Comments on: WrapUp: Firefox Considered Most Vulnerable App, Windows 7 Performance, and More

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:03:24 +0000

Ryan, it’s irresponsible to post that report from Bit9 without posting the counter reply from Mozilla and many other security experts that debunked the Bit9 report.

EVEN MORE IRONIC, IE was going through that massive zero-day vulnerability attacks when Bit9 released their stupid report on that week. So go figure, who you think is more secure?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:45:50 +0000

Nic Moon wrote:

So when they patch 10 security issues it’s actually a good thing rather than a bad one.

True, but on the flip side patches aren't exactly released the same day. Some users are left vulnerable for weeks before an update is released that incorporates any kind of fix.

-=Ben=- wrote:

Firefox is the safest, what happened to Cybernet? Ever since google chrome released, its all been anti-firefox articles.Please talk more about good Firefox to secure my RSS subscription.

I'm still a Firefox user 95% of each and every day. Google Chrome is nice, but the main reason I give it attention is because it has the chance to be a real game changer. Now that another big player is in the market it will get the browser developers to make sure they are on top of their game.

By: -=Ben=-

-=Ben=- — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:51:14 +0000

Firefox is the safest, what happened to Cybernet? Ever since google chrome released, its all been anti-firefox articles.

Please talk more about good Firefox to secure my RSS subscription.

By: Nic Moon

Nic Moon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:44:04 +0000

I do kind of see where your coming from with the market share idea…but Firefox just hit 20%. Open Source is more secure by design. If someone can look at the code it is far easier to find flaws. So when they patch 10 security issues it’s actually a good thing rather than a bad one. The Open Source community fixes issues with it’s product before they are exploited (hopefully). Open source networking applications are vastly more secure than closed source – it just seems worse because more exploits are exposed and patched. The updates come much faster for a browser like firefox that internet explode though. There was a serious exploit in IE just recently and it took Microsoft days (!) to patch it. There were third party patches long before they actually released it (oh and Safari as well – the only one I don’t remember having one is Opera). Whose not listed, Internet Explorer, who like I said had horrible fixing on their bug. Microsoft’s security mannerisms are really pathetic.

Sorry for the vent but that list made firefox seem like a joke. It is quite the opposite. IE is under developed, horribly coded, and THE worst browser. Security updates doesn’t mean it’s insecure. I doubt that many if ANY one was exploited using firefox. Listing widely used applications that odviously need to be updated when a security issue is found is a joke…when your company does something wrong they fix it in a timely manner – probably before hackers even notice. Google even started saying…well just don’t use internet explorer – we recommend ours or Mozilla’s.

By: MarcoMR

MarcoMR — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:45:10 +0000

I always said that Firefox was more vulnerable than IE due it wasn’t the target center of hack attacks. Since most people used IE, if i want to hack something the probability of being successful was exponencially higher on IE.

As market is inverting, more attention is getting to firefox.

But that’s me speculating.

I assume the same will happen with Linux Systems. Blábláblá more secure and all … but its a matter of time.

I think the same happens with MAC’s.

On the windows seven side, i will test it later this week. I am horryfied with vista trying to control me when i use it (no much thankfully) but i expect some better experiences. I already know that the good old Windows Media Player is screwing MP3′s … but on the other hand, i don’t use WMP along time ago.