Slashdot Mirror
There Is No Safe Web Browser
Michael writes "David Sheets has up an interesting article on browser security, and I have to agree with his conclusion: no web browser is safe. The article details the recent Netscape fiasco, and touches on the whole Firefox/Internet Explorer debate. From the article: 'So if it sounds as if we're all at the mercy of hackers just looking for some new challenge, that's partially true. As law enforcement officers will tell you, crime finds you if it wants you bad enough, no matter what preventative measures you take. But the vast majority of criminals have an Achilles' heel: They prefer convenience to challenge. For now, it's more convenient for them to pick on Internet Explorer.'"
As is telnetting to port 80 and interpreting the HTML in your head.
While I understand the point that Mr. Sheets is making, however, I disagree with his definition of safe.
The implication of this article stems in the absolutes of security: can it ward off intruders or not. This is a flawed approach, and while seemingly a logical one, denounces another reality of this level of breach: the lion's share of these breaches are not of the most malicious sort (read: that stupid data miner which causes popups, search bars from hell, etc). These kind of easily hackable sections of Internet Explorer are less prevalent in Firefox. Market forces of the sheer user base would dictate that if this were not so, more spyware would have been ported to Firefox by now. 25 million downloads, right? That's a sizable chunk for any malware vendor, or aspiring intruder, to infiltrate.
One must acknowledge the reality of security by statistics alongside security by absolutes.
The Crimson Dragon
David Sheets has up an interesting article on browser security, and I have to agree with his conclusion: no web browser is safe
No program that accepts input is safe. Even some programs that don't accept input aren't safe either. It is the nature of how complex software really is and how little of it we understand.
...at least not one you'd want to use. Sorry people, Linux is not "safe." Mac OS/anything is not "safe." There are a very few OSs that are pretty safe, but the only reason Mac and Linux fans can brag right now is that they're ignoring all the patches, hacks, etc that already exist for their OS of choice.
TW
I think that this author has finally gotten it right. Note the increasing instances of popup ads that are tailored for firefox users etc.
As firefox gains in popularity, expect that the number of exploits aimed towards it will continue to rise.
That being said, the nice thing about firefox (and OSS), is that lots of eyeballs can look at, and fix, the code in a timely manner.
I'd give this article an Obvious -1 simply because it is axiomatic, and everybody should have realized by now that There is no 'safe' web browser. Especially how after it was demonstrated that a Firefox exploit allowed infection of IE when IE itself would have blocked the malware site. Cute!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Newsflash! There's no such thing as perfect security, who would have thought it? Whether it be through a flaw in the code (which we all try to fix, when they are found), or stupid users running crap they oughtn't.
I for one use Firefox, because it is MUCH more secure than IE. It may not be perfect, but it's by far good enough for regular use.
That's like saying that houses aren't secure, even the new model homes with electronic alarm systems. No crap, but that doesn't mean sell the alarm systems and leave your front door unlocked (like IE).
-Jesse, disliking alarmist poop articles.
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
When a webbrowser is integrated with the OS, this greatly increases the ways a hacker can damage the system. Hence, while no browser is secure, one can is MORE secure simply because it is NOT woven into the OS. Of course, having updates frequently and being in more active development are good things as well.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Don't forget to wear a condom for safe browsing...
Lynx has had vulnerabilities in the past, too - this one, for example. The only *really* safe way to browse is probably to use telnet, but I'm not sure you can even call that "browsing" anymore.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Lynx had its fair share of vunerabilities also ....
Browsers can be totaly safe, as much as I hate to say it, IE can be pretty safe too. just follow these rules:
1:USE A FIREWALL
2: update your browser
3:disable ActiveX, any site that uses it is a site you should learn to live without.
4: (the one most often broken) DONT CLICK YES ALL THE TIME, warnings are there for a reason.
5: Dont DL and run STUPID executables
Most Browsers do a decent job of protecting you fron the bad stuff, but NOTHING can protect you from yourself, short of cutting the cable, and if you do that, dont run with scisors
This sort of thing may have already happened to you. Have you ever accidently just catted a binary file, and then discovered that your command history had all sorts of garbage commands in it? Same thing.
This sort of vulnerability has been around for decades. People used to trigger it via `talk' requests or by using the `write' command, and while talk eventually learned to filter things better, as for write eventually everybody just did a `mesg n', because all write does is write text to your tty, so changing write won't help. Of course, fixing xterm and other terminal emulators is another fix, but these features can be useful too. Still, I'm surprised that they haven't been disabled by default, but even today, xterm seems to have this `problem'.
Many vulnerabilities are caused by this sort of mixmash of different utilities -- in this case, netcat doesn't really have the vulnerability, but it would allow text to come in that could affect your terminal emulator.
Yes, with the right filtering of the output this could be safe, but not with netcat by itself. Still wouldn't make it a non-crappy browser though.
"Market forces of the sheer user base would dictate that if this were not so, more spyware would have been ported to Firefox by now. 25 million downloads, right? That's a sizable chunk for any malware vendor, or aspiring intruder, to infiltrate."
If 1 hack hits 90% of the market, spending more money to get a hack for the rest may not be worth the effort even if Firefox has as many holes as IE. Simple economics.
Vote for Pedro
I telnetted to port 80 once, and interpreted the HTML in my head.
Unfortunately there was a infinitely recursive Java script function on there.
I'm still not quite myself.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!