Comments on: Symantec: Mozilla browsers more vulnerable than IE
But the security specialist also finds that Microsoft's browser is the only one widely exploited by hackers today.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Facebook, Twitter: How we chose to live in public
January 1, 2010 12:16 PM PST
- Ex-Googler Lee sees Apple tablet debut in January
January 1, 2010 9:20 AM PST
- U.S. trade agency eyes Samsung-Sharp spat
January 1, 2010 7:31 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
www.secunia.com
It isnt at all suprising that symantec would lick the hand that feeds them. The problem is people believe this garbage
www.secunia.com
It isnt at all suprising that symantec would lick the hand that feeds them. The problem is people believe this garbage
Now imagine a parallel world where people use very unsafe browser and mailer on a very unsafe OS prone to catch a virus every minute. Of course an antivirus would be absolutely required.
If it's up to Syamtec to decide which of these two worlds we should live, what do you think their choice would be? A safer world with no need of antivirus programs or a very unsafe world with a very powerful antivirus?
This said, could it be that Symantec is making "politics" here, preferring IE/MS because of the higher number of expoited vulnerabilities than other browser/platforms?
This sounds an awful lot like the complaint that doctors and pharmaceutical companies have the cures for all kinds of diseases, but they keep them secret in order to keep up their revenues from drug sales. A good, old conspiracy theory.
Further, God forbid that a business should seek to actually stay in business. A good business should seek to rid the world of the necessity of it's product. Hint: read as sarcasm.
If you don't like the company, avoid it. Don't preach.
And no, I'm not in any way affiliated with or a devotee of Microsoft or Symantec.
Now imagine a parallel world where people use very unsafe browser and mailer on a very unsafe OS prone to catch a virus every minute. Of course an antivirus would be absolutely required.
If it's up to Syamtec to decide which of these two worlds we should live, what do you think their choice would be? A safer world with no need of antivirus programs or a very unsafe world with a very powerful antivirus?
This said, could it be that Symantec is making "politics" here, preferring IE/MS because of the higher number of expoited vulnerabilities than other browser/platforms?
This sounds an awful lot like the complaint that doctors and pharmaceutical companies have the cures for all kinds of diseases, but they keep them secret in order to keep up their revenues from drug sales. A good, old conspiracy theory.
Further, God forbid that a business should seek to actually stay in business. A good business should seek to rid the world of the necessity of it's product. Hint: read as sarcasm.
If you don't like the company, avoid it. Don't preach.
And no, I'm not in any way affiliated with or a devotee of Microsoft or Symantec.
The number of pending vulnerability reports is an interesting, and potentially significant figure. It would also be helpful to know what percentage of pending vulnerabilities historically have been validated as actual, patchable vulnerabilities for each browser. Is Mozilla/Firefox subjected to more rigorous analysis because it is an open-source project? Or is IE probed more closely by security analysts because its dominant share ensures that any verified vulnerability will be of more significance, or perhaps a source of greater acclaim for its discoverer? I think these are worthwhile questions to ask.
While Symantec is obligated to reveal any business relationships it has with any vendor whose software it is analyzing, I don't buy the notion that Symantec would willingly encourage the public to use a more vulnerable browser either out of deference to Microsoft or as a short-sighted effort to boost its own products. Symantec has a professional reputation to uphold that is far more valuable to it in the long run than any short-term gain as a sell-out in a report that virtually no one will read.
My conclusion is this: a respectable company with good security credentials has culled some factual information that suggests it is possible that Mozilla-based browsers may be more vulnerable to security threats, at least technically, than is Internet Explorer. As users of Mozilla-based browsers, instead of lashing out at the messenger (Symantec and CNet) or declaring without countervailing facts that the evidence meaningless, doesn?t it make better sense to find out whether there is anything more that we can or should do to protect ourselves from these vulnerabilites? Which is more important: Mozilla?s untarnished honor, or your data?
The number of pending vulnerability reports is an interesting, and potentially significant figure. It would also be helpful to know what percentage of pending vulnerabilities historically have been validated as actual, patchable vulnerabilities for each browser. Is Mozilla/Firefox subjected to more rigorous analysis because it is an open-source project? Or is IE probed more closely by security analysts because its dominant share ensures that any verified vulnerability will be of more significance, or perhaps a source of greater acclaim for its discoverer? I think these are worthwhile questions to ask.
While Symantec is obligated to reveal any business relationships it has with any vendor whose software it is analyzing, I don't buy the notion that Symantec would willingly encourage the public to use a more vulnerable browser either out of deference to Microsoft or as a short-sighted effort to boost its own products. Symantec has a professional reputation to uphold that is far more valuable to it in the long run than any short-term gain as a sell-out in a report that virtually no one will read.
My conclusion is this: a respectable company with good security credentials has culled some factual information that suggests it is possible that Mozilla-based browsers may be more vulnerable to security threats, at least technically, than is Internet Explorer. As users of Mozilla-based browsers, instead of lashing out at the messenger (Symantec and CNet) or declaring without countervailing facts that the evidence meaningless, doesn?t it make better sense to find out whether there is anything more that we can or should do to protect ourselves from these vulnerabilites? Which is more important: Mozilla?s untarnished honor, or your data?
I think in future it is very much possible that mozilla shall go the internet explorer way.
~Shantanu
http://godisnear.blogspot.com
I think in future it is very much possible that mozilla shall go the internet explorer way.
~Shantanu
http://godisnear.blogspot.com
"There are 19 security issues that Microsoft still has to deal with for Internet Explorer, while there are only three for Firefox."
Security on the Internet is an on-going process. Hackers continue to target IE more than any other browser. The only reason there are more counted this year for Firefox is probably because security experts don't count the ones that weren't/or haven't been fixed. I hereby think less of Symantec for saying Firefox is more vulnerable to attacks. That is complete BS. Furthermore, keep in mind, Firefox is by Mozilla Organization which has Firefox open source. When there's a problem with Firefox, it gets fixed within hours, not weeks. With Microsoft and Internet Explorer, it may take weeks. However, that's if it's even patched.
Symantec, I say Firefox loyalists call you and demand you apologize to the Mozilla organization for your outrageous claim! It surely isn't true, IE is more vulnerable. The more something is used the more it is exposed resulting in more attacks. Mozilla takes security very seriously, that's why they don't leave any scraps on the floor for very long, they pick up after themselves unlike MS does with IE.
Firstly, Symantec never said that "Firefox was more vulnerable to attacks". They only said that "Firefox has more vulnerabilities" in the pertained time frame. Similar words, but very different meanings.
Secondly, the report is an all-around 100 page report on the many aspects of the Internet architecture. Web browsers was only a mere whisper in the vast other more-important topics discussed. This article is only a fragment of the report taken out of context and made to appear that it is a war between Firefox and Internet Explorer.
Thirdly, Firefox, as well as many other browsers such as Opera, Konqueror and Safari, were equally discussed in the report. Each were equally criticized with measurable data as well providing justifications for those trends, some of which actually vindicated Firefox and explained away the discrepancies.
"There are 19 security issues that Microsoft still has to deal with for Internet Explorer, while there are only three for Firefox."
Security on the Internet is an on-going process. Hackers continue to target IE more than any other browser. The only reason there are more counted this year for Firefox is probably because security experts don't count the ones that weren't/or haven't been fixed. I hereby think less of Symantec for saying Firefox is more vulnerable to attacks. That is complete BS. Furthermore, keep in mind, Firefox is by Mozilla Organization which has Firefox open source. When there's a problem with Firefox, it gets fixed within hours, not weeks. With Microsoft and Internet Explorer, it may take weeks. However, that's if it's even patched.
Symantec, I say Firefox loyalists call you and demand you apologize to the Mozilla organization for your outrageous claim! It surely isn't true, IE is more vulnerable. The more something is used the more it is exposed resulting in more attacks. Mozilla takes security very seriously, that's why they don't leave any scraps on the floor for very long, they pick up after themselves unlike MS does with IE.
Firstly, Symantec never said that "Firefox was more vulnerable to attacks". They only said that "Firefox has more vulnerabilities" in the pertained time frame. Similar words, but very different meanings.
Secondly, the report is an all-around 100 page report on the many aspects of the Internet architecture. Web browsers was only a mere whisper in the vast other more-important topics discussed. This article is only a fragment of the report taken out of context and made to appear that it is a war between Firefox and Internet Explorer.
Thirdly, Firefox, as well as many other browsers such as Opera, Konqueror and Safari, were equally discussed in the report. Each were equally criticized with measurable data as well providing justifications for those trends, some of which actually vindicated Firefox and explained away the discrepancies.
I repair computers for a living. Ever since IE and SpyWare have become full-fledged partners, I have literally been making a killing. Not my choice, just the way it works out; I would much rather work on hardware problems.
After I clean up all the SpyWare/MalWare, and remove all the trojans that IE helped download onto their systems, I put my customers on Firefox and don't hear anything else out of them concerning unexplained pc shutdowns, unwanted pop-up ads, unresponsive applications, etc.
Now Symantec (an Anti-Spyware vendor) is dogging Mozilla/Firefox about their security record?
Makes me think of that old legend about the electronics company that made radar detectors for the general public was the same company making radar guns for the police departments.
---
Max
- Conflict of Interest?
- by September 20, 2005 3:14 AM PDT
- Hmmm...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (123 Comments)I repair computers for a living. Ever since IE and SpyWare have become full-fledged partners, I have literally been making a killing. Not my choice, just the way it works out; I would much rather work on hardware problems.
After I clean up all the SpyWare/MalWare, and remove all the trojans that IE helped download onto their systems, I put my customers on Firefox and don't hear anything else out of them concerning unexplained pc shutdowns, unwanted pop-up ads, unresponsive applications, etc.
Now Symantec (an Anti-Spyware vendor) is dogging Mozilla/Firefox about their security record?
Makes me think of that old legend about the electronics company that made radar detectors for the general public was the same company making radar guns for the police departments.
---
Max