Netscape Releases Security Update

daria42 writes "Less than 24 hours after releasing Netscape 8, Netscape has released a security patch bringing the browser up to version 8.0.1. The patch address security vulnerabilities in version 1.0.3 of the Firefox code on which Netscape is based. The update comes amid online criticism from Firefox developers that the browser was insecure."

Comments

software and bridges

[Virtual Karma]

Don't you think it is wiser to wait 24 hours longer (or maybe a week or so) and then release a quality product rather than issue patches. Imagine if civil engineers started doing the same with buildings and bridges.

Re:software and bridges

[AKAImBatman]

That's the luxury software developers have that civil engineers don't. Its not exactly possible to go back and fix a mistake you made while building a multi-million dollar bridge.

That's what you think. New structures are found to be unsound all the time, which usually requires that the structure be patched in some form or another.

Take the case of the London Millennium Bridge which suffered from Resonant vibration (a common problem with suspension bridges). It wasn't planned for because it was assumed that such vibrations couldn't happen from mere pedestrian traffic. The solution was to retrofit 37 fluid-viscous dampers and 52 tuned mass dampeners.

In short, don't think that engineering is that much different from software. They're quite similar, to the point of being frightening.

Netscape's Original 8.0 Release

[Anonymous Coward]

ZDNet Australia has a scathing report on problems with Netscape's original 8.0 release, which shipped with known critical security bugs. ZDNet notes that several key Mozilla devs have lashed out at Netscape, including Firefox lead developer Ben Goodger, who posted a live exploit of the known vulnerability. Gervase Markham, another Mozilla employee found Netscape's claim that Firefox 1.0.4 is "outdated" ridiculous. Ali Ebrahim, another contributor commented that Netscape's claim of "more security choices" is based on a false premise. To their credit, Netscape has since released Netscape 8.0.1, based on Firefox 1.0.4 which plugs the most severe known issues, though the question still remains as to why they released 8.0 in the first place if it contained such severe security issues.

Why didn't they wait?

[drsmack1]

I did not understand why it was based on 1.03 anyway; were they completely unaware of what was going on at the firefox project?

Re:Browser boys are back

[Soybean47]

Are the browser wars really back? Has anyone tried the new Netscape? Given that they pretty much peaked around 4.7 or something like that, or earlier depending on who you ask, I just don't see any reason to even try it. What is Netscape likely to give me that Firefox can't?

Show offs!

[khendron]

Netscape just wanted to show off how they can produce patches faster than Microsoft and Firefox.

The promo goes like this: "Miscrosoft leaves holes unpatches for weeks, maybe months. Firefox sometimes takes a few days. But *we* can produce a patch in less than 24 hours! Na na!"

In other news...

[kniLnamiJ-neB]

Netscape released a statement saying that people who downloaded the browser labeled 8.0 actually got a mis-labeled copy of 7.9.9.9.9. The new version 8.1 will actually be 8.0 and the following patches labeled 8.1.1, 8.1.2, and 8.1.2.1, which will be released daily starting tomorrow, will be relabeled as 8.0.1, 8.1.0, and 8.1.2, respectively. ***NO CARRIER***

We apologize for the above post. Those who were responsible for sacking those who were just sacked, have been sacked.

Re:Browser boys are back

[Stibidor]

As I recall from yesterday's news, one thing Netscape will give you that Firefox does not is "a toggle which allows switching between Mozilla and Microsoft's rendering engines as needed." The Best of Both Worlds(TM)

Re:Huh?

[Zontar The Mindless]

> Why did Mozilla release Netscape 8...?

Um, Mozilla didn't release it -- AOL did.

Re:I don't get it.

[justforaday]

The big deal with Netscape 8 is that it offers the choice of using the IE or Firefox/Gecko rendering engine on different pages. For instance, you can have it set to display /. using the Gecko engine, while using the IE engine to render your company's intranet page (you know, the one that requires that you use IE for "full functionality"). The main reason for it, however, is for the brand recognition that AOL gets out of it. Of course, the dual-rendering ability will only complicate matters for Joe Sixtooth.