Slashdot Mirror
Pros and Cons of Firefox Critically Evaluated?
A Dafa Disciple writes "Fred Langa of Information Week has written an article claiming to discuss the 'Pros and Cons of Firefox'. At first I was excited because I thought I was going to get to finally read an enlightening, in-depth article that critically examined the browser. I should have known better. Aside from the usual criticism of open source software, it contains a reference to a Symantec Internet Security Report which claims that more security vulnerabilities in the last six months of 2004 were found in Firefox than IE. I'll leave it to you to analyze Mr. Langa's opinion and scrutinize Symantec's study and reputation as a security software developer."
i have begun to doubt symantec's expertise. i work in a college where virus outbreaks are pretty common. now i've seen a computer with the most up to date, newest version of norton/symantec anti-virus and it seems that it still does not find all the viruses. viruses and trojans that are relatively harmful to the system. i would take this story with a grain of salt...
please me, have no regrets.
one question should be asked... who releases patches and security updates in a more timely manner? mozilla or microsoft? while firefox may have had more security flaws than IE, it gets patched almost immediately.
please me, have no regrets.
-Have to- install? I downloaded one additional theme for Firefox and apart from the occasional plugin such as Shockwave, I never have to do anything to enhance Firefox for daily use.
It's nice that you have everything worked out -- but this is like saying that Internet Explorer is as much of a hassle because of all those security updates you have to download. No thanks.
Green's Law of Debate: Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about.
Disregarding the validity of the position, apparently the OP felt that the cons were based largely on positions already proven false. As a result, enlightenment in this case would have been based on cons based on results considered less inflammatory.
Assuming the OP truly was not looking for a 'yes man' style of article, it is reasonable to believe a review detailing true failings of Firefox without resorting to questionable statistics would have met the requirements for 'enlightenment'.
Why is this a "downside"?
Would you prefer a 50Mb download, with 45Mb of stuff you don't ever need or use, or a 4Mb download where you can optionally add bits you want
Not everybody wants "chrome" (or themes), Flash, etc etc.
Personally I love the lean approach, with the ability to add and tweak stuff that I want over the bloated, switch off all the crap you don't want approach...
Just because it's critical doesn't mean it's enlightening. I could give my five year old daughter a stack of printouts detailing vulnerabilites found by group XYZ, and in a second she can tell you which stack was bigger and might even count them out if she felt inclined to. That's not enlightening... What matters is quality, not quantity.
Also, anybody can get access to the source of Firefox, while IE doesn't have publicly viewable source code. Comparing vulnerabilities among the two browsers is an apples and oranges afair thanks to this.
I assume you haven't RTFA, but here's more or less the criticism that Firefox gets:
1) "Oh look! It has more vulnerabilities than IE!" (tho they fail to state how critical these are. And don't forget that Firefox 1.03 was just released, fixing these. How long it took IE to release theirs?)
and 2) "BWA! Firefox fails to render my favorite IE-only pages!" complains from users.
And that was on the last 1 1/2 pages. The others were just straw words (your usual columnist intro).
This columnist isn't enlightening, nor critical. He's just giving another misinformed opinion.
You mean the shopping basket that always tells me that most of the updates I want have to be downloaded and installed seperately? :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Firefox is still under active development. It's not surprising that occasionally a new bug, including ones that compromise security will be introduced. IE, on the other hand, has been unchanged, asside from bug fixes. All development work on IE was stopped until Firefox forced their hand. I don't think there have yet been any new releases of IE since Service Pack 2, which put 6.0.2900.2180 out in the world.
So, I wouldn't be surprised if more new security problems were located in Firefox in the recent past than in IE during the same time period. That doesn't imply that there are fewer problems in IE than in Firefox, just that fewer were found in a given time period.
Which means.... practically nothing. The relevant information would be total numbers of security problems over the total number of lines of code or some similar metric, if you want to discuss the quality of the code.
If you want to know which browser is the most secure, you should look at the total number of security bugs known to exist and the severity of those bugs.
For my money, Firefox is the only browser that I trust. I run IE only when I have no choice and when that happens I send an email to the manager of the site telling them why I won't visit again.
Microsoft abandoned good engineering practices in order to grab at market share. As a result, they crippled both their browser and their operating system.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
And the more people use it, the more it's gonna get targeted.
Just because more people drive cars than armoured vans, doesn't mean that cars are targeted more just because they're greater in number. In fact, the payload would be greater attacking armoured cars. In reality, some things are just designed with greater security in mind, from the offset.
In my opinion of using the software as long as I have, I would never use IE again unless forced to. And that small amount of time I do use IE, I spend twice as much afterwards cleaning out the damn mess made by malware.
I think because of it's Open Source nature when Moz or some derivative gains market share and becomes the primary target of ad companies, it still won't make that much of an impact on the browser as a whole.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I'd prefer the 50 megger with all the plugins that my users would likely need as well as all the necessary performance tweaks, proxy settings, policy settings and anything else I can't think of right this minute.
Oh, I'd also like it in the for of an MSI so that I can roll it out to 1,000 systems at a time via script or GPO.
You see there are users out there besides home users and their requirements are a little different than your own.
Just to point it out, most of the major plugins like flash, acrobat, java, quicktime, realplayer are all ones you have to download separately with IE as well . People the have IE, switch to Firefox and complain about the plugins not being there are forgetting that they had to do this in the past.
Create the site specific Firefox + Extensions environment and roll a MSI package yourself. 2000 Server and possibly Professional come with the tools to do this, chances are they are in 2003 as well. Do you really expect Mozilla to create a site specific MSI for you?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I have found Firefox to be more logical looking in its layout using CSS elements and have had to rework pages more often for IE than the other way around. The problem is that many websites don't bother to check the look of a page in anything other than IE. So how is this FireFox's fault? Langa just assumes IE is getting it right and that there is no ambiguity in the way some HTML elements are specified.
In theory there may be more bugs and possible security threats lying in wait in FireFox, but here it the thing, since switching to FireFox I have had FAR fewer virus problems. Now it could just be the smaller market thing, but so what - what I care about is how many real viruses I am exposed to. You could argue that should FireFox continue to grow in popularity, so will the attacks on it by virus writers, bring it back to parity with IE. That may be, but hasn't happened yet. BUT it could just be that the open software model means more work on the code and better more secure code when it gains an even wider audience. In fact this is the horse I would bet on.
Letter To Iran
"Or should the Fx developers be forced to protect you from your own carelessness?"
Yes. I should not have to know a damn thing about computers in order to protect my information.
Granny buys something online and sees that auto complete can save her time next time. She won't stop to think about how it works if she even stops to read anything at all before clicking "yes" to the "would you like to use auto complete" dialog.
All auto complete information should be encrypted. No excuses.
http://brandonbloom.name
But, by writing off all of Internet Explorer's problems to the "installed base" scale factor is extremely dangerous to his readers.
The problem being, since MSIE is embedded into the OS, a flaw in MSIE can be exploited from any program which uses an HTML viewer, not only the "iexplore.exe" application itself. Firefox, even when it's your default browser, still pops up in full "visiting the Web" paranoia.
Another problem, of course, relates to MSIE's very strange handling of text/plain and application/octet-stream data types. (It will actually reject the Content-type: header from the server and make up a new one based on filename suffix and/or file content... imagine sending a text/plain file from a CGI URL that has ".doc" in it and it turning into a Word file. Note that the ".doc" is in the URL, not in the downloaded file name....) I've got a CGI I just can't make with MSIE properly because it rejects my server's claim that file "foo.log" with "inline" presentation is type "text/plain" and it can display it--it insists on saving to disk... only to find out that Notepad is the right application. To work around it, I'd have to change the extra path information fed to the CGI... and I can't do that--it means something, of course.
But that problem ("feature", if you read the MS knowledgebase) is one way how people are tricked into downloading seemingly "safe" content that turns dangerous.
Plus, he makes no assessment of the security problems. He doesn't mention ANY, from ANY browser, not even as illustration--he just leaves it to the reader to plow through pages of cryptic reports from Synamtec and CERT.
And he's got no analysis of the "trouble reports" he provides for Firefox. Missing images? 99 times out of 100, that's because the Web page has backslashes in the IMG URLs--which are not part of the hierarchical URI syntax. (They work only in MSIE on Windows. MSIE for Macintosh will not process them the same way.)
Plus... how do we really know what security problems are fixed in MSIE? On my XP box at home, and the W2K boxes I have to use at work, the Windows Updates just say things like, "A security problem could allow an attacker access to your computer." How am I to know what that security problem is, what part of the system it affects? I don't even know if it is function I use, or even have enabled--the update information is just too terse--at that's after clicking, "Show Details".
(My main systems are Linux and Mac, so there may be a way to get more information from Windows Update, but it isn't as obvious... unlike Mac OS X Software Update, where it lists the major components right there, and links that take you to the Apple web site for more information.)
I can see and appreciate why you'd want all the tools necessary to make that easier.
As others have already pointed out too, I like the "shopping basket" style of download too, something they should seriously consider implementing...
When I was an ISP we used to roll out customised IE using the IEAK, wondering if there's anything like that for Mozilla/Firefox that would do the job for you.
Failing that, there are a number of tools for mass rollout deployments such as you suggest (which you're probably already considerably more aware of than me if you're working in a 1,000 user environment) so I'm not sure I see what the problem is, aren't you already using such tools?
Download size is not an issue. My problem (I use Firefox exclusively) is that I am reluctant to upgrade, because I know some of the extensions I use won't be available for the new version. Indeed this is what caused me to move from Mozilla to Firefox about a year ago - I was fed up with having to use an old build because a few extensions I needed weren't being upgraded to match new releases. Now I'm still using FF 0.9, same reason.
Release notes for the latest 1.03 still insist you need to remove the previous version first and the installer diaables all extensions. I pass. IMO a 1.x codebase should be mature and stable enough to be installed over an existing earlier version.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
If you're so afraid it of its security vulnerabilities you can always uninstall FireFox. Can you do that with IE?
The article reads better if you consider it a response to the question "Will Firefox save me from the evils of the Internet?".
The author pretty much buries IE and M$ on security, and then proceeds to remind us not to be to fast jumping to Firefox, as it isn't perfect either. It is fairly new as software goes and we will have to wait and see now that it has enough of an installed base to attract the cyber villians.
If anything the author implied that you should walk, not run to Firefox and remember to apply your bug repellent.
BTW. I use Firefox almost exclusively, and have watched as websites have slowly gotten around the pop-up blocker, and how 1.01 came out to block the multi-language DNS hack, which IE isn't vulnerable too because it is so old.
Have each user account associated with an encryption key. That key is used to encrypt all auto-complete information. That way, auto-complete still works and doesn't need to know about credit card numbers (or about any other important type of data), but doesn't expose the information to unauthorized individuals.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Having read the article, and also followed the author's advice to read the security bulletins, I found that the article is mostly bullshit, which stumbles upon lucid points occasionally, though I think this is mostly by accident. /. all day, have a desire to defend Firefox, and don't have a job.
I didn't bother to do a count of items in the bulletins, as this is an utterly worthless metric. Nor do I agree that percentage of complaints is a worthwhile way to judge two competing products.
Just to dispel that idea. Consider for a moment that in his example of 1000 users of A vs. 50 users of B, a 2 person anomoly would be a 0.2% shift in the numbers for A and a 4% shift in the numbers for B. That margin of error for product B is so large as to make the whole study worthless.
On the other hand, of the items in the bulletins, Firefox did have some serious flaw, e.g. the kind that end in "would allow a malicious user to execute arbitrary code." So, the author is right that Firefox is not some panacea for security, he just fails to explain the real reason why.
Now, is Firefox more secure overall? I haven't the slightest clue. I really don't have the time and or will to go through the bulletins, aggregate all of the flaws for each browser, assign a numerical value to each severity, and then come up with a score. I offer this idea to any of those who surf
The author also brings up the old argument of, its not currently a target, so its more secure because of obscurity. I think this argument was valid, right up until Firefox hit 1.0. Before that, it was an obscure little browser which didn't get much attention. However, once it hit 1.0 it got a lot of press; and, the way I see it, this would have given a huge incentive for the black hats to start hitting Firefox, for the right to say that they had one of the first working exploits for this new browser. So, I think this argument falls apart.
So, without a real study to backup and/or revoke the idea that Firefox is more secure than IE, the only thing I have to go on is antecdotal evidence. Right now I support about 100 computers. And, because of the way we do business, each user has administrative access to their own box (fun on a bun!). Now, because of this, I have a mix of IE users and Firefox users. For the most part, the computers which I am cleaning up spyware/adware on all of the time tend to be the IE user's computers. While I do have to do an occasional cleanup of a Firefox computer, the problems tend to come from other third party apps bundled with spyware, as opposed to the IE, browsed to the wrong page and got infected spyware.
Does this mean Firefox is more secure? No, one factor, which I can't really rule out, is that the people who use Firefox also tend to be the more knowledgable computer users; so, they may simply be better at avoiding infection. As a counter example, our network engineer runs IE, and doesn't have a problem with spyware/adware, so maybe its just the person at the keyboard making the difference. But, still the preponderence of the evidence would suggest that the Firefox machines tend to be less infected, so there is some correlation, if not outright causation.
One other thing, which helps keep me on Firefox, have you ever tried to re-install IE6 SP2? Fucking pain in the ass. Some spyware/adware will attach itself to the IE DLL's, and is near impossible to get rid of. Also, I have had more than one machine where the removal of the spyware/adware has broken the IE scripting engine. This is also ignoring that crapware that damages winsock as it gets removed. Thank <insert diety here> for the automated winsock repair tool.
MS has made re-installing IE harder and harder as they have released updates. In IE5 I could do an add/remove programs on it, and get a reinstall out of it. In IE6 SP1, I could futz with the registry and get it to allow a re-install. Now that seems to be broken, as the MS recommended registry change to allow a reinstall seems to be broken. Th
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Because then you'll constantly get the "An additional plugin is required to view all the content on this page" popup/window/alert everytime you go to a site that uses flash.
So if you can live with that, dont install flashblock.
"...more security vulnerabilities in the last six months of 2004 were found in Firefox than IE..."
WHO THE FUCK CARES?!?!? All these dumbass writers need to learn that all bugs are NOT created equal. There is a BIG ASS DIFFERENCE between "small flaw that could theoretically be exploited but the good guys found it first and fixed it in two days anyway" and "gaping hole in the default configuration with thousands of exploits in the wild for months on end." I mean, fucking A, how awesome is it to run Windows Update and see a warning like this? "Identified security issues in Internet Explorer could allow an attacker to compromise a Windows-based system... This affects all computers with Internet Explorer installed ( even if you don't run Internet Explorer as your Web browser ). [emphasis added]"
Which would you rather live in: a city with a hundred arsonists or a thousand litterbugs?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.