<null@zilch.com> wrote in message
news:nmlujv8bqm65i9so2t9tloqng1sqta5bgi@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:26:37 -0400, "mto"
> <nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> wrote:
>
> >
> ><null@zilch.com> wrote in message
> >news:vigtjv0olia7aeb507qd58nrler3vc2r5m@4ax.com.. .
> ><SNIP>
> >> I have reason to believe Moz browsers are more secure. I know
> >> vulnerabilites are found along the way and fixed. I've been following
> >> the developments to some extent. The trick is to stay current and
> >> update to the latest stable builds. You don't have the endless IE
> >> patchwork game to deal with, and a continual and growing long list of
> >> known vulnerabilies that M$ still hasn't fixed.
> >
> >I fail to see how staying current with the latest stable builds differs
by a
> >single iota from patching IE other than semantically.
>
> It differs more than semantically because of the methods of releasing
> "fixes". With Mozilla there are no patches, just new builds and
> versions and minor version numbers and letters. The security
> recommendation that makes sense is to keep current with the latest
> stable build. With IE you should have both the latest version and
> patches.

This really is just semantics you know. IE releases a new version every
couple of years, doesn't change the build number every month and calls their
updates patches. And remember, because IE is the most widely used browser
literally hundreds of people spend thousands of hours regularly trying to
find security holes in it - not the case with the other browsers. Security
holes are sure to exist there too, just nowhere close to as much diligence
invested in trying to find them. Either way, whichever browser you use if
you don't spend the time to check for updates at least weekly and then make
darned sure you get them in a timely manner, sooner or later you are toast.

> >>No doubt there is some
> >> validity to the argument that IE simply gets more scrutiny. But I'm
> >> convinced that's far from the whole story. Personally, I couldn't use
> >> IE because I'd have to follow the security rules and disable all
> >> active content. That makes IE unuseable. To me, it's worse that
> >> worthless. I have very little concern leaving both Java and Javascript
> >> enabled all the time with Moz now. I seek out all the vulnerability
> >> test sites and "evil places" I can find and never have a problem. Of
> >> course, I wouldn't touch the acvtivex plug in designed for the Moz
> >> browsers. No way
> >
> >I've been using both java and javascript to develop pretty complex
websites
> >for nearly a decade now and I have to tell you, it doesn't take all that
> >much to make the same exact javascript work in Netscape/Mozilla as well
as
> >IE or vice versa. The only "browser" that has ever had us jumping through
a
> >hoop or two are certain variations of AOL, which I would not recommend to
my
> >dog. The "security" that you appear to achieve is really nothing more
than
> >a function of the two completely different ways that Netscape and IE
handle
> >"plugins." As long as ~5% of the browser share belongs to something
other
> >than IE you are probably safe. But don't take it to the bank by a long
> >shot. Someone who *really* wanted to make their malware download work on
> >Netscape/Mozilla too could do so with a little bit of time and patience.
> >Bottom line is not the technology but the cost/benefit ratio.
>
> I think the bottom line is that Mozilla currently is orders of
> magnitude safer to use than IE. I know of noone knowledgeable in
> security who recommends using IE, or any browser that depends on IE,
> or any software that depends on IE.
>
> You seem to concur but you also seem to be one of those who is
> addicted to IE. I wish you continued luck with your addiction and your
> game of roulette.

Not addicted to IE by a long shot - just not enamored of any of the others
either and don't feel like messing around with any of the others. Beta
tested Moz. OK, but not worth the disc space to me. Opera I will never
again give house room no matter how "improved" it is.

And if the truth be told, I got sick of "surfing" LONG ago. Once upon a
time long ago and far away the net was FUN, but those days are long, long
gone. I've pretty much seen it all, done it all and visited there too. So
I spend hours working online, read the news, download the email (what little
remains after I trash the zillion spams) and once a blue moon visit
somewhere "new." Makes no never mind to me if I have java on or not, since
I've seen/used all of the "cute" or useful java there is. Same with
scripts, which slow down your browser anyway.

Currently Moz probably is orders of magnitude safer than IE. But my point
is that it is not safer because it is inherently any safer but because it is
not widely enough used to make it cost effective for someone bent on
destruction (whether that is outright destruction or spyware) to spend the
time & money to develop programming that either works with both IE & Moz or
separate programming for Moz. Technically it **can** be done - and it will
be just as soon as it is worth someone's energy to do it.