nope doesnt fly allen
mozilla has been around a very long time, they are just now going for blood

It is fruitless to resist, young Skywalker. You…. don’t…. know the power of the dark side. Your pitiful little pack of firefoxes will soon meet their doom!! I set their tails on fire…. yehaw-ha-ha-ha!!!

(this message was brought to you courtesy of the dark side )

Advertisement… For only $201.01, enjoy blasting away at planets in our newly rebuilt Death Star!! Or shoot at Skywalker and Hans for only 28 cents!! Yes, you too can have fun like Josh McVader!!!

lol
its not just firefox either, i really like opera as well

whats funny about firefox is that the mozilla browser has always been there baby but when they put out firefox it finally happened for them!

Well, (now in a relapse) I do hope Firefox, Opera and the others can make some headway... and they should be able to. Their end products (websites) are really slick. What a difference from those around just two years ago huh? I'm just saying one shouldn't over-pitch the security thing just yet... it's simply too early to make any claims at all. Projections, yes, estimations, yes, claims, no.

i dont think u should take it for granted (security)

but i would bet everything i have that they are way more secure

we need bobs opinion here

did u look at the source code at mozilla?

ring any bells?

have u visited browse happy yet?

http://browsehappy.com/why/

really the only thing that doesnt make firefox safe is the underlying os
u dont have this problem an a mac or linux

believe me its not just me sitting here and spewing love for ff
its everywhere
i just read that over 200,000 people a day are now downloading firefox.
and m$ says they aint worried lol


if u really wanna learn why it IS more secure u can pretty much google it and its everywhere. the only ones really that say its not come from m$ (go figure)




some good links after a quick google
if u dont wanna believe me, believe cnn, forbes, pcworld, securityfocus, the list could go on for days

http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=5728
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news/archives/20040615_why_you_should_dump_internet_explorer.phtml
http://slate.msn.com/id/2103152/
http://reviews.cnet.com/Mozilla_Firefox_1_0/4505-9241_7-31117280.html?part=editchoice&subj=Mozilla
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/09/mozilla.firefox/
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,64065,00.html
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/249
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116848,00.asp
http://www.forbes.com/home/ebusiness/2004/10/04/cx_pp_1004mondaymatchup.html

Don't forget my favorite source - The Wall Street Journal recommends FireFox.

Here is what I consider the definitive statement on Firefox vs IE security...
This is from EWeek Magazine - November 22, 2004 issue...



That's the whole key really. If your browser is half of your OS, then any problem your browser has is going to affect or has the potential to infect the whole PC. Any security hole in the browser opens up the whole system.

Dave, you keep missing my point (or are purposely dodging it). You could paste 100 more links to places that echo your opinion and it wouldn't matter. Firefox simply hasn't been tested like Windows, put through the same rigors as Windows. Microsoft is going through, it seems, a campaign to cripple it... an intense campaign with hundreds of new viruses every day. Could Firefox survive that many daily attacks? You seem to be saying... "No problem, bring 'em on... Firefox can survive anything."

Come on Dave, get real. You've already heard what opinions are compared to (I won't say here), so you know how many there are. Opinions don't hold water either. But do you know what holds water? Track records hold water. You might find it easy to criticize Microsoft because of all the patches, but using the same logic, then one should criticize a wounded soldier for getting wounded. Mircosoft is getting shot at everyday, Firefox isn't.

Bud, I hate to come on strong like this, especially to you, but you can't say "Yes, Firefox has been through the same thing Microsoft is going through and survived it better" can you? Frankly, I'm getting tired of hearing you and other people bash Microsoft without taking this into account.

I'm not defending Microsoft in other matters however because I hate big companies and know the dangers of monopolies but lets be fair about what we criticize them for. Let's keep this forum credible. I've also said this before... that if one is not objective in their criticism (fair), then everything else they say becomes suspect. You rave on, and on, and on, and on about Mircrosoft to the point of hurting Firefox I think. Comparing security is not a selling point at this juncture simply because Firefox has not weathered the same storms. How many times do I have to say that? How many times are you going to dance around that point? You're not going to win this argument with me Dave.

signed: allen.the_invincible_arguing_guy

ok allen u know i luvsya 2 but ur wayyyyyyyyyyyy off

i havent been avoiding your point at all and i understand what ur saying completely!
but ur not getting it grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
same as when u didnt get it about fp or css or validating, etc.....

like i have said, like bob has said and even i believe as josh has said
u cant compare ie to firefox or mozilla or opera or safari or konquor
because they are completely different things

ie is part of the os, it also lets anything and everything dangerous install and run, whether it be spyware or vbscripts, or self generating code which is then transfered right to the heart of the os because they are connected which is , read this allen BAD BAD BAD.
the other browsers arent connected to the os at all and they dont let vbscripts or activex scripts to run.
just not having it connected to the os makes it way safer
not allowing it to run scripts makes it WAY safer

ok look at it like this
if you have a stock stereo in your car and it shorts out, it also probably will short out other parts of the electrical system as well because they use the same power lines.
but if u take your car in and have a new stereo installed they remove the stock stereo and put in something else and now they arent connected. one has little to do with the other. so if u then get a short it just knocks out the stereo not disable your car.

so u cant say what ur saying because it will never be comparable.
sure someone might write something that gets through firefox but it wont affect the system the same and u wont have to wait 6 months for a patch.

and the thing is whatever the person writes to get through firefox will be going after what?
want a hint????
the os which is still vulnerable because of course its xp

now if u really wanna try this in action, the load up linux instead of xp
and most all your problems are gone.
why?
no microsoft crappy programmed ware thats why

so your ?
we wont know till it gets put through the test like ie is
answer
the mozilla engine has been around as long as the ie engine but has never ever been nearly as vulnarable
the browser has been around as long and ppl have had just as much of a change to exploit it the same as ie but they dont

if a virus writer want s to destroy your comp they just write the code for ie and it destroys ie and the os
if they wanted to get through firefox they'd have to find a really clever way to get through it and then into the os.
ANd really the only way known currently to get through ff is to take advantage of the os flaws not ff flaws.


i dont know how to make u understand allen
ie is NOWHERE near as secure as any of the alt browsers
and it wont be until they change how it is made and seperate it from the os but if they seperate it from the os then more ppl will go to the good browsers and they dont want that
so if u think ur gunna have secure browser even all patched up ur dead wrong, dont be a fool.(stay in school haha)


its just like using frontpage allen
do u think your frontpage site is secure?
my blind grandma could hack her way into a fp site, go straight through the vti_bin or whatever its called, thats 1 way and m$ has know about it for like 9 yrs and havent even fixed it.

if u wanna believe in them go ahead

but its just gunna get worse

thats why i am getting used to linux now

can u imagine whats gunna happen when shorthorn is released.
gunna be a heyday for hackers

so one more time

IE IS NOT AS SECURE AS FIREFOX, PERIOD

loftboy, a few points... the posts on http://browsehappy.com/why/ about IE security problems refer to a pre-release version of xp sp2, or xp sp1. Things are much more secure in the release version of sp2. While there probably are still be some issues in sp2, the posts on http://browsehappy.com/why/ don't discuss any.

I understand the concern about IE being integrated with the OS, but it's the classic problem with security. It tends to be at odds with performance, convenience and functionality. Being integrated with the OS can create risk, but you can deal with that risk by making the OS more secure.

I still plan to install Firefox to see how it works as soon as I get a chance. And I would never claim that IE is perfectly secure or the best software ever (or better than Firefox), but I have yet to read anythign that conclusively proves Firefox is more (or less) secure than IE.

Also, from stuff I've read, there are actually more security holes in Linux than XP, however comparing Linux and XP security is really difficult. There are many more Windows than Linux users, using Windows for more things, so any successful exploit of a security flaw is going to affect more people and often in a more serious way. Also, I think the average Linux user probably has a higher level of technical knowledge, and a computer's user's capability is an important aspect of security.

One thing Windows has going for it is security through obscurity. With Linux, the source is freely available making it easier for a hacker to locate attacks. With Windows, it's more of a trial-and error situation. One complaint I have read recently about Windows is that a number of more recent vulnerabilities haven't been taken advantage of until after a patch has been released. The hole was so obscure before the patch that no one was hitting it. Then once MS releases the patch (with relevant info) the hackers start hitting the hole on machines that haven't yet been patched. Regardless of the OS, you're never going to make it hack-proof.

The sheer volume of users is I think one of the main current problems for Windows security. I can guarantee that if today you made every Win (xp)system a Linux one, and every Linux system a Win (xp) one, then Linux would be the OS we were all bashing for being insecure. That's not to say that security isn't MS'es responsibility, but just that it's not entirely fair to compare Windows and Linux security. The context in which the 2 systems currently exist makes comparing their security very difficult.

It will be really interesting to see, if one day the number (and skill level) of Linux and Windows users are roughly equivalent, how secure each system is perceived to be.

MS has definitely been lax about security in the past, but I really do think that has changed. Unfortunately the old MS stuff will be around for quite a while causing problems, but the newer products really are much better.

I'm not trying to put down Linux, because I don't think any one particular OS is the absolute best - it really depends on the problem you're trying to solve with your OS. Different problems require different solutions. But, I think there's a lot of misinterpretation and misunderstanding about the whole security issue. Both MS and the MS-haters are a primary source of this misinformation and misrepresentation as they try to demonize the other side.

cp you saved me the typing/time... Dave, you need to represent more accurate data, not always just what you read on a website or just something that you want to be true because of your M$ hate... Your *theory* and assumed history is right, but the facts are just a bit different, and ontop of it you can't compare apples to oranges.

I didn't see cpnet's or Josh's post before I wrote this but I'm going to post it anyway (although cpnet said it better)....

Dave, these differences you point out (how they are configured) may well make them more secure than IE, but we don’t know that for sure yet do we? And that’s my point, we don’t know yet (for sure). Hypothetical rhetoric does not establish realities (a track record in this case).

Maybe it’s a good thing you don’t work for the FAA, you’d be certifying aircraft before they ever flew... certifying them before they were proven combat capable. Sure, it all looks good on paper but so did the short-lived Edsel (1958-59).

I’m not denying the problems that IE has, but we should keep in mind they’re getting shot at from every direction… on the other hand, Mozilla isn’t, so until it is (in the same ways and extent), we won’t know how well it can stand up.

As for problems I’ve had with IE, I haven’t, nothing major anyway. Occasionally a file becomes corrupted but most of my problems were my fault. I’ve never had a virus either (not ever). I’ve never had any real problem with FrontPage either, other than to recently discover its limitations. While it may demand things are done its way, it is a very forgiving system (probably because of that)… I’ve never-never lost data.

You said: “if u wanna believe in them go ahead” but I never said I did (in the manner you put it). I’m just saying people should take into account what Microsoft is going through before they criticize their products. You also said:


They may be different things as you say… but whatever these differences, you’re forgetting the environment they’re operating in is different too. Microsoft is fighting a war and the others aren’t. Sure, they may be structured differently, but these structural differences haven’t met the test of time.

I’m actually pulling for these other browsers and I hope they can give Microsoft a run for its money… to balance out the marketplace. I think their innovations are great and I truly hope they succeed getting a good market-share, which they probably eventually will. But you know what? Promoting them by exploiting Microsoft’s situation isn’t good for anyone, and it certainly doesn’t say much for these other browsers if they must rely on it. These are unfair comparisons… Microsoft is operating in different environment. If they want to do that, then I say to **** with them, I’ll stick with IE if for no other reason. It isn’t right Dave, and you should know it… I don’t care how much in vogue some think it is to bash Microsoft.

ok maybe im just wording things wrong here

most things people have said maybe yes maybe no

but like what josh said u need to compare apples to apples
no duh
that was my whole main point where allen keeps coming back and saying well u need to compare them on equal grounds and i said u cant and he comes back and says same thing

then u guys come inand say basically the same thing im saying

and yes linux has holes but they are fixed pronto when it matters not weeks, month or years

ok so lets revisit the ?
is ie more secure than firefox?

ok lets reword that, if u josh, allen & cpnet are to put firefox on your puters and start using them will you be more secure on on the net right now?

the answer is YES

doesnt have anything to do with sp2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sp2 is just more crap
covers up a few holes but just adds more.... lots more matter of fact. A lot of corporations (such as farmers insurance) have demanded that anyone who who has installed it remove it and/or dont install it or they lose there tech support. And in their case u have to have ie to access their agent tools.
why in gods green earth do u ppl think sp2 made your puters more safe?
the only ones who say so is m$
all it did was add a worthless firewall, take up more space on your hard disk.

i installed it, lol
funny thing was only m$ would work, go figure
dont think sp2 is gunna make u secure

u can get the free version of many firewalls that make your puter more safe then sp2

if u guys dont get it thats fine
when i say these things bout ff being more secure im not bashing m$
its not bashing when its the truth

all these things can be controlled by the users actions and what they chose to use
but everyone gets a faux sense of security when the install sp2 and why?
when has ms EVER put out something secure?

they cant even secure bills mailbox
did u know he has 3 divisions of ppl and his very own software to go through his emails?

glad my money went to such a worth while cause.


and like cpnet, why u so afraid to try it? (maybe cause u think it works like ie, yet u defend ie)
its not like changing os systems
put it on if u dont like it take it off
they are not the same as ie ppl!!!

its funny how u all are scared ( i wonder why!!!!)
get away from ie and u wont be

and josh i dont make my mind up by what i read on a website
most of the time i write something then go google it (since others here cant)

my info and how i feel comes from experience.
and i never ever make up my mind if i do read something until i have seen it by good source over and over again.

the links are more meant for allen to broaden his horizons

good article backed by FACTS
The most secure browser
http://aviran.mordos.com/index.php?p=19

another
Think You're Secure? Where SP2 Falls Short
http://informationweek.smallbizpipeline.com/howto/53200147

just cause i googled and found them

do yall know what googling means?