News Flash: No Browser is Safe!
Symantec also observes that water is wet, fire is warm, and that a brick is hard
Tuesday, September 26, 2006 by Zoomba | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Ok, everyone takes it as generally accepted fact that Internet Explorer under Windows has a track record of being horribly insecure unless the user takes steps to tweak security settings, install pop-up blockers, bog their system down with AntiVirus, and run regular sweeps of the system to make sure nothing nefarious ever makes it through. But then there's the rest of the computing population that has turned their noses up in contempt and gone off to use Firefox and Opera under Windows. A few have taken it a step further and even ditched Windows completely in favor of Linux or MacOS with their respective browsers. We think ourselves safe, secure and more or less untouchable by those vile malware and spyware coders, those hackers of ill-repute who are determined to hijack our computers via our own web surfing.
However, according to Symantec Corporation, a company with absolutely no vested interest in this issue at all, it is merely a placebo, a lie we tell ourselves to feel better. We are in fact no more safe using these alternatives and still are in dire need of their help and software to secure our systems from Mr. Hacker.
Symantecs' yearly Internet Security Threat Report documents the relative security of browsers such as IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari. In the grand Firefox/IE debate, Symantec says that while IE compromises account for 47% of all attacks, Firefox actually clocked more reported vulnerabilities in the first half of this year than IE (47 versus 38 for IE). It paints a picture where the perceived insecurity of IE and strongbox reputation of Firefox is more a result of volume of users as opposed to inherent security of the code.
For more analysis of the report, check the BetaNews article linked below.
I think Symantec wins the "Obvious Observation" award today for their stunning revelation that all browsers have vulnerabilities.
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #2 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:50 PM
/sarcasm off
I had you there for a moment, didn't I.
Other than that it's not even worth commenting on Symantec's "findings". What I will say is that while I never had the kind of nightmare experiences with IE as I see floating around the web, ever since I switched to FF surfing the web has become 99% painless. Almost no popups, almost no ads (thank you AdBlock!
) and just in general a much more pleasant experience.Reply #3 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:21 PM
| It paints a picture where the perceived insecurity of IE and strongbox reputation of Firefox is more a result of volume of users as opposed to inherent security of the code. |
Let's also not forget the rapidity with which Microsoft corrects IE flaws when they are identified. How many "moderately critical" flaws remain unattended by Microsoft versus those unaddressed by Firefox?
I can't recall a third-party ever releasing instructions on how to "patch" Firefox because Mozilla was taking too long to address a "critical" issue.
Reply #4 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:26 PM
Reply #5 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:43 PM
| Not only do they provide cheap, fast and efficient products to protect our computers |
oh, man.. that made my week.don't kid yourselves, symantec has every interest in reporting that you need protection on all platforms with all browsers.
Reply #6 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:46 PM
Reply #7 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:50 PM
...and they then promptly click it, and in they trudge, PC underarm, bitching about how this nasty piece of software found its way onto their system, (without their intervention of course
), and we find ourselves one job richer.Sorry if this seems overly critical or cynical, but when it comes to browsing the 'net, the general public are completely f***** thick, and deserve anything they "get" as a result. Ignorance is no excuse - tell 'em, and they ignore you, complaining endlessly when their previously pristine PC is knackered with trojies, spyware, malware and crapware within a week of them getting it back, reinstalled, updated and protected.
I want to drive trucks.
Reply #8 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:07 PM
| tell 'em, and they ignore you, complaining endlessly when their previously pristine PC is knackered with trojies, spyware, malware and crapware within a week of them getting it back, reinstalled, updated and protected. |
Oh that is sooooo true.
It drives me nuts when people ask for PC advice and fail to heed the warnings and solutions that I have given them.
Reply #9 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:37 PM
| ...according to Symantec Corporation, a company with absolutely no vested interest in this issue at all... |
but then goes on to say that due to Symantec's findings we the consumer
| ...are in dire need of their help and software to secure our systems from Mr. Hacker... |
in the very next line.
lol.
Reply #10 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:56 PM
| Symantec also observes that water is wet, fire is warm, and that a brick is hard |
I knew that..... no, really I did!
Reply #11 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:57 PM
| I think the monthly patch cycle, augmented with emergency patches if something becomes critical have worked fine so far. |
My comment was not about the frequency of patch releases. It was about how quickly a patch is released after a flaw is identified.
For example, an article from May 2006 (Link) noted that about 25% of 85 IE advisories from 2003 to 2005 remained unpatched. Forty percent of those unpatched flaws were capable of compromising a system.
The point I was trying to make is that a monthly patch cycle isn't helpful if flaws remain unpatched.
Reply #12 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:57 PM
Oh goody, so for everyone out there who dumpster dives, you'll be happy to know where you can find my info. Thanks Chase! So you see, no matter how well you protect your information, someone out there is going to screw up for you....
Reply #13 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:31 PM
Reply #14 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:51 PM
Regarding Symantec's alleged 'honor', it has even been hypothesized that the big anti-virus companies are the main culprits releasing certain strains into the wild to increase the need for their product. They can say what they want. Since switching to FF well over a year ago, I have had no problems whatsoever. By the way, I also switched from Symantec products to TrendMicro and lo and behold, I have much more available system memory as well. Hmm.
I think it's time people gave Symantec less of their own 'vested interest'.
Reply #15 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 5:27 PM
Reply #16 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:25 PM
| but it could be just me, that the story's subtitle makes the tone of the piece fairly clear |
That, and the closing sentence..........
| I think Symantec wins the "Obvious Observation" award today for their stunning revelation that all browsers have vulnerabilities. |
Reply #17 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:42 PM
Now that the obvious facts about security while connected to the Internet has been restated, I think most of us are looking for a security software that does not slow the system down.
It is truly amazing how slow the load times are after installing any of Symantec's security software. I have to agree that this is more about justification of their software, than helping users.
I am currently testing Vista RC1 (5728) on my notebook, with the latest Avast AV (Home 4.7, which is free) and the MS firewall (which is doing alright, IMO). IE7 has a phishing filter included, and my ISP has decent spam filters (combined with the Office 2007 Beta2 TC filters) - which all combine (with a little user knowledge) for decent security. I suspect that the performance on the notebook using the current security solutions will prove to be better than if I were to install Symantec's inevitable future offerings for the Vista.
I am one who has wanted to give Symantec products the benefit of the doubt, but the obvious increase in performance issues has become all too apparent. I hope they can turn it around.
Reply #18 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:23 PM
Reply #19 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:15 PM
| I want to drive trucks. |
[Someone at Symantec:]
"Lets try to come across as the good guys and start posting 'valuable' consumer information, ...maybe we can get some of that marketshare back again."
[Me:]
'fraid not, Symantec ..you lost me years ago with your offshore tech support and crappy software.
Don't bother with this hype, it ain't gonna win you back the ones you've lost.
Reply #20 Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:23 AM
My $.02 is that Microsoft is doing a good job with their new stuff (Windows Defender, OneCare is very good) while on the other end of the spectrum, IE7 is a worthy browser and has come a LONG way since IE6. I'm not a "fanboy", but I call a spade a spade and their new stuff IS decent.
No operating system is EVER going to be 100% secure. Ever. As long as the developers keep working on them, then it's all good and I personally will keep upgrading without complaint.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:39 PM
it should be called "no browser is goofproof from stupid surfing"
im getting so sick of this recent paranoia about security...