Slashdot Mirror
IE More Secure Than Mozilla?
killproc writes "Symantec has issued a report that suggests that Internet Explorer may be more secure than the open source Mozilla Foundation browsers. "According to the report, 25 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for the Mozilla browsers during the first half of 2005, "the most of any browser studied," the report's authors stated. Eighteen of these flaws were classified as high severity.
"During the same period, 13 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for IE, eight of which were high severity," the report noted." "
How many of these vulnerabilities were discovered or aided because of the very fact that the Mozilla family of products are open source, open to the intense peer scrutiny of the community, one of the core, fundamental facets of the Mozilla products, and open source projects in general, that will help quickly make them more secure? Do they even grasp this concept?
How quickly and effectively were the Mozilla/Firefox vulnerabilities patched in comparison to IE?
Is there any consideration given to the fact that Internet Explorer is a decade old and integral to the OS, and STILL routinely has extremely critical vulnerabilities, and may have an untold number of yet-to-be-discovered critical vulnerabilities?
Assuming customer choice is important, a customer can elect to not use Firefox and remove it from their system. Can the customer remove IE? Can the customer even elect to not use IE, or does the OS still force them to use IE for some tasks?
I could go on, but I think it goes without saying that at best this "report" uses extremely flawed logic to draw its conclusions, and at worst, Symantec is shilling for Microsoft.
Or both.
I have yet to get a spyware infection from using Firefox...
Is this a dupe story? 'course not! (rolls eyes)
Knowledge is valuable. Ignorance is dangerous. Censorship is unacceptable. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10
Security is a process not a state.
A browser that has 5 reported vulnerabilities is not more secure than a browser that has 30. All it takes in one vulnerability to make your browser insecure
Once any vulnerability is discovered, relative security depends upon is how many users are exposed, and for how long.
Given that vulnerabilities have been found in both, security comparisons should compare the steps taken to reduce the window of vulnerability.
A simple comparison of the number of vulnerabilities does not give much indication about how long the average user was exposed. Nor does it give an indication of how many hackers are taking advantage of the vulnerability to give you a useful security indicator: "How likely is that any given user was hacked via the product".
Currency calculator that accepts free form input such as "23 canadian dollars --> rupees"
How many of those Mozilla exploits compromise the entire OS?
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Two points to consider:
1. How many 'high severity' bugs did IE have to fix to get to that point? Remember also that IE is integrated into Windows, so any vulnerability that affects Windows affects IE in one way or another (and vice versa).
2. How many have been disclosed by Microsoft before being fixed? They are notorious for not disclosing these things until after it is fixed, and even then they don't always label it as a "IE" fix.
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
Personally, I think it's stunning that a browser as old as IE6 STILL HAS CRITICAL vulnerabilities. They've had litterally YEARS to root out and discover these sorts of things. To compare that to a much newer Mozilla browser seems like apples and oranges to me.
Mozilla has reacted to a Symantec report issued on Monday which said serious vulnerabilities were being found in Mozilla's browsers faster than in Microsoft's Internet Explorer. The study was conducted over the first six months of 2005.1 86-39020375t-10000025c
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print/?TYPE=story&AT=39219
My neighbours using firefox on MS windows have had zero problems due to these security flaws. The neighbours using IE under XP with service pack 2 installed and automated update on still get tons of spyware.
So the alternative conclusion of the symantec report would be: Spyware holes in MS IE are not spyware holes, but easy software installation features.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Anyone who thinks Symantec isn't acting in a *VERY* self-serving manner in the past few days worth of FUD is kidding themselves.
I kid you not, Symantec has been saying "Don't use the Mac, it's insecure! Or Linux! Or Mozilla! They're not secure, oh noes!!!"
Guess why... maybe it's because they don't have products for those operating systems... or maybe it's because there are no virii in the wild, and they haven't been able to figure out how to write good enough virii for those OS' to scare people into buying their shitty product?
You decide. I already have.
...Steve
Since Symantec is best known for their Anti-Virus products, wouldn't it make sense for them to promote IE as the more "secure" browser?
I mean, it may not be secure in the traditional sense of the word, but with all the trojans/malware/ActiveX vulnerabilities out there, surely IE is the best way to "secure" profits for themselves?
Seriously would it hurt anyone's feelings if the duplicate stories were just pulled off /. ?
/. look bad, but it is a known problem with an easy fix.
It not only makes
Anywho...
Cliff notes of last story:
IE's exploits would be someone taking over your computer remotely
Firefox's exploits would be malicious popups/crashing (of browser only)
So the "severity" thing doesn't really matter here.
Get paid to code OSS
if you don't use it.
I think you may be confusing Symantec with another company . Last I heard Symantec were a menace who enjoyed spreading fear so people would buy their security products (which in a lot of cases did more harm than good) .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
These are all a bunch of horrible horrible lies of course. There is no way that Mozilla is worse than IE in any aspect.
All of those bugs reported last year for IE were well founded, with serious implications that needed to be released to the public for THEIR OWN SAFETY!
Obviously these Mozilla bugs reported this year are miniscule at best, and it does the community a great disservice to release any information about them!
Gates is the devil! Impeach Bush! Katrina is a direct result of WalMart cutting lunches! And Starbucks is lacing their coffee with microscopic beta nanomachines, built to track and report our intake of caffeinated beverages!
For Firefox
Mozilla Firefox 1.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Less critical
This is based on the most severe Secunia advisory, which is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database. Go to Unpatched/Patched list below for details.
Currently, 3 out of 22 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
And IE
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.x with all vendor patches installed and all vendor workarounds applied, is currently affected by one or more Secunia advisories rated Highly critical
This is based on the most severe Secunia advisory, which is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database. Go to Unpatched/Patched list below for details.
Currently, 19 out of 85 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database.
How about this: a report that identifies the vulnerabilities associated with a vendor, and not a product. In other words, after the initial public announcement of a vulnerability, we report how long it took the vendor to release a patch. Lower scores are better.
Anybody think that'll work? If not, why not?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
This is true. However IE is supposed to be a mature application. It isn't a new version that comes out every few months. At some point shouldn't a developed app reach a point that it is locked down and secure?
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Even symantec admits that this report is a steaming pile of crap.
From TFA:
Symantec counts only those security flaws that have been confirmed by the vendor. According to security monitoring company Secunia, there are 19 security issues that Microsoft still has to deal with for Internet Explorer, while there are only three for Firefox.
Nice. So in terms of checking off the reported vulnerabilities and counting each one equally, if the report would be honest, IE would have 32 issues and Firefox would have 29. For the sake of this report, all vulnerabilities are equally bad, right? Well, not according to TFA:
Symantec admitted that "at the time of writing, no widespread exploitation of any browser except Microsoft Internet Explorer has occurred," but added that it "expects this to change as alternative browsers become increasingly widely deployed."
So the IE vulnerabilities result in widespread exploitation and the Firefox ones don't, but firefox is somehow worse? I think the only way in which firefox is worse, from Symantec's perspective, is that the constantly malware-infested machines (where IE is the main infestation vector) inflate demand for the crap that Symantec peddles, and they're afraid that if people aren't constantly suffering from the pain of these infections this demand will evaporate.
Feh. Maybe I'm a cynic, but this looks like marketing poorly disguised as research to me...
.sig: file not found
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bug free software is quite possible. It's just prohibitively expensive, because it usually requires that the developers use a mathematical validation system. Thus it's typically confined to projects where system failure would result in Human casualties. It's an irrelevant quibble though, since web browsers are far, far too complex to ever be formally validated.
But within the bulletins, there are lots of bugs, like the one fixed by MS05-024 that aren't "technically" IE bugs. But the end result is that a malicious web page (or advert iframe) could do something nasty... usually execute arbritrary code (install spyware or a virus if the server is infected). If simply viewing a web page with IE allows an attack, I call that an IE bug, regardless of where the actual bug is located by Microsoft's way of thinking.
Notice how the "affected software" of MS05-024 is many versions of windows, but Internet Explorer isn't specificly mentioned. So when someone tallies IE bugs, this one probably doesn't make the list. But the "Vulnerability Details" section says:
I can see how a journalist could do such poor research. But Symantec? Come on, I found 22 nasty IE bugs by just browsing though 40-some Microsoft bulletins. That Symantec only thinks there's 13 doesn't build much confidence in the supposed "market leader" of anti-virus products!
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
How to respond to bad Mozilla security news on /.
1.) First, immediately dismiss the results, just like you did in the last Mozilla security story. Mozilla is flawless.
2.) Randomly reference Open Source, claiming the flaws were easier to find because of it, which has nothing to do with the report in the article and actually sounds like a criticism of Open Source, if anything.
3.) Accuse the study of bias or "shilling." ALWAYS do this when the study goes against your pre-made worldview (in this case, Mozilla being flawless). When the study gives the opposite conclusion, agree with it and praise it, often with related anecdotal stories.
4.) Reference Internet Explorer's age, which has little to do with and doesn't change Mozilla having more flaws than Internet Explorer today.
5.) Ask how quickly the Mozilla vulnerabilities were patched, ignoring that Mozilla has marked vulnerabilities "Confidential" before for them to sit for two years unfixed.
6.) Claim Internet Explorer is integral to the OS, when you argued that Internet Explorer was easily removed from Windows during the anti-trust trial.
7.) Claim matter-of-factly that, for some reason, it "goes without saying" that the study uses some sort of flawed logic, without citing the logic, giving proof, or backing the statements in any way. Simply claim it, knowing everyone will mod you up because they, too, want to believe Mozilla is flawless.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Don't be a troll. An opinion is a statement based on subjective criteria. And yes, everyone has them, and comparisons between them are not particularly interesting.
But we're not talking about subjective matters here. Symantec has released a security analysis, whose premises and reasoning may or not be correct at various points. That's what we're discussing here. Symantec is not saying, "We think Britney Spears is cute." It's claiming that vulnerabilities have been found faster in one browser versus another over a certain period of study.
Our discussion is about the merits of that claim. It's called a rational discussion. I'm sure there will be some subjective opinions thrown in as well. After all, we're not a corporation issuing a press release on the findings of a security study, so tests of intellectual rigor are a bit different here.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
This exposes the gulf between open source security and proprietary security. Ignore for a minute the fact that Symantec a) has a vested interest in you using insecure products and b) uses highly flawed methodolgy as their "count" is actually "count of vendor-admitted bugs". There's a major difference between a vulnerability in Mozilla and a vulnerability in IE.
Since we don't have the source for IE, any vulnerability found is, by definition, exploitable. Someone found a way to exploit it- you get a vulnerability.
Vulnerabilities found in Mozilla, on the other hand, are often theoretical in nature. Someone looking through the source finds the problem, but no exploit is written.
Another major problem is here:
My entire system isn't going to be compromised from me browsing with Mozilla. Period. Somebody is confused.
Do you have ESP?
Jesus fucking Christ. This has got to be the worst number doctoring all day long. From TFA:
There is one caveat: Symantec counts only those security flaws that have been confirmed by the vendor. According to security monitoring company Secunia, there are 19 security issues that Microsoft still has to deal with for Internet Explorer, while there are only three for Firefox.
Oh, well that's just a minor fucking nuclear bomb. Doesn't that make the count 28 to 32? For fuck's sake....the 19 vulnerabilities that Microsoft simply hasn't acknowledged just don't count? This new revelation should make it much cheaper to make secure software...after all, I'm sure it takes far fewer man-hours to do nothing then it does to fix something, and according to Symantec, it produces better results, too!
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.