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.

I told you, you FireFox Harlots!

I Bob Knight have been foreseeing this for quite some time.

No matter what you think just do some simple math in your elitist little heads and you'll see. Hmm IE has 90% of the market and FireFox 5% or whatever they might be and you'll see that if IE has 13 vulnerabilities while FF has 3 the error rate sides for IE. Imagine if FF had more browser market share then it would have a Googolplex of bugs!

People will never test open source software better than commercial software. And don't say Linux, Red Hat makes you pay for it!

[ddesy]

Hmmmm...

Arrogant... immature... and who did you want to listen to you?

let's do that math you were talking about...

If you take into account the dates that alerts were posted, to the time they were fixed, IE was safe to use for a total of 4 days...in the last year. Then take in account that the vulnerabilities existed for weeks or months before Microsoft would officially admit they existed (if at all).

At the time of the IDN vulnerability in Firefox (Sept 8), the Mozilla Foundation had a fix (Sept. 9) config tweak/patch) the next day, and a new release within 6 days (Sept. 15). In retrospect, with 18 vulnerabilities (for IE alone) on the books, Microsoft chose to skip last month's patch release.

Your logic concerning open source testing provides no statistical analysis, no documentation, and no proof. Only FUD. The main fact that can be applied to your statement is that there is no guarantee that closed-source software does any testing, because no user can audit the code.

There are no bridges here troll...move along.

[mstlyevil]

Red Hat may make you pay.

You obviously are ignorant about Linux. Red Hat is not the only distro out there. There are plenty of very good free distro's like Ubuntu for example. Weather it is that Linux is built for better security or it is because Linux is not on 85% of the worlds pc's and therefore not a target, Linux is just plain more secure than Windows. Btw, Linux/Unix is run on 80% of the worlds servers for a reason.

I told you, you FireFox Harlots!

I Bob Knight have been foreseeing this for quite some time.

No matter what you think just do some simple math in your elitist little heads and you'll see. Hmm IE has 90% of the market and FireFox 5% or whatever they might be and you'll see that if IE has 13 vulnerabilities while FF has 3 the error rate sides for IE. Imagine if FF had more browser market share then it would have a Googolplex of bugs!

People will never test open source software better than commercial software. And don't say Linux, Red Hat makes you pay for it!

[ddesy]

Hmmmm...

Arrogant... immature... and who did you want to listen to you?

let's do that math you were talking about...

If you take into account the dates that alerts were posted, to the time they were fixed, IE was safe to use for a total of 4 days...in the last year. Then take in account that the vulnerabilities existed for weeks or months before Microsoft would officially admit they existed (if at all).

At the time of the IDN vulnerability in Firefox (Sept 8), the Mozilla Foundation had a fix (Sept. 9) config tweak/patch) the next day, and a new release within 6 days (Sept. 15). In retrospect, with 18 vulnerabilities (for IE alone) on the books, Microsoft chose to skip last month's patch release.

Your logic concerning open source testing provides no statistical analysis, no documentation, and no proof. Only FUD. The main fact that can be applied to your statement is that there is no guarantee that closed-source software does any testing, because no user can audit the code.

There are no bridges here troll...move along.

[mstlyevil]

Red Hat may make you pay.

You obviously are ignorant about Linux. Red Hat is not the only distro out there. There are plenty of very good free distro's like Ubuntu for example. Weather it is that Linux is built for better security or it is because Linux is not on 85% of the worlds pc's and therefore not a target, Linux is just plain more secure than Windows. Btw, Linux/Unix is run on 80% of the worlds servers for a reason.

[Blito]

Misleading article.

Sure they have equal security risks but how far and wide had
Microsoft let their problems spread and corrode? How crappy
have they allowed their email and mail client to become
without upgrading? As of date Microsoft has around 15
vulnerabilities where Firefox has 3. Meaning Firefox fixes and
upgrades right away.

What would you choose?
Spoonfed by a lazy company that dishes out leftover table
scraps or a company that cares and actually wants to be
cutting edge?

[Blito]

I meant to say Symantec misleading not CNET article

I meant to say Symantec Misleading not CNET article.

[Blito]

Misleading article.

Sure they have equal security risks but how far and wide had
Microsoft let their problems spread and corrode? How crappy
have they allowed their email and mail client to become
without upgrading? As of date Microsoft has around 15
vulnerabilities where Firefox has 3. Meaning Firefox fixes and
upgrades right away.

What would you choose?
Spoonfed by a lazy company that dishes out leftover table
scraps or a company that cares and actually wants to be
cutting edge?

[Blito]

I meant to say Symantec misleading not CNET article

I meant to say Symantec Misleading not CNET article.

[rahmanr]

i cannot open my yahoomail, they telling the security certificate was expired