Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Issue Out-of-Cycle Patch for IE
rsw writes "Microsoft will be breaking their normal patch cycle and issuing a patch for the Download.Ject attack (a.k.a. Scob). They claim that the forthcoming patch will be a "long-term solution to the core vulnerability" exploited by Scob." Note that this does not mean that they are replacing IE with FireFox.
Seems as though all of the exploits coming out against IE has finally got to them. I've counted about 5+ just from the Full Disclosure and BugTraq mailing lists in the past few weeks. All of them different in nature of thier attacks.
Hmmm.
The released a patch when it's needed, not when it's scheduled. How novel.
Note that this does not mean that they are replacing IE with FireFox.
Good, cause firefox has render problems on slashdot all the time (where as IE doesn't). I don't think its firefox, either, cause it doesn't happen on any other site I go to.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
and if they do why?
/. thread about it
I mannaged to get my work to use fireFox after showing them a
All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest
...the most finiky of users, my Mom, to Firefox without her even knowing it. Now if Dad would stop playing Solitaire long enough for me to get at his computer then I'd de-IE him as well.
...where I come for all my MS IE patch news.
John Kerry is a Joke!
I disagree. I use firefox for just about everything; online banking, online account management, etc. Every once in a while I need to open up IE to view a flash animation or some other stupid site that uses ActiveX - but at that point I know what they are trying to do and can establish the risks of going to it in IE.
/. problems, for some reason I get this render problem intermittently, but a simple reload typically handles the problem.
btw, regarding all these
"Oh, you hate your job? There's a support group for that, it's called everyone, they meet at the bar."
So, are their patches normally NOT long-term solutions to vulnerabilities then?
There is a lot of "broken" sites that won't be right in IE when Microsoft will release it's SP2 for XP with a lot of added security to IE.
Pop-up won't show, and all the non-correctly defined elements won't show right neither. So, maybe finally the webmasters will correct their sites.
Montreal - Best city to live in!
Build a CD of Windows 2000 without IE (or Outlook, etc. etc)
Build a CD of Windows 2k, XP, or 2k3 without IE (or Outlook, etc. etc)
Download an IE removal program for Win2k
Rightly or not, that Homeland Defense notice got some peeps in senior management a little spooked and asked our IT department to start making Firefox the default browser on all new systems they set up for employees.
As a long-time Mozilla and Firefox user, I couldn't be happier. Whether it's the right reason or not, I couldn't care -- at least there's a hint at the IE domination trend slowing down a bit, and that is good for consumers.
My wife was infected by spyware by simply visiting a site that was an etrade affilliate site (they were offering a free PDA if you opened an etrade account).
She told me at the time the only difference between her computer and her friend that sent it to her was that she had Sun Java installed and he didn't. He didn't get infected and she did.
This was several months ago, she searched and didn't find any exploit info about it.
A couple days ago she found the exact exploit she had encountered on a vulnerability list, a combination of Sun Java and an IE bug cause a certain vulnerability.
So you might think you are safe, but how many "zero day" or unknown exploits, such as the one my wife got infected by spyware via are out there?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Do people care about IE security problems? Most do actually, people just either don't know about the vulnerabilities or if they do they don't know there's anything that can be done.
/. renders.
Everyone I know when I talk to them about how bad IE is, if they listen, switches to Mozilla, I switched my school's computers and those of atleast 60 others.
People are listening now more than ever, its becoming so bad (atleast one a week) the mainstream media is even going "Another Internet Explorer vulverability has been found".
All I tell people is that:
1. Mozilla works faster
2. It has a pop-up blocker
3. It is immune to those once a week IE vulnerabilities
4. You just about don't get spyware (and mention keyloggers). <---The Killer One And BTW, I use Firefox 0.9.2 (mozilla.org build for Linux/x86) and have never had problems with how
"Firefox is not an acceptable replacement for IE for 90% of the users out there so I really think we could have done without the snide comment."
Huh?
Microsoft Internet Explorer isn't an acceptable browser for 90% of the users out there.
Nevermind your "snide" assertions about the websites that don't work, people are getting owned here. It's a serious problem. It's the spam problem and the virus problem and all the tech support problems, all stemming from this one application that's so insecure that everyone, from DHS to MSN themselves recommend getting rid of it immediately.
If your favorite website doesn't work in a generic web-browser, get them to fix it, or get a new supplier. Even the banks have got HTML websites now.
Not strictly true.
The development of TCP/IP allowed the ARPANet to happen (which later became the Internet follwing commercialisation in the late 80s).
UNIX-based servers formed the core of the ARPANet because TCP/IP has always been built into UNIX and UNIX was designed as a multi-user multi-platform network operating system.
Microsoft assumed that the world would use their poor quality NetBIOS/LanManager protocols until the early 90s when they were forced to include TCP/IP support into Windows - that was after they almost ruined Novell by worming their way into using IPX/SPX networking protocols.
In other words, a kludgy operating system had to be kludged even more to support TCP/IP. This is a legacy that has lived with MS since and while the support of TCP/IP has improved over the various Windows iterations, the fact is that the Windows architecture is not as suitable for Internet connectivity as UNIX.
Everything in UNIX is designed for simplicity - one program doing one task. If you need a network service, just turn it on - if you don't, turn it off.
Where UNIX has a weakness is the security model because, in ARPANet days, information was open and there was no need to secure servers. However, that has improved a thousandfold over the years with features like shadow passwords, better authentication models and secure protocols. The simplistic security model of "you, those you trust and the rest of the world" now works to it's advantage because it's very easy to apply to a system - the difficult part is knowing all the potential holes to apply it to that can only come from experience.
If Windows was not an Internet OS today, we would still have crackers and security exploits on UNIX. However, there would be less of it because fewer crackers would be clever enough to break into a UNIX system and whilst there might be the occasional worm program, email viruses simple would not exist.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
theres a better way. change the url from it.slashdot.org to just slashdot.org5 1213 turns into/ 1751213
or whatever.
example:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/29/17
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/29
.
I've been contemplating which thread to post this to, so I'll post it here.
Why does everyone thing we're "winning" against Microsoft/IE with Mozilla Firefox? It's not that we are winning, it's that Microsoft isn't playing anymore.
There's no reason for them to have the dominant browser on the market anymore, and one HUGE reason for them to explicitly NOT have the dominant browser. Their DOJ investigations focused, in part, on the fact that IE was bundled with Windows and thus constituted a monopoly. However, if Microsoft now lets IE flounder and lets Mozilla (or another browser) become dominant, they have a huge lever to use against any future DOJ or legal inqueries. They can then say they aren't a monopoly, as another browser is dominant.
And why not? There's no money to be made on IE - it's strictly a resource drain. They don't make a single dime from it... why pay someone to keep IE up to standards, when they can get the whole Open Source community to do it for free - in the form of Mozilla.
Stop and think about it for a moment, there's absolutely NO reason for MS to have the dominant browser any longer... there's no financial or legal advantage to it. A browser is effectively a commodity, and anyone developing one is going to have to expend resources to do so - with no return on that investment. Thus, Microsoft's only real logical conclusion would be to let IE slowly fade away, it solves not only the money/resource drain, but also protects them from further DOJ inquiries.
So Firefox isn't winning, exactly... Microsoft just took their ball and went home, because the game had no point for them anymore.