Spyware for Firefox Coming This Year?

EvilCowzGoMoo writes "One of the main reasons for the Firefox browser's successful seizure of market share from Microsoft's Internet Explorer is the desire to escape the inundation of PC-slowing spyware. However, spyware experts indicate that with its increased popularity, Firefox itself will become a target for spyware creators." From the article: "Basically, if you use Firefox today, you're not susceptible to any spyware, other than what you download when you're on Kazaa...The spyware writers target mostly Explorer users because that's the most fertile feeding ground for piranha-like (spyware) attacks. They'll watch as Firefox becomes mainstream, they'll see opportunity there and start targeting them."

Comments

firefox still safer!

[black_city]

firefox is clearly still safer, there are still open holes in IE6 even if you patch it up!

Re:Malicious XPI's exist already

[future assassin]

Way off topic but Im sorry but a cruise missile going out of control and ripping apart a neighbourhood in a country you just invaded is not murder?

Bring it On

[valkraider]

Terrorist = Bully, and the only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them and fight.

You have this backwards. It should read:

World Power = Bully

And Terrorists are the kids who got tired of the bullying and decided to stand up and fight. Except they are smaller, and weaker. So the only way they can fight is to do underhanded and sneaky attacks.

The Solution? Stop bullying.

Don't ask how to stop the Terrorists, ask how to stop the *making* of Terrorists.

Re:Bring it On

[rho]

First, congratulations on being incapable of reading. I said "Levis, MTV and American imperialism", which I figured would be a nice catch-all for the litany of complaints leveled by the Left. Which, you'll notice, includes FOREIGN POLICY, you knob.

If you want to make the argument that our past interventionist foreign policy caused terrorism, well, bully for you. That's the kind of unprovable nonsense that liberals have been carting for years. Did we cause the Taliban by financing the mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets? Maybe. It's debatable. It's not debateable that defeating Soviet expansionism was a good thing, and therefore a cogent argument can be made that the trade-off of the Taliban (assuming we were a direct cause) for a Soviet defeat was worthwhile.

To borrow a phrase from you unlamented candidate, it's nuanced. Had we not financed the mujahideen, Afghanistan would have been under the thumb of the Soviets. Is that better, or worse than the Taliban? Also debateable.

Nobody hates Canada because Canada is no threat. Neither are the Swiss. America is a threat to Islamofacism, because we're the only ones with the will (and more importantly, the means) to fight it. Two guys with rusty swords could conquer Belgium. One bomb in a Madrid train station and the Spaniards turned tail and ran--Spain has already surrendered. France is in the process of being overrun, and Britain? Well, at the rate the British are being out-bred by Muslims, it's easy to see that in a generation or two the U.K. will be a founding member of the New Caliphate.

More people have been killed in the name of Christianity than any other single cause.

This is complete bullshit. It's not just wrong, it's really, badly, terribly wrong. You will find out that the world looks different when you're not talking out of your ass. You should try it.

I can't believe somebody actually used this old horseshit canard on me--"More people have been killed in the name of Christianity..." Goddamn, you're one dumb son of a bitch.