Comments on: When more bugs can mean tighter security

Mozilla Europe president explains why having fewer disclosed vulnerabilities doesn't mean Internet Explorer is safer than the open-source Web browser.

[Anon-Y-mous]

As usual, both sides of the fence, when it suits them.

Didn't they used to claim "look at all the bugs in IE. Switch to us for higher security/less bugs"

Now that MS has fixed a lot of the bugs and addressed security, somewhat, and happen to have fewer breaches lately, now they're saying that having bugs is BETTER for security??

Whatever.

[Penguinisto]

Err, no they didn't.

It was more like "look at how easily IE makes your computer into somebody else's *****. We want to make something that helps prevent that from happening".

Also, they never said that having bug is better for security. RTFM. What they did say was that having all of your bugs publicly viewable is better for security - at least that way everyone knows about it and is forewarned.

Internet Explorer has bugs in it now that no one outside of Microsoft and the undernet/hacker communities know about. It's like being on a cruise ship that's leaking water badly, but only some of the crew and all the rats down in the bilge know about it. In the analogy as in web browsers, you never really find out about it until it's way too late to save yourself from the results.

/P

[Mike E.]

Yep, Mozilla is full of hypocrisy

First they pointed to IE bugs to show that Firefox is better.
When pointed that Firefox does not have bugs because no security researcher has ever looked at it (because nobody uses it), and that when Firefox gains user share security researcher will find tons of bugs, Firefox guys said it will never happened.
Now it is *starting* to occur (I'm sure we'll see more once Firefox gets more popular), and they tell us that bug counts do not matter.

[rcrusoe]

Cracks in the wall

Who cares which browser had the most "cracks in the wall"? It's
the severity of the problems that counts, not the quantity.

IMO, Mozilla might have had the most cracks, but IE on many
occasions has left all the doors open. When was the last time
you read a security bulletin that advised you to use IE instead of
Firefox? I can't recall any.

But when was the last time you read one advising you to not use
IE? For me, it was last week. In fact, it seems that most
advisories concerning websites have a "don't use IE" or "set IE
security to high".

[protagonistic]

RE: Cracks in the wall

You are wasting your time. You can't argue with a closed mind.
But I have to say I can't recall ever having seen a Firefox browser
hijack and I have seen lots of IE browser hijacks. :-)

[suyts]

Uhmm, yeh....

ok, where are you getting your advisories? Mozilla.com? Haven't seen one yet( a serious security firm) that tells me to not use one web browser or the other.

[fastdodge]

Use whatever you want

at the end of the day you get to pay for your own mistakes. That
includes poor choices in software. I know which vendor has cost us
billions of dollars in losses due to sloppy programming practices.

[wbenton]

Title is Awkward

Just like the initial story.

Posting the illogical crap which Microsoft spews out is low-down enough.

But trying to rectify yourself after the intial blurb... and with the title like you've posted it... (* LOL *)

Sounds like if Microsoft created more bugs... which they continually do... that their Operating System will become MORE secure! (* ROFLOL *)

Thus the title of this article is just as inaccurate as Microsoft's initial Slander against Firefox which you first posted!

Either IE is MORE secure or Microsoft's logic is not logical at all.

CNet News seems to be reporting it BOTH WAYS!... that just doesn't go over very well with me.

Either it is or it isn't... wishy-washy stepping on this side of the fence one time and the other side of the fence the next time isn't a good reputation maker!

Bottom Line: Either you're for or you're against Microsoft... trying to play the middle against each other will get your hands and feet burnt real quick like!

The facts are:
#1: Microsoft has lax security
#2: Microsoft's ill attempts to claim that they're increasing their security have been proven wrong time and again in the past.
#3: Microsoft continues to attempt to make a good name for itself for those willing to listen.
#4: If Cnet keeps supporting Microshaft's stance... I might just have to go out and look for a better source for my news!

Report the facts is what I'm interested in hearing. I don't care what Microsoft says or thinks unless what they say is factual, but I've yet to find that to be the case and I've been watching them closely since 1984!

Walt