only 13 for Internet Explorer.
Click to expand...
The real test is "how many were patched" and "how many are unpatched?"

http://secunia.com/product/11/
IE.png


http://secunia.com/product/4227/
firefox.png
 
Last edited:
usalug, I'm kinda glad you posted that

I am fond of neither Symantec or MS, but did think it was interesting

Symantec got their tongue firmly in one spot of MS's anatomy it seems, that fact didn't escape me

All I trying to do really is say 'don't be complacent'
 
An EXTREMELY wise thought ;)

ALL browsers have bugs..... or "could" have , that aren't exploited yet, or known yet. Keeping patched is just one way of keeping the nasties at bay. I quit using M$ stuff about 5 years ago..... haven't had one bug since then. Not ONE. ;)

Do I think Mozilla is safer than IE ....... oh yes ABSOLUTELY.
Do I think Linux is safer than Windows ..... ABSOLUTELY.

Do I think that the extra security i'm afforded means that I can be lax on security..... Absolutely NOT.
 
usalug said:
An EXTREMELY wise thought ;)

ALL browsers have bugs..... or "could" have , that aren't exploited yet, or known yet. Keeping patched is just one way of keeping the nasties at bay. I quit using M$ stuff about 5 years ago..... haven't had one bug since then. Not ONE. ;)

Do I think Mozilla is safer than IE ....... oh yes ABSOLUTELY.
Do I think Linux is safer than Windows ..... ABSOLUTELY.

Do I think that the extra security i'm afforded means that I can be lax on security..... Absolutely NOT.
Click to expand...
Suse Linux ... +Firefox +built in Firewall +NAT Router.

"Do I think that the extra security i'm afforded means that I can be lax on security..... Absolutely NOT."

Not me either ... :thumb:
 
Back
Top