Slashdot Mirror
BBC says "Avoid Explorer"
twitter writes "Citing security flaws that lead to ads and spys on Microsoft infested computers the BBC in this article recomends avoiding Internet Explorer." Ain't it the truth? Mostly its about adware & spyware and other wretched bits of software that make the internet suck a little
more each day.
Well, no it isn't actually. The BBC is reporting what Mr Clover said. Not at all the same thing as "the BBC recommends".
Sigh.
Cheers,
Ian
The internal copyright to do so expired, ending the trial.
Then in September, they sorted this out. Ogg streaming is due to re-start, Real Soon Now(tm). As it has been since September... See Here for more details....
--
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
``Apart from the known issues with IE, outlook, and IIS, what is insecure in Windows?
The unknown issues.''
While obviously true, it doesn't really help to talk about unknown issues when assessing the security of a system. It's a safe bet that there are unknown issues with any piece of software, especially a complex one. The argument that closed-source software isn't open to as much peer review as is open-source software doesn't really hold ground. It's perfectly possible for closed-source software to be more extensively audited than an open-source alternative.
What does make Windows insecure is it's single-user nature. Even the NT-based systems running on many desktops these days, while technically capable of using a good security model, are often run in single-user mode, meaning that if that user's account is broken into, there are virtually no restrictions on what harm (or good?) can be done.
Many software from the Big Satan of Redmond suffers from inherently insecure design. Windows (not NT)'s single-user nature, weak protection of address spaces (know those little programs that can be used to read other program's text fields, indeed even password fields?), a web browser that doubles as a full-access file manager with the ability to run programs, a mail client that can and will automagically open (or even run) attachments, a scripting language so powerful that a component as central the registry can be modified with it that can be used in officially non-executable things as office documents and webpages, the list goes on. This is something MicroSoft can be blamed for, should be blamed for, and should be ashamed of. This is what makes a system with pretty much any MicroSoft software on it insecure. And the best thing is that others are trying hard to copy some of these `features'.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The only way Linux is more secure is if you spend several hours every day downloading and installing the latest security patches.
OK, I'll bite.
Several hours? I don't know what distribution you run, but remind me to avoid it! I've run both Debian and RedHat - neither require several hours of daily patching.
With Debian, you only install the services you intend to use, then keep an eye out for security issues with those services (which isn't hard, and takes 15 minutes at most per day, usually less). When there is a vulnerability found that affects you, all that's generally required is an 'apt-get update && apt-get -u dist-upgrade', which may take a bit of time if you're on a slow link, or have a lot to update, but generally is pretty darn quick (again, for me it's generally less than 15 minutes). If they haven't managed to roll an "official" patch in yet, you can either wait for it (generally less than 24 hours for most), or compile it yourself. Turnaround time for security patching on Debian is excellent, though, and you generally won't find yourself needing to compile things yourself if you don't want to.
RedHat is a little different in that (at least prior to 7.3 - the last one I installed was 7.2, and things may have changed with 7.3 or 8.0) it installs everything but the kitchen sink by default - and you have to go around turning off what you don't need. Once you've got the "undesirables" turned off, security updates really aren't much different from Debian (especially if you're using apt for RPM). Again, for major vulnerabilities, patch turnaround time is excellent (generally 24 hours or less) and you won't have to recompile things you don't want to. Because RedHat is a bit more widespread than Debian, there are a few more exploits to watch out for, but hitting a few security sites during your daily web browsing should alert you to anything you might need to know. Definitely not "several hours every day".
Still too many webdesigners want to make sites that look flashy and work only in Explorer...
I know a lot of people say this, but is it actually true. I use both Mozilla and IE and very rarely notice any differences.
I'm using mozilla with the internet explorer skin. It works great, though there's a little hack you have to do to get the home button back into the main toolbar.
:-).
Mozilla is a better browser than i.e. in a lot of ways (tabs, standards compliance, etc.), but the big one for me is that i.e. is essentially an ad delivery systerm. So there's not much we can do to selectively block cookies, or graphics from specific servers, or pop-ups, etc. And I don't like the prospect of being at the mercy of unscrupulous companies who wish to make changes without my knowledge or consent. (Actually, what I'd really like is a way to get rid of i.e. entirely on w2k/xp.)
That explains mozilla, but why the i.e. skin? Well, the default mozilla skins are not exactly beautiful. And my wife is highly resistant to change of any kind when it comes to her computer, and with the i.e. skin I was able to switch her w2k machine to mozilla without even a word of protest. Of course, at this point she's so used to tabbed browsing and the pop-up blocker that she wouldn't switch back anyway. And me, I don't have to worry about some exploit using i.e. to take her computer down.
Actually, I even use the i.e. skin on my linux box. Just for the perverse fun of it, I guess. I also have a nice wallpaper from w2k of a diver against a blue sky. It's very spiffy, though naturally I GIMPed out the little windows logo first
Of course, most of them were fixed before the article on The Register was even written.