Firefox has lots of security holes.

Its nice to browse through the forums here and see how many peole are constantly switching to Firefox.  They are saying that firefox is alot more secure than IE and that its rather stupid to use IE. I have news for you all, YOUR WRONG.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=22008

Firefox does have its uses, but to tell people to stiwtch over to it becasue of its great security is one of the dumbest things that i have ever heard. Read the article guys, there are 21 holes in firefox while there are only 13 currently in IE. Fire fox is not the most secure borwser around.

Its also nice to see how many people say that if you use IE, you will have your computer bloated with spyware, another lie.  I use IE and guess how much spyware I have, NONE. Any competant user of a computer knows that if you actually watch what you install, then you wont get this crap on your system.

Now I'm not trying to bash Firefox here, i use both Firefox and IE. I just want to see people starting to get some of thier facts strait before they start telling people which is the best. Its all a matter of personal preference, none is really better than the others. And ALL BROWSERS HAVE SECURITY HOLES. Firefox is not excluded from that list.

Any other major browser beats IE for the simple fact that it has a competent, standards-compliant layout engine as well as support for PNG alpha channel.

Other than that, though, I can make do with IE just fine (yes, I've had lengthy experiences with tabbed browsing, and it's a great feature, but I don't find it to be critical).

Firefox is also slow :-(

News, reviews, facts .. and friction? wtf? I find that article hard to believe, for it is filled spelling mistakes. What serious journalist doesn't check their own spelling? -_-

Firefox does not execute some of the scripts, whereas IE executes all of them. That's why it's easier to get infected while browsing with IE than browsing with Firefox.

>>4

Firefox fanboy.

>>6
interesting how you call them a Firefox fanboy when they don't mention Firefox at all

He is bashing the source of the article because it says bad things about Firefox.

Tabbed browsing. Use anything other than IE, it's shit. Opera works well too.

>>3

I believe about 43% of the stuff that inq puts out. threse alot of rumors/lies on that site and they never say whats only hearsay.

"competant user"
Thats the key word.  There is far less spyware that targets the firefox platform, thus it's greater security. Don't expect your users to be competant.  I know many people who have alot less headaches fixing their incompetant computer user friends computer because far less PITA spyware is automagically installed with firefox versus IE.

Opera is also good too, but it costs money, thus the preference for firefox.

And more security holes isn't necessarily bad, it could just mean a better review process.  How severe are the security holes too?

Firefox is just a cleaner, far less complex application to use for "incompetant" users and thus its rising popularity.

The reason that so few spyware apps are targeting firefox right now is becasue so many more people use IE.  If i wanted to spy on people, i would use the method that allowed me to do it on the greatest number of people. Right now, the best way to do that is to go after IE.

Just look at what the article said, it claims that Mac OS X has up to 37 high-severity vulnerabilities.  But why does Mac then not have the same windows problems, its because people can casue more problems by picking on what people use.

And as for the possibility of a better review process, all of the statistics were taken from Symantec, so i think that we could assume that each was given an equal ammount of attention for review.

Unless you are the type of person to buy into conspiracies, you could say that the said firefox had more hole so more people would use IE, then get viruses and need their Nortons to get rid of it, right?  Just another thought.

In this case, the Inquirer is actually printing the truth, though it may not be the whole truth...
--Excerpted from Symantec's 7th threat report--
"The discovery of vulnerabilities affecting browsers appears to be on the rise (figure 3), with more Mozilla
vulnerabilities documented in this period than those affecting Microsoft Internet Explorer. This runs
contrary to a trend seen in previous periods where nearly all browser vulnerabilities affected Microsoft
Internet Explorer exclusively.
Between July 1 and December 31, 2004, Symantec documented 13 vulnerabilities affecting Microsoft
Internet Explorer. This is notably lower than the 21 vulnerabilities affecting each of the Mozilla browsers
that were documented during the same period. Six vulnerabilities were reported in Opera and none in Safari.
Though the share of vulnerabilities affecting the Mozilla browsers has increased, Microsoft Internet
Explorer still has a greater proportion of high-severity vulnerabilities. Of the 13 vulnerabilities affecting
Microsoft Internet Explorer documented by Symantec this period, nine were considered high severity. Of
the 21 vulnerabilities affecting the Mozilla browsers, 11 were classified as high severity, while only seven
affecting Firefox were highly severe. While there have been few, if any credible reports of attacks against
Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, or Safari in the wild, it remains to be seen whether these browsers will live
up to the expectations that many have for them."

As far as vulnerabilities go, the attackers will attack the browser with the majority, always.  In response to >>1, all of Mozilla's browsers may have more vulnerabilities than IE, however Firefox itself only has 7 critical ones, to IE's 9.  In the end, as long as you're a competant user, Firefox is still safer; so say the numbers.

show me any software that does not have any holes
man rights software man makes mistakes thats why we have rubber
on the ends of pencils

lol the headline: MOZILLA-BASED BOWSERS

SOMEONE CALL MARIO!!!


This being said one has to trust the credibility of their source. The spelling errors alone make me untrustfull of the linked article's validitity.

>>15
Guess you didnt read >>13, their source is credible, that is, the source that the article used. >>13 even kindly pasted in the source FROM SYMANTEC. The fast that people here are religously devoted to certain browsers that they accept them completely is absurd.  All software has holes, and in this case, Firefox has more of them.  Not as many are highly critical, but they are there. How could any of you thenexplain the patch theat was recently released? There hasn't been any new funtionality added, and i havent seen any bugs that result in crashes or other mishaps.  What they did was patch some of these holes.  Some of you devout Firefox worshipers need to see the light and realize that Firefox does have holes and is not perfect, just like all software.

>>16
Yes, I did read. And I do trust symatec. However I wasn't trying to discreditic Symatec, I was trying to discredit the orignal article that was posted. Had >>1 linked to the information on the Symatec website in the first place I wouldn't have had any grammer to ntipick, thus ruining my fun.

As for the fact Firefox has holes.. no fucking shit.. of course it has holes. It's software..  I might also note that the Symatec site doesn't mention which version of Firefox they checked, there's a chance they were bugcheking a pre 1.0 release.

And a patch? Of course a patch was released.. I'm glad it was released, it indicates that I'm using a piece of supported and updated software.

There's a good reason so many of us support Firefox wholeheartedly, it's all around a better piece of software than internet explorer.. and it's only in version 1 what version is IE in? 7+.. and it still has that many holes? And that few features?

I lol.

You think by now M$ has had enough time to fix IE completely...

You'd think that by now M$ has had enough time to fix IE completely...

They have. Had time that is. After they beat Netscape off by buying someone else's browser and bundling it with Windows they promptly abandoned development of IE. They care about their customers *THAT MUCH*.

Now they are scrambling to try to hack some features into IE to make it less godawful.

Here's a thought experiment: given what happened last time they won a browser war, what do you think would happen if they managed to beat Firefox back into obscurity? As a consumer, would this outcome be in your best interests?

Forget the idiots who accuse Firefox users of fanboyism. Do what it takes to ensure you get a browser that will continue to be good into the future, not just in the current version.

>>20
Good advice. It is a good idea though to mention that while they are about to come out with IE 7, IE has been around for over 10 years. Just look at Netscape. They are up to version 8. Its not a good argument to say that they are up to a certain version number considering the amount of time that the program has been in existance.  Firefox isnt that old, hence version 1. For the fixing of IE, while that would be in everyones best interest, just as haveing othr alternative bowsers available, with so many people using IE, no matter how much work you put into it, someone will allways find some sort of hole to exploit. No program will ever be perfect.  As to the fanboys of either programs, let up, every person has thier own preferences. Don't go around yelling at them to switch to either. Let people make up their own mind.  Firefox has lots of promise, but is far from perfect. From what I have hear about the new IE, it to might work out well. Only time will tell.

It's also worth pointing out that the Firefox codebase comes straight out of Mozilla, which was open sauce Netscape

It's essentially an attempt to make Mozilla not suck.

will buy in any case http://www.comeboot.com/ugg-kids-boots.html  Kids UGG. http://www.comeboot.com/ugg-kids-boots.html  Kids UGG http://www.comeboot.com/  Winter UGG. http://www.comeboot.com/  Winter UGG, another pair if they are still available.  Slippers International is still very much a family business. http://www.comeboot.com/  Black UGG. http://www.comeboot.com/  Black UGG The origin of their fine slipper-making dates back to their 1930's ancestors. Nearly

Additionally you should be certain with regards to the option of the fabric http://www.publicdress.org/Wedding-Guest-Dresses.html  spring wedding guest dresses  http://www.publicdress.org/  celebrity dresses evening gowns . Flower garments made from delicate material including Organza or chiffon will want far more care, and so better select silk, cotton or perhaps polyester clothes. From time to time long gowns trouble the kids and don’t allow them to take pleasure in their freedom of  Additionally, choose a details neckline and also straight midsection. These will probably best improve your waistline thus making you look older in your wedding outfit. http://www.publicdress.org/Plus-size-Dresses.html  plus size cheap dresses  <br>  <br> When most brides consider their bridal party, they possibly image their bridesmaids and maid of honour in matching outfits and shoes. even although you choose your wedding