Halo wrote:

Say it ain't so, well the anti IE browser is just as flawed as IE. Most people have been fooled into thinking that Firefox is the safest browser but I know people are smarter than that...aren't they? How could a browser built by a kid not on the core Windows files be safer than that of IE. Firefox has gained popularity mostly because it's the anti Microsoft. Well here is the recent exploit http://www.tweakxp.com/DisplayNews.aspx?id=156575&fid=34 . Just make sure you patch yours..hmmmm sounds familiar. Isn't that the same thing most people that switched to firefox complained about Internet Explorer.

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:15 am

Jabba wrote:

Hmmm? How about an exploit count?

Alfred Huger V.P. of Engineering for Symantec's security response team wrote:

They patch faster, simple as that," said Alfred Huger, vice president of engineering for Symantec's security response team. "The average time between when a vulnerability is publicly announced and when a patch comes out is 43 days for Internet Explorer, only 26 days for Firefox. And IE still leads Firefox -- leads every Windows application, in fact -- in the total number of vulnerabilities to-date. Symantec's count has IE as having "just north of 300 known vulnerabilities," said Huger. "That's the most vulnerabilities in any [Windows] application that we're aware of. The next in line is IIS [Internet Information Services) with 116." Mozilla's code line, which goes back as far as Netscape, which preceded IE, has "under 100," said Huger.

Full Text of Article

That's also taking into consideration that Mozilla/Firefox code is open to the public too.

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:03 pm

Halo wrote:

It's not about the amount of patches and the time it takes. Firefox is not supposed to have ANY. As long as firefox has vulnerabilities then it is just like any other browser, why should we switch. You can't win the browser war when you claim you have flaws but only less than the other browser. It's just the same as saying your hospital doesn't kill as much people as the leading hospital. The fact is that you are still killing people. Maybe a more humane analogy would be best here but this proves the point.

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:38 am

Jabba wrote:

Halo wrote:

It's not about the amount of patches and the time it takes. Firefox is not supposed to have ANY.

That's just plain rediculous and bordering on stupid.
I've been using Mozilla & Firefox for years and no where have I ever read a claim by the developers, users or anyone in the IT industry that they are or would ever be flaw/exploit free.
Hell, even the best firewall software maker has never claimed to be impervious to vulnerabilities.
No disrespected intended but your argument seems to be emotionally based and I'm not sure what your true motives are.

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:21 pm

Halo wrote:

The assumption given by them is the problem. When I like most people heard about firefox we heard it has never been hacked because of how safe it is. But as you may know by now that is not the reason it has never been hacked, it's because until now hackers did not care to exploit it because the amount of users was not as many as internet explorer. There was no need to hack a browser no one used but now the tide has turned and it will be exploited in more ways than you can even imagine. Do you have any idea how easy it is to exploit an open source software?. Linux can be hacked more than you can ever dream but there is this rule that hackers mostly live by. Attack the mighty and leave the weak alone. The weak in this case is open source and of course you know the might is m$ and others....

Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 9:29 am