Slashdot Mirror


IE7 Leaked

lju writes "IE7 has been leaked according to pcpro. From the article: '...last Friday it was revealed that a build of the new browser - version 5299 - along with numerous screenshots, was available online.' "

8 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. I'm certain... by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...that IE7 leaks all right. Anyone want to place bets on how secure it is?

    IE7 Screenshots

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  2. Leaked? by Comatose51 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's been available for some time now legally. I believe you have to be a member of MSDN. I'm using it right now on my work PC. It's like IE 6 with tabs and with some rough edges. The build I'm using doesn't add "http://" for you, which is a bit annoying but might not be a bad security precaution. Tabs pretty much work like FF.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  3. it was leaked on friday by madnuke · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow it sure does take long for news to filter through, I would stay clear of it though as I nearly had to reformat as it broke AVG and numerous other things. Even when its released I will stick with firefox.

  4. Re:Obligatory Troll... by DigitlDud · · Score: 3, Informative

    If look at the security hole listings for IE, there are exactly 3 buffer overflow problems found in the entire history of the browser. Not exactly indicative of insecure coding. Look at Firefox for comparison.

    Most of the IE security holes are cross-site scripting BS and things that require stupid users to work properly. And of course when running as non-admin, all the security exploits are irrelavent.

  5. Coral Cache by Frankie70 · · Score: 4, Informative

    here

    The original seems to be slashdotted.

  6. Firefox just isn't very optimized yet by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 3, Informative
    "But I guess that's the price for security and "standards compliance""

    No, that's the price for using a largely un-optimized application. Compared with IE, Firefox is like the 'new kid on the block'. Around for some time now, but not as long as IE. And probably a lot less men-hours of development effort, compared to what must have been poured into IE over the years. Firefox has reached 'feature-complete stage', but it's not heavily optimized or in a 'mature' state, where there's only small improvements left to do.

    Does it matter? Not much, Firefox is plenty useful NOW. And what would you rather waste: megabytes of your computer's memory (only till you close the app), or countless hours of your (human) time, cleaning out malware that leaked in? I'll take the 'waste memory' option anytime.
  7. Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Informative

    That isn't the job of glibc, its the job of the OS. At program termination, the OS knows what memory an app used and simply marks those pages (in RAM and the pagefile) as unused.

    glibc is in charge of memory during the running of the program. WHen you call new or malloc, it takes memory from a pool to satisfy the request. If it doesn't have enough, it requests additional pages from the OS. When you call delete or free, it takes that memory and puts it back in the pool. What I'm not sure is if glibc returns memory to the OS if the pool gets big enough. If it doesn't, the program isn't really leaking memory, but memory use will never go down.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  8. Re:Obligatory Troll... by Trevahaha · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think it's actually somewhat "difficult" to install ActiveX anymore. Since their updates in SP2, you have to click on the information bar and explicity state that you want to install this ActiveX (and it gives you a warning about how it can be unsafe).

    I mean, I'm the first one to admit that IE has been very crappy in the past... but IE6 SP2 (other than the damn rendering, of course, but there's hope for IE7)does a pretty good job of being secure.