Slashdot Mirror


IE7 Bug Reports Flooding In

the JoshMeister writes "According to ZDNet, bug reports are already flooding in for Microsoft's new Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview. Specific issues include the possibility of arbitrary code execution as well as incompatibilities with McAfee Security Center, anti-spyware programs, and online banking sites." From the article: "... browser testers may already be at risk, according to security researcher Tom Ferris. Late Tuesday, Ferris released details of a potential security flaw in IE 7. An attacker could exploit the flaw by crafting a special Web page that could be used to crash the browser or gain complete control of a vulnerable system, Ferris said in an advisory on his Web site. Microsoft had no immediate comment on Ferris' alert."

259 comments

  1. Duh! by sparkydevil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course it's got bugs -- it's a beta!

    1. Re:Duh! by dotpavan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      its a preview to the beta 2! wait for the beta 11 preview 46, its better

    2. Re:Duh! by tuxeater123 · · Score: 1

      Lol I have the beta or office 12, and i was trying to make a chart in excel for a last minute project, and it kept on crashing. luckily the office recovery wizard ran, and then, the recovery wizard crashed. needless to say, i was late getting my project in

    3. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill? Is that you?

    4. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well yes it is a beta and for that its not expected to be perfect. However this is for a product that is supposed to be secure by design, not by patching a million leaks like in the previous release of IE. I find it quite unacceptable to be finding major security issues so quickly.

    5. Re:Duh! by TheComputerMutt.ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google's beta products do a little better than this, no?

    6. Re:Duh! by tassii · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course it's got bugs -- it's a beta!

      I think the notable part is its the same bugs as IE 4 had.. and IE 5... and IE 6...

      --
      "I drank what?" - Socrates
    7. Re:Duh! by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you use a beta for production work at all?

    8. Re:Duh! by baldass_newbie · · Score: 0

      Why would you use a beta for production work at all?

      So he could complain about Micro$oft and appear 1337.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    9. Re:Duh! by jferris · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "Beta"? You spelled "Microsoft" incorrectly.

      --
      You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
    10. Re:Duh! by EntropyEngine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just don't really see this as being too news-worthy.

      What would be news-worthy is if Microsoft completely ignored all of the bug reports and went Golden Master tomorrow...

    11. Re:Duh! by johnfatz · · Score: 1

      In college they taught us that most software has bugs in 'em!

    12. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your own fault for using beta software in production. Don't expect any sympathy.

    13. Re:Duh! by Imsdal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure. After three years in beta, most of the bugs have usually been removed.

    14. Re:Duh! by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what I was going to say, bug reports flooding in are a sign of a successful beta test. I wonder how many of them Microsoft will actually be fixing, though... that's kindof the whole point of it all.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    15. Re:Duh! by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Informative

      So what ever happened to "trustworthy computing"? I believe the userbase would really like to see MS redesign IE from the ground up, much like what happened to netscape / mozilla. While it's no small effort, we are talking Microsoft here - it's not a cost issue. Perpetuating a design that has NEVER emphasized security just seems like the wrong thing to do - especially when it's "an integral part of the operating system" (as MS claims.)

    16. Re:Duh! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      "Google's beta products do a little better than this, no?"

      Google has the benefit of most of the code running on their own hardware. A better example would have been the FireFox team, but even then it would have to be admitted that writing a good browser is pretty fucking hard.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    17. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From IE7 codebase.

      #include msie4.h
      #include msie5.h
      #include msie6.h

      Why are people surprised about security in this release, I doubt this is a total rewrite more like 'lipstick on the pig'.

    18. Re:Duh! by jferris · · Score: 1

      Flamebait my arse... You apparently don't get the "high quality" software that comes with an MSDN subscription. You know, the one base CD and the fifteen release versions that replace it.

      --
      You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
    19. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move along...nothing to see here. Move along.

    20. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's got bugs -- it's a MS product!

    21. Re:Duh! by RaNdOm+OuTpUt · · Score: 0

      Except for one thing. I'm using Deer Park Alpha 2. It's crashed once. When I shut it down the first time, and SessionSaver still did what it should.
      Yes, beta is supposed to have some bugs-that's why it's beta. But alpha should be worse, and it seems not to be.
      Also, I would like to know what other people have found.

      --
      13. Any legal action is absolutly excluded. (Pi World Ranking List rules)
    22. Re:Duh! by kubevubin · · Score: 1

      It's "news-worthy" because it's on Slashdot. I find it amusing that a site with no dedicated Microsoft section sees fit to post any news that can easily be used to downtalk Microsoft.

    23. Re:Duh! by jseale · · Score: 1
      Or just switch to Firefox with all its unsigned extensions.

      Early adopters, gotta' love 'em. OY!!

  2. Wow by saboola · · Score: 4, Funny

    A beta of a Microsoft product has bugs? Color me surprised!

    1. Re:Wow by ucahg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A beta of anything better have bugs. Otherwise the testers aren't finding them because they are most certainly there.

      I don't even see how this is a news-worthy... it's a beta!

    2. Re:Wow by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Or the coders are good. It's like having a bug in "Hello, world!". It really can't have bugs; you can code it successfully on the first try without beta-testing. Now granted IE is just a bit more complicated, but there's no reason that software needs to have bugs during the beta. Finding them then is good, but surely it's better to not have any to find.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    3. Re:Wow by vertinox · · Score: 1

      A beta of a Microsoft product has bugs? Color me surprised!

      A final version of a Microsoft product has bugs? Color me suprised!

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    4. Re:Wow by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Different companies tend to release betas at different levels of quality.

      For example, look at Google Talk. That's in beta.

      There are bugs in Google Talk. Then again, they are incredibly minor compared to IE7.

      *shrug*

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    5. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... it's a beta!"

      No, it's *called* a "Beta". That's something quite different. Nothing stops anyone from calling it "the final product", or even "a piece of crap".

      I'm afraid that anything being presented to anyone else than the absolute nearest "relatives" will, standard-wise, be referred to as "Beta" (even if it would only show a small part of the intended/advertised functionality).

      The question is, what is made of ? Is it the absolute best they could come up with, or is it just released to the community of bug-finders so they can work for nothing (in more than one sense of the word) ?

  3. Bug reports already? by VJTod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's beta software. Of course there will be bugs. The public B2 is much better than the leaked B2 which was still better than B1.

    Taken with grain of salt... it's still beta.

    1. Re:Bug reports already? by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      You'd think by version 7 it would be pretty good! ;-)

  4. good! by steve.m · · Score: 4, Insightful

    sounds like a productive beta test. end users finding lots of bugs.

    (anyone who would use it - or anything else beta - in a production environment is insane)

    1. Re:good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone who would use it - or anything else beta - in a production environment is insane

      Oh, I agree.

      Microsoft is encouraging web developers to test their pages in it, who often aren't otherwise techy people. That's apparently a bit premature -- the product isn't ready for them. (A cynic would suggest none of the previous versions of IE ever were, either.)

    2. Re:good! by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 1

      So... Google News, Google Base, Google Labs, Google Sets....all those should be forbidden? If no one tests it, then no bugs will be found. Linus explained that quite succinctly during the 2.5 development time. Hence the current 2.6.x.y pattern.

    3. Re:good! by Greywolf428 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it's good that people are using it in the 'real' world (to a point). Most of the more severe problems may never be found in a controlled environment. Obviously, you'd want to be careful testing a piece of software, but still, it's easier to find all the little quirks, and the bigger issues before you release a final version to the masses; at that point, you get lots of complaints that the program is a piece of trash or too bug-ridden to use, etc. Then, you have to start playing catch-up.
      Not that I'll be beta-ing it. I'm not that brave.

    4. Re:good! by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Yes, those should be forbidden for production work. They are test software only and are subject to break or change at any time in any way. If you rely on Google Base for your custom-built web application, or if you rely on Google Mail for your business e-mail, and either goes down, you get a big fat "I told you so" for relying too heavily on beta software. Sorry.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    5. Re:good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone who would use it - or anything else beta - in a production environment is insane

      I'd say anyone who needs MSIE in a production environment (beta or no beta) is insane for sure :-P. Unless you are producing bug reports that is.

    6. Re:good! by Bob+The+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Except you know, it installs over IE6. Personally I dunno, I can't even install it (win2k, here) but you'd think they wouldn't overwrite the 'stable' with the Beta...

  5. Note: Its BETA by geo_2677 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Oh come on. Its BETA. Don't expect it not to have bugs.

    1. Re:Note: Its BETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's got bugs, it's beta, how does it differe from ms production-ready products?

    2. Re:Note: Its BETA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on. Its MICROSOFT. Don't expect it not to have bugs. All its products are BETA.

    3. Re:Note: Its BETA by xtracto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh come on. Its Google. Don't expect it not to have bugs. All its products are BETA.

      There you go, I corrected it for you. (no karma bonus checked for all those Gzealots)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    4. Re:Note: Its BETA by Churla · · Score: 1

      Prep yourself for your flamebait mod-down sir ;)

      --
      I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  6. Ahh... what a relief... by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 0, Troll

    What a relief to know that we can expect the same browsing experience and constant level of quality from IE7 as we were accustomed to with IE6! Even though they completely re-engineered the whole browser with all these innovative new features and overhauled the security model of the browser/OS integration!

    1. Re:Ahh... what a relief... by Kirsha · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, specially since Firefox never had any bugs!

      Right?

    2. Re:Ahh... what a relief... by LackThereof · · Score: 1

      I invite you to find this many bugs in Firefox 1.5 beta 2

      But that's not really a fair comparison. Firefox has a huge advantage, just because of the way open source software works. People were downloading Firefox 1.5 source and nightly builds long before it hit release candidate or beta status, so a fair number of bugs never survived to be shown in the beta. Microsoft doesn't get the same opportunity to find this stuff ahead of time, so they have to deal with a bug report zerg rush when they actually release a beta. Or a beta preview.

      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
  7. Re:no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You just ignore the three posts above you and then imagine it all in your head.

  8. OMG.... by Lxy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How can this be? How can BETA software have bugs? This must be a conspiracy. Call CNN. Get Faux News on the phone. this is a STORY!!!!

    Of course it has bugs. Grow up already.

    --

    There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
    :wq
  9. Not so fast.... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1, Informative

    Do I get mod points now?

    ... you don't get the mod points until you explain what exactly it is that Microsoft is sucking on?

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  10. Security is Job 1? by InfinityWpi · · Score: 2, Funny

    This just goes to prove that Microsoft's newfound 'dedication to security' and focus on writing code with less bugs in it is just a pure crock of doodie. Obviously, if they opened their source and let us all look at it, we'd be glad to help them find and iron out all the bugs by releasing several dozen exploits into the wild at the same time. My god, if the beta's this bad, how bad will the finished product be when they've finished adding features? ... um, my sarcasm tag is on, right?

    1. Re:Security is Job 1? by varmittang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It just makes you wonder if their new programming process MS has is better or worst than what it was before, and how it is letting these bugs get though. Was the product really not finished, yes I know its beta but most betas are at least close enough to finish that the programmers are looking for the obscure bugs, not ones that are just flat out sitting in the open like they are with IE 7. Is it the Alpha stage just slapped with a beta name so people will stop hounding them for IE 7.

      --
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      12345
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    2. Re:Security is Job 1? by szembek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're missing the point that this is a beta test, the point of it is to find the bugs that are inevitably in any program. It is a good thing that they are being flooded with bug reports, because they can now see what needs to be fixed before releasing it. Of course I am not saying the final release will be bug free, but hopefully this preview will be successful enough to help Microsoft create a stable release.

      --
      nothing
    3. Re:Security is Job 1? by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      most betas are at least close enough to finish that the programmers are looking for the obscure bugs

      What surprised me about beta 1 was that they hadn't even finished implementing features that were already on the final product's feature list. Actually, it seemed that they hadn't actually finished deciding what was going on the feature list.

      Most people would consider that development stage to be alpha - beta is where you have finished implementing the feature list and you are now after feedback from the customers on bugs, user interface and what extra features they think need to be implemented which weren't on the feature list. I.e. a beta release should fulfill the original specification, albeit still needing some bugfixes.

    4. Re:Security is Job 1? by MSFanBoi2 · · Score: 1

      Did you even bother to read the IE Blog? of course not, it's much better just to slam Microsoft, because you don't like em...

      else you would have seen: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/

      Which just so happens to mention:

      We received reports this morning that a security researcher had found a bug in the IE7 Beta 2 Preview release. This issue reportedly crashes IE and is exploitable to execute arbitrary code on the user's computer. Naturally, we take the security of IE and our users' safety very seriously, so we investigated immediately. We did confirm that the bug crashes IE. However, we did not find that the bug was exploitable by default to elevate privilege and run arbitrary code.

      This bug had already been found during our code review and analysis that is a mandatory part of our development process; it was scheduled to be fixed before our next public release. We do not believe this bug is easily exploitable, and as an extra defense, the /GS flag also catches the overrun. This is a compiler flag that tells Windows to watch for some classes of buffer overflows. If Windows sees a problem, it kills the application, in this case IE, instead of running the exploit code. While this is certainly not our primary line of protection, it does offer defense-in-depth to help keep our customers secure.

      At this time, we are not aware of any active exploits taking advantage of this bug. We will continue to monitor the situation and evaluate our response.

      Finally, I'd like to reiterate the importance of the responsible disclosure of security issues. We firmly believe that privately disclosing security issues to software vendors is the best way to keep the users of the world secure. To report a security issue against any Microsoft product, please contact secure@microsoft.com. For other feedback on IE7, please use the methods Jason mentioned yesterday.

      - Tony Chor

    5. Re:Security is Job 1? by InfinityWpi · · Score: 1

      Hrm. This proves my point that both MS Fanboys and MS Haters can't conprehend the point of sarcasm.

  11. This a good thing by Beelub · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Getting bug reports on beta software is good. That's why it's released as beta.

    Why is this front page, unless it's just the usual knee-jerk, let's-find-something-bad-to-say-about-Microsoft thing that makes Slashdot less than useful for info about anything about Microsoft.

    Yeesh.

    1. Re:This a good thing by BuR4N · · Score: 1

      I have no idea either, continuing the current trend of pointless MS bashing X times a day makes slashdot loose its relevance.

      This used to be a good spot to find interesting tech. news and such.

      --
      http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
    2. Re:This a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of the magnitude of bugs in this SECOND beta.

      This is obviously alpha quality software, at least in most peoples definitions.

    3. Re:This a good thing by WED+Fan · · Score: 1
      Because of the magnitude of bugs in this SECOND beta. This is obviously alpha quality software, at least in most peoples definitions.

      You're not a developer, right?

      Seriously, beta is beta is beta. The product, while buggy, and yes, I've reported several myself, is still good.

      As the lead developer in my organization's SharePoint project, I needed to see the effects of this thing on SP. Sure enough, I found a few. The bugs were introduced after Beta 1. As a developer you would know that fixing some bugs introduces new ones. Adding features, introduces new breaks. Removing features, introduces other breaks.

      Internal beta testing is fine to a point, but, until you go to a wider release, you aren't going to find all the problems.

      However, when trying to find serious tech news discussions without knee-jerk-religionist BS Slashdot is not a great choice.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    4. Re:This a good thing by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this front page

      This is on the front page for a number of reasons. First, it is somewhat indicative of the quality of the new software MS is planning to release. Yes, betas will have bugs, but no comment has been made about the remote exploit from MS, nor about the myriad failures to implement CSS properly. The number of bugs found in such a small time, is a meaningful metric and of interest to people here. It indicates to many of us, that the final version is still unlikely to properly implement the spec and that whatever new security practices MS is employing are probably not working to stop vulnerabilities. (Gee, big surprise.) The number of incompatibilities with current banking and other Websites is a useful indication to how much work the Web designers among us are likely to have ahead of us.

      Second, because of the design of Windows and IE you can either install this beta for testing, or you can install the current IE, but not both. This means a number of people will install the beta, but end up also using it as an everyday browser, since they don't want to be constantly installing and uninstalling it for testing. Thus, security concerns with this beta may actually be a real concern. Those among us working to secure networks may want to account for this by restricting use of this browser for the time being.

      Finally, the number of bug reports is a useful metric for gauging interest in the product, which is also of concern to people here.

    5. Re:This a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting of beta software with bugs isn't something that's unique to Internet Explorer... the same thing happened with Firefox, various Google services, and lots and lots of OSS... why are you complaining?

    6. Re:This a good thing by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Getting bug reports on beta software is good. That's why it's released as beta.

      I dunno. Every time I beta'd tested software for a public company (and volunteered my time at that) they have never bothered to fix any bugs I reported. Of course, these were mostly MMOGs and they had a time frame. Sometimes I think betas are tests to see if anyone is going to sue or not, because they can say "hey... its beta" and if in a weeks time no one sues they release it.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    7. Re:This a good thing by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Typically MMOGs have "stress tests" and not betas. Or if they have a beta, it's closed and only available to a few people.

      The point of a stress test is to jam tons of people onto the servers to see if the crash under load. In fact, I was really amused to see comments like, "hey, why is this game so laggy?" during the Dungeons and Dragons Online stress test. I always replied, "it's a stress test, that's the POINT." The servers are overloaded, of course it'll be laggy.

    8. Re:This a good thing by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I was quite a bit annoyed when I installed the beta and it didn't warn me that it would remove the older version of IE. Thanks guys. Why the hell can't we have both without jumping through hoops? Web developers need the ability to have multiple versions of browsers on their computer. I know it's possible because I've done it but Microsoft makes it a real pain in the ass.

      It does look like they've made some effort on their CSS support but it's still far from perfect. IE7 doesn't render my standard stylesheets correctly and it doesn't render my IE6 stylesheet correctly either. I guess I'll be needing to make a specialized IE7 stylesheet too. That wouldn't be so bad if they'd actually set a decent standard for declaring what browser stylesheets are for. I suggest adding a browser attribute to the link tag as is used with stylesheets. browser="Internet Explorer[=6],CSS[1]" sort of thing where the browser would choose the stylesheet that most closely matches itself.

      Compared to those my last complaint seems like nothing but have you seen the UI? It's hideous. I hope they are going to make it look nicer and be more usable before releasing it.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    9. Re:This a good thing by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 1

      You may try using conditional comments, or the star HTML hack. In IE7, the element around the html element is gone, and using a selector of * html is no longer caught like it was in IE6. An example of conditional comments, which you can use to include a separate iesucks.css file, is below.


      <!--[if IE 6]>
      <link href="iesucks.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" media="screen" />
      <![endif]-->
      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    10. Re:This a good thing by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I do that but it doesnt seem like all browsers support that and its really spammy. My suggested method would match the syntax of defining the media format etc.

      Im thinking of writing a small bit of Javascript that will check the stylesheet link tags for browser attributes and set the right stylesheet based on that. At least that would keep my HTML clean of the weird IEisms.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    11. Re:This a good thing by b4k3d+b34nz · · Score: 1

      I generally just try to get everything to look right in Opera and Firefox, and then apply some hacks to get it to work in IE6. All my pages showed up correctly in IE7, since most of the hacks that I use are to kill the double-floated margin or guillotine.

      I don't really agree with using a "browser" attribute, because that allows browsers to not fully implement CSS specs in the future. It kind of sucks right now because everything's in a big transition, but it will be better in the future to make sure that browsers follow a standard, rather than being allowed to deviate.

      I suggest using a server-side method for outputting the styles. Create a standard stylesheet that works fine in every browser, and then put the hacks for the individual browsers in their own specific files and only output them if you match their browser on the server end. I've done that before and it's worked well when it was simply impossible to get all the browsers to behave.

      By the way, browsers can't really not support conditional comments. Browsers that don't see that it actually contains something will read the stylesheet reference as a comment. I do agree that it's kind of spammy and retarded, but it does work.

      --
      Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
    12. Re:This a good thing by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Ever expecting all browsers to be 100% standards complaint is, I think, a bit of a pipe dream. It'd be great but I just don't think it's going to happen. First off, it's a hard standard to meet perfectly because it's based on how something looks which means bugs are found visually by users for the most part. Second, the biggest browser vendor has shown that they just don't care about being compliant and I think they probably actually don't want to be compliant because the Internet is a direct risk to their bottom line as an application vendor. Third, the standards keep evolving over time so it's a moving target. And last, there will always be smaller vendors that just don't have the resources to make sure they are fully compliant.

      Doing it all server-side or with client-side scripting can work but are a bandaid fix which is ignoring the real problem. It isn't taking into account the reality of the situation faced by developers. In addition to browser hints I'd probably suggest canvas-size hints too such that if the screen goes below this size it changes to this stylesheet, if it goes above this size it changes to this other stylesheet, etc. One less thing I'd have to handle with client-side scripting.

      If a browser doesn't support conditional comments then it just shows the wrong style (or no style) and doesn't work at all. Hardly my idea of a working system. I'm sick of having to hack around browser shortcomings anyway. It's bad enough needing four different stylesheets per site without having to use screwball methods to make them work.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  12. Story is inaccurate... by Manip · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Calling Tom Ferris a "Security Researcher" is like calling Bill Gates a programmer... He is more a 'Robert Scoble' character. And his discovery of arbitrary code execution is incorrect as per the link: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/01/522682 .aspx

    The guy is not a professional anything, I mean he lists workarounds as 'Firefox'; which just shows how little he understands the security field which he claims to work in (A workaround should be a way to fix or bypass the bug, not a blind pointer at some random other product, even the Linux Security guys know that).

    1. Re:Story is inaccurate... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I mean he lists workarounds as 'Firefox'; which just shows how little he understands the security field which he claims to work in (A workaround should be a way to fix or bypass the bug, not a blind pointer at some random other product, even the Linux Security guys know that).

      In most cases, yes - a workaround should allow you to continue using your current product. However, in some cases the affected product is considered so fundamentally flawed that alternative products must be considered. Even CERT has (at least once) recommended people replace IE with a different browser in light of a serious security hole.

      This is generally the result of lazyness in bugfixing meaning that even though the hole has been known about for a while there is still no patch in the foreseeable future. The answer is to be more proactive - fix bugs as soon as they are found rather than waiting until they are exploited in the wild before starting to engineer a fix. (There are numerous examples of IE security holes that had been known about for many months and a patch was only implemented after exploits started to be widely used in the wild).

    2. Re:Story is inaccurate... by Manip · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with that in most cases, but people have looked at using this bug to execute and it seems highly unlikely unless we've overlooked something. If you are really concerned enable Data Execution Protection for that extra layer of security. In the interim there is no good reason (security wise) not to use IE 7 and, at least in my opinion, the bug should be fixed in the next beta release. No urgent patch is required. Plus if you feel that IE 7 is insecure then I'd suggest uninstalling, continuing to use whatever you used before and wait for a final product to be released.

    3. Re:Story is inaccurate... by J0nne · · Score: 1

      ...he lists workarounds as 'Firefox'

      Maybe he was going for the +5 Funny mod...

      These 'workarounds' get posted here on any IE related story.

    4. Re:Story is inaccurate... by teslatug · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that Bill Gates is not a programmer? Billy was a pretty good hacker in the 70s and 80s, and I bet he could still be a pretty good programmer.

    5. Re:Story is inaccurate... by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, bash the guy all you want, just let him keep the programmer title, please.

      He just happens to also be evil and have business-savvy. :P

      --
      Send your spendthrift head of state this
    6. Re:Story is inaccurate... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      People should also remember that Bill Gates left the CEO title in order to focus more on technical issues, and people who work at MS usually say that he knows very technical details about most MS products...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    7. Re:Story is inaccurate... by YU+Nicks+NE+Way · · Score: 1

      The worst part of the /. story is that it doesn't include the key fact in the IE blog: Microsoft found the bug during internal testing, validated that it couldn't be exploited, and therefore didn't choose to fix it for beta. That's the right decision to make -- it's a preview of a beta, after all! Unexploitable crashes are a non-issue in a beta.

    8. Re:Story is inaccurate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please explain how he is evil? he donates a large portion of his income into funding neglected diseases.

    9. Re:Story is inaccurate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just a tax write-off. Don't be clueless.

  13. Official Microsoft Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The official Microsoft comment is that with all these volunteers beta-testing and sending bug reports, 'We will soon control 100% of the browser market!'

    1. Re:Official Microsoft Comment by sameeer · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      100%?? isnt that impossible, considering all the linux users?

      and the intelligent users?

    2. Re:Official Microsoft Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's easy to do... Microsoft wants to control 100% of the browser market owned by Internet Explorer.

  14. Give me a break... by MSFanBoi2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's a BETA. But hell, it's Microsoft, and this is Slashdot... lets crucify MS (whoops, sorry around here it's M$, didn't PennyArcade touch on that once...).

    1. Re:Give me a break... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QFT... Yes it is M$ or Micro$oft around these here parts...
      a good flogging is in order, before the crucifiction of course.

  15. Bug identification & research for a beta relea by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look at the bright side, now we know what Ferris does on his days off.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  16. beta?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    beta _microsoft_ product is also with _beta_ bugs... natually the bugs will get more stable and mature as well ;)

  17. Not surprised by the bugs... by ripbruger · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...but I downloaded and installed and uninstalled this thing last night. Still seems there are loads of CSS problems in it (couldn't get a navigation menu to work but using :hover pseudo-class). It'll be interesting to see what MS comes up with on this one. It'll be nice to actually have a capable version of IE to test pages against.

    --
    I can't spell ripburger
  18. Fried System by mr.+mulder · · Score: 1

    Upon installing IE 7 Beta 2, my W3SVC service stopped working. Removing the beta fixed nothing. Re-installing IIS had no effect. Finally, I had to uninstall my wireless cell card software to get things working again.

    1. Re:Fried System by elwin_windleaf · · Score: 1

      While that's unfortunate, and going through the hassle must have sucked, I'm sure that's exactly the kind of thing they were hoping for.

      It would be quite a fiasco if every future computer packaged with IE7 had a tendency to break wireless cell card drivers, so as long as you filed a bug report, you might have saved everyone else in your position a boatload of trouble.

      ...uh, thanks?

    2. Re:Fried System by mr.+mulder · · Score: 1

      Yep - bug report filed. It is a pain, but once again reaffirms the practice of not installing a beta on a live development machine. Stupid me.

    3. Re:Fried System by trezor · · Score: 1

      I'm just impressed that installing a user-level application (a web browser) is able to interfere with Wireless drivers in anyway what so ever.

      Maybe I'm a dinosaur not seeing the benefits of integrating webbrowsers into wireless-drivers, but can someone please tell me how any sane architecture could allow this? Thanks. That's all.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    4. Re:Fried System by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      I'm just impressed that installing a user-level application (a web browser) is able to interfere with Wireless drivers in anyway what so ever.

      Maybe I'm a dinosaur not seeing the benefits of integrating webbrowsers into wireless-drivers, but can someone please tell me how any sane architecture could allow this? Thanks. That's all.

      I know there's a lot of MS bashing going on, but I'm sorry, this is legitimate and you deserve to know...

      This is Microsoft Windows/Internet Explorer! What does "sanity" or "benefit" have to do with whether or not IE will be integrated with anything else in the operating system it can infect? You can't even browse files on your hard drive without IE functioning properly (OK, there are workarounds, but I hate windows' command line)! I've never been able to have a functioning windows OS after removing IE (98SE and later? 3 and 3.1 were fine, and I could swear 95 didn't have IE yet). Maybe this has changed now, but last I heard the entire operating system was dependent on the INSECURE WEB BROWSER FROM HELL for nearly all of its user interface.

      So, I guess in response to "but can someone please tell me how any sane architecture could allow this?", the answer is that they can, have, and will. They get away with it and sell this utter shit to 90% of the market. They're sane alright. It's the people who are buying/using the products that are insane.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  19. It's.. Beta? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this news? Betas are there for finding bugs. If you don't want to risk more than the usual, how about just not using it?

    The past builds were also riddled with bugs, and the IE developers are very involved with testers to fix them. It's not like they're just sitting with their hands over their ears yelling "LA LA LA LA I can't hear you!"

    1. Re:It's.. Beta? by RangerRick98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It'd be one thing if I could have IE 6 and IE 7 installed on the same install of Windows so that I could run them side-by-side. Then I could test stuff in IE 7 but still do the bulk of my Internet browsing with IE 6 which (theoretically) doesn't have these flaws.

      Of course, in reality, I use Firefox for everything, so it's a moot point for me, but nevertheless it doesn't make sense to me that someone would release a beta product and have it install over top of a production product.

      --
      "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
    2. Re:It's.. Beta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      (via Jon Galloway) Sure, you knew IE7 Beta 1 was up on MDSN, but you don't have a free machine to test it on. Can't install it on your main work machine, because you can't afford to mess it up... plus, you need to be testing your work against IE 6, right? You thought about setting up a Virtual PC image, but it seemed like too much trouble for a Beta 1. Still, it would be nice to click around in it for a few minutes here and there... Fret no more! IE has a secret standalone mode which lets you run multiple versions side by side (thanks to Joe Maddalone for figuring this out). It's pretty simple: Download the IE7 Beta 1 Install from MSDN Open the install file with WinRAR (yep, it's an EXE, but it's a self extracting EXE) and extract them to a folder. Alternatively, you can just run the EXE, make a copy of the files which are extracted in the first step, and cancel the install. I was too chicken to do this on my work computer. Look in the folder you extracted to for the file SHLWAPI.DLL. Delete this file. Create a new text file in the folder, then rename it to IEXPLORE.exe.local. That's it. The .local file in the folder tells the IExplore.exe instance to run in local mode, which means it won't mess with your IE6 settings, registry, etc. It sounds complicated, but it takes less than 10 minutes and it goes just great with your Friday morning coffee. Of course, you can help your friends at work (who also have MDSN subscriptions, of course) by zipping the folder and sharing it with them so they don't have to go through this crazy mumbo jumbo. Incidentally, there are archives of old IE versions converted to standalone mode over at browsers.evolt.org and at skyzyx.com. C'mon, spend a day with IE3 for old time's sake!

    3. Re:It's.. Beta? by RangerRick98 · · Score: 1

      That's awesome. I'm gonna have to give that a try at home next chance I get. Thanks for the tip!

      --
      "You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
  20. Mozilla developer considered "suspicious" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to IE, Mozilla developer Gervase Markham's blog is "suspicious", but arbitrary code from unknown websites is safe to execute.

    There's a "In Soviet Russia" joke in there, but I can't put my finger on it.

    1. Re:Mozilla developer considered "suspicious" by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      > There's a "In Soviet Russia" joke in there, but I can't put my finger on it.

      In Soviet Russia, joke puts finger on YOU!

      Carry on.

      Virg

  21. Is there a quota? by nrc · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Is there some kind of quota of IE7 stories that you guys have to meet? Because otherwise I'm not sure why anyone would consider this news.

  22. More annoying than the bugs.. by chou+oishii · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..are the way it: a) Requires you to validate windows to install, b) Requires a reboot, and c) Actually attempts to pass off things like tabbed browsing and a search bar as innovative (really, take a look at the "demo" they bring you to when you first install it).

    I'm not asking them to spend money advertising the fact that they're way behind the curve on browsers, just to stop lying to me.

    1. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by Psiren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a) Requires you to validate windows to install,

      I personally don't see why this is a problem, but then I'm one of those strange people that happens to agree with the notion of paying for commercial software.

      b) Requires a reboot,

      Well, it's the usual tight integration with Windows, so I expected as much. Yeah, it's a bit of a pain, but if you're prepared to install a piece of beta software on your machine, rebooting it is hardly an issue, is it?

      c) Actually attempts to pass off things like tabbed browsing and a search bar as innovative

      Well, it is, for Explorer. That's just marketing anyway, it's nothing to do with the quality of the product, which is what most of us devlopers are interested in.

    2. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by bmajik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Requires you to validate windows to install

      Ok, this doesn't buy the customer much, but is it really all that big of a pain? Do you just conceptually object to Microsoft asking "is that a valid Windows you're using?"

      Requires a reboot

      I am not thrilled about this but given the wedding of the browser rendering component and the rest of the user experience ("OS"), i can't say i am surprised. You have to reboot after uninstalling it also, by the way :)

      Actually attempts to pass off things like tabbed browsing and a search bar as innovative (really, take a look at the "demo" they bring you to when you first install it).

      Consider part of the target market for IE7: People that are happy enough with the features of IE6 that they haven't bothered looking at Firefox yet. For them, tabbed browsing and a search bar are new and innovative. These are things that everyone will potentially benefit from but not all people will seek out and discover by themselves.

      Part of the reason my grandfather uses a computer at a public library to do web surfing and write email is because Microsoft brings "cool stuff" away from the realm of the early adopter and puts it in the hands of everyone.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    3. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by Americano · · Score: 1

      a) Requires you to validate windows to install,

      You know, I don't understand this objection at all. If you're using a copy of Windows that you've paid for, then you're simply allowing Microsoft to validate that it *is*, in fact, a paid-for copy of Windows. If you didn't pay for your copy of Windows, then maybe you should consider the fact that you've stolen the software... like it or not, Windows is NOT free, and Microsoft (as the owner & copyright holder) has chosen to say, "If you want our software, you must pay." And they're well within their rights to make that demand. You may disagree on moral & philosophical grounds, but if that's the case, then you should be using one of the free alternatives to Windows, chock full of Linuxy goodness.

      b) Requires a reboot,

      Is this really that onerous? REALLY? I have trouble believing you'd choose to install IE7 BETA on a system you're doing important, long-running work on. If you've been calculating the meaning of life, the universe, and everything on your computer, maybe that's important enough to delay installing that unstable, buggy Beta software for a couple days?
      And if you're not doing anything that important, really, how much of an interruption is a single reboot? I've got an older system running Windows XP, and it takes me maybe a minute to reboot my system, and another 2 minutes until I'm signed in and ready to work again... yes, it's an inconvenience... but seriously -- is this reboot issue THAT much of a surprise or an inconvenience?

      c) Actually attempts to pass off things like tabbed browsing and a search bar as innovative

      In a Microsoft browser, that *is* innovative... they're significant new features in the release. I don't personally care for the tabbed browsing implementation in IE7 -- but compared to IE6? Light years of difference. And do you really expect them to write in their marketing & promotional materials, "With these features, we're almost as good as Firefox and Opera now. Here at Microsoft, we strive to bring you the state of yesterday's art in browser technology!"?? Come on.

      I know, I know. This is Slashdot, everybody who's anybody bashes Microsoft. Rather than admit that Microsoft is doing something (*competing*) that will end up being good for users, let's criticize their business model and marketing materials. If this is the harshest criticism we hear about IE7, I'd say that Microsoft is doing a halfway decent job, considering it's still a Beta release.

    4. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > take a look at the "demo" they bring you to when you first install it

      where can I download the OpenBSD version ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    5. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by blazerw11 · · Score: 1
      a) Requires you to validate windows to install,
      I personally don't see why this is a problem, but then I'm one of those strange people that happens to agree with the notion of paying for commercial software.
      It's free!!! What other piece of software, that is not Microsoft's, makes you verify the OS on which you are running it? It's crazy that this is required! How can it be a positive!?!?

      c) Actually attempts to pass off things like tabbed browsing and a search bar as innovative
      Well, it is, for Explorer. That's just marketing anyway, it's nothing to do with the quality of the product, which is what most of us devlopers are interested in.
      innovative has lost all meaning.

      --
      A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
    6. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by Psiren · · Score: 1

      It's free!!! What other piece of software, that is not Microsoft's, makes you verify the OS on which you are running it?

      Yes, but Windows isn't, and Microsoft are taking the opportunity to check that your version of Windows isn't ripped off. The reason that I have no issue with it is that I'm happy to accept the terms and conditions under which I can run my copy of Windows, which doesn't include not paying for it.

      In much the same vein, I would expect people using the free software I create to comply with the license it's issued under too. It's funny how some people can get all worked up about companies breaking the GPL, but have no problem running software that they should have paid for but didn't.

      innovative has lost all meaning.

      I wouldn't disagree at all. I don't think for a minute that there is much that is innovative in IE7. Like I said, its marketing. Don't think for a minute that some free software developers don't do the same thing.

    7. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by dustmite · · Score: 1

      d) Changes file associates such as .jpg back from (your favourite jpg viewer) to Microsoft apps.

    8. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point. Why do they need my Windows serial number tied to my IP address to test a beta?

      Just a thought

    9. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by aaronl · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what, though. If the IE7 upgrade requires me validating all my machines to get it to install, then it's not being installed. It would require a visit to each of my machines, across seven buildings, and weeks of time. I would have to log in as Administrator to each of them, download this ridiculous validation plugin, run it, then let IE install.

      Or... much more likely, since I've already bought Windows, entered a serial number, and, in some cases, activated the copy, I'll just use one of the well known workarounds to avoid the latest MS attempt to make my life harder. Throw the plugin at IE6, automatically disable the plugin, enter the appropriate registry settings. *That* can be scripted remotely.

      Following the terms, and bending over for MS to screw you again and again are different. Sure, their terms say they can do this, but that they decided to is obnoxious and unnecessary. I'm certainly not going to defend them by saying I'm "happy" to comply. I'm not; it pisses me off, and I don't want to deal with it. Way to go MS, another anti-copying scheme that just irritates paying customers, but doesn't bother copyright-infringers in the least.

      (And BTW, just because MS marketing is outright lying about "innovation" doesn't mean that it's ok.)

    10. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ok, this doesn't buy the customer much, but is it really all that big of a pain? Do you just conceptually object to Microsoft asking "is that a valid Windows you're using?"

      Validation has broken auto-updates for valid copies of XP. I find myself having to do a half-dozen reboots and/or update refreshes (or more if a new install), just to update the f-ing thing.

      Validation has made a joke of auto updates.

    11. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I am not thrilled about this but given the wedding of the browser rendering component and the rest of the user experience ("OS"), i can't say i am surprised.

      While not surprising, it's still crap.

      The core flaw is that under Windows you can't delete a file that is in use. The accepted solution is to set up a little script to run on reboot that deletes the file and replaces it with the new version. That's sad and stupid.

      The Unix solution allowing you to delete an in use file solves the problem. It has its own weaknesses (as long as any process holds a file open, it chews up disk space), but at least you can upgrade even low level libraries (which is all the IE libraries are) without a reboot.

    12. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by baadger · · Score: 1

      I'm not asking them to spend money advertising the fact that they're way behind the curve on browsers, just to stop lying to me.

      'Innovation' is irrelevent and tiresome. What matters is the idea is out there. And hey, you know them thumbnail previews of tabs new to IE7? The ones no other browser has? Yeah. Well there is a copycat Firefox extension and a similar feature will available in Opera 9.

    13. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      a) Requires you to validate windows to install
      So don't install it, but instead run it in standalone mode.
    14. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by bobbyjack · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't understand this objection at all. If you're using a copy of Windows that you've paid for, then you're simply allowing Microsoft to validate that it *is*, in fact, a paid-for copy of Windows.

      While I agree with the root point, requiring users to pay money (bandwidth isn't free) to do so, is a highly dubious practice. True, they can't really do it any other way, but why does every user have to comply? Random security checks are one thing, but this is more like enforced surveillance.

      If you didn't pay for your copy of Windows, then maybe you should consider the fact that you've stolen the software... like it or not, Windows is NOT free, and Microsoft (as the owner & copyright holder) has chosen to say, "If you want our software, you must pay."

      True, and I'm proud to believe that Windows is not worth stealing, let alone paying good money for. I certainly consider a product version that uses such draconian 'property enforcement' tactics to be less valuable than one that doesn't, whether paid for or not.

      And they're well within their rights to make that demand. You may disagree on moral & philosophical grounds, but if that's the case, then you should be using one of the free alternatives to Windows, chock full of Linuxy goodness.

      Agreed. But I think anyone still has a right to criticise a commercial product, even if they adopt an alternative.

      Is this really that onerous? REALLY? I have trouble believing you'd choose to install IE7 BETA on a system you're doing important, long-running work on. If you've been calculating the meaning of life, the universe, and everything on your computer, maybe that's important enough to delay installing that unstable, buggy Beta software for a couple days?
      And if you're not doing anything that important, really, how much of an interruption is a single reboot? I've got an older system running Windows XP, and it takes me maybe a minute to reboot my system, and another 2 minutes until I'm signed in and ready to work again... yes, it's an inconvenience... but seriously -- is this reboot issue THAT much of a surprise or an inconvenience?

      I don't consider it to be that onerous, but I think the point that this raises relates to the underlying architecture. If any software install (and I realise this is a beta; I'm not just referring to IE7, here), barring the extreme low-level, results in a required reboot, it is either lazily constructed, or indicitive of a global flaw that must affect installation of more 'complex' software, such as that running on servers (a web server, for example). This is less of a problem in home environments, true.

      In a Microsoft browser, that *is* innovative... they're significant new features in the release. I don't personally care for the tabbed browsing implementation in IE7 -- but compared to IE6? Light years of difference. And do you really expect them to write in their marketing & promotional materials, "With these features, we're almost as good as Firefox and Opera now. Here at Microsoft, we strive to bring you the state of yesterday's art in browser technology!"?? Come on.

      It will, at least, be a greater pleasure to use a tabbed version of IE, when one really has to. And, of course, a commercial enterprise has every right to speak the truth in promotional material. I'm quite glad that Microsoft are improving their browser. In a very rare type of market - one that spans economic models - continued improvement is a valuable thing, and we're still getting this software for free (re: beer). If they would only implement more of the CSS spec, I would be feeling really positive about this release.

      I know, I know. This is Slashdot, everybody who's anybody bashes Microsoft. Rather than admit that Microsoft is doing something (*competing*) that will end up b

    15. Re:More annoying than the bugs.. by angulion · · Score: 1
      For them, tabbed browsing and a search bar are new and innovative.

      I disagree. It might be new, but it is not innovative.

      In dictionary:
      innovative adj 1: ahead of the times

      Is it? No.
  23. So let me get this straight .... by Brian+McCoy · · Score: 4, Informative

    people are claiming that a Preview Release ,not even a full beta yet, has bugs? Just wondering what these industry leading geniuses thought they were getting with a preview release? I have been using IE7 for a couple months now, my work provides me with a Technet Plus subscription, and I have had some issues. In most, if not all cases, I have been able to work around them and still rely heavily on Firefox. I will say that Microsoft has finally added some much needed functionality to their browser such as tabbed browsing and keyboard shortcuts which are exactly the same as Firefox's (coincidence, I think not). I guess my point is it's a preview release, it's not perfect and it has bugs, by using beta software you are agreeing to help solve some of the problems before final release, and there will be problems. Just my two cents worth.

    --
    You must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose. -Indira Gandhi
    1. Re:So let me get this straight .... by Transmogrify_UK · · Score: 1

      keyboard shortcuts which are exactly the same as Firefox (coincidence, I think not)

      Is that the same kind of keyboard shortcut coincidence as you get in every/99.9% of windows based applications? Ctrl-S for save, Ctrl-O for open, Ctrl-N for new etc. etc. F1 for help and so on?

      You're right, I'm sure it absolutely wasn't a coincidence. So is there a problem with this?
  24. Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem for Microsoft is that many web applications use the following logic:

    if (browser is Internet Explorer) then

    emit HTML code that works around the numerous rendering bugs of IE

    else (Mozilla, Netscape, Opera)

    emit standards-compliant HTML code

    With this kind of (flawed) logic, IE 7 will often be identified as IE, and hence be provided with IE 6-specific HTML code, whereas it should have been sent "correct" HTML code. The result may be, well, interesting :-)

    I really don't see what Microsoft can do against this. They can't expect millions of web sites to be updated overnight just to support IE 7.

    1. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real flaw is actually that "web applications" need that code at all.

    2. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      when styling a page developers exploit bugs in the IE5,IE5.5 and IE6 codebase to con each browser version into rendering something along the lines of what the rest of the (standards-compliant) CSS describes. if IE7 fixes the CSS support AND these bugs then this issue wont be, well, an issue. note, i said "IF".

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    3. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I really don't see what Microsoft can do against this.

      Perhaps, for compatibility, they could make the UserAgent string pretend to be Mozilla? Put the real identifier in brackets where the obsolete website scripts don't expect it.

      Obviously there's no precedent for this kind of shenanigans at all, but it might be worth a try :)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by scuba0 · · Score: 1

      They already tried that, Microsoft used Mozilla/4.0 so the only difference is to switch to a Mozilla/5.0 "compatible" browser ;)

    5. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by mlock · · Score: 1

      > I really don't see what Microsoft can do against this.
      > They can't expect millions of web sites to be updated
      > overnight just to support IE 7.
      How about just changing the browser identification to something other?

      Then it should no longer be mistaken for IE6.

      Hey, they could even include something like
          User-Agent: Mozilla/x.x (compatible)
      if they like :-)

    6. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by imroy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it reported last year that MS is totally changing the UserAgent string in IE7? Something not including the "Mozilla compatible" bit that everything has used for the last ten years. So IE 7 users will most likely be mis-identified and see the annoying "This site is designed for Internet Explorer and we don't support your commie pinko browser, hippy!" popup that all us non-IE users have been seeing for years.

    7. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use such code myself to protect Mozilla, Netscape, and Firefox from having to see the W3 compliant code they don't like but which IE renders perfectly...

      In fact I've had to use it to prevent Netscape from executing a piece of Javascript that would cause the machine it was running on to crash, a piece of Javascript that was correct according to Netscape's own language specification.

    8. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by wilsone8 · · Score: 1

      You've just explained the whole reason why Microsoft released Beta 1 and now Beta 2: So that web site designers could update their HTML.

      --
      The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do. - B.F. Skinner
    9. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by kawika · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't let Microsoft off the hook that easily. Most of the problems I've seen with this IE7 beta aren't the "we messed up the implementation" variety. They are the "we still don't support all of CSS" variety.

      Microsoft has eliminated several bugs that made it easy to identify IE6 and apply hacks to the CSS. For example, the "* html" selector let you apply CSS rules just for IE because it's ignored by standards-compliant browsers. Now IE7 ignores that too. However, the need for hacks is still there. IE7 still does not implement several important CSS features that necessitated the hacks in the first place, such as min-height.

      If Microsoft were to decide that this beta was "close enough" or even if it fixes just the minimum number of things to keep major sites from breaking, that's not going to help. Designers will end up needing an entirely different set of hacks to make up for the fact that IE7 is *still* not a complete CSS2 implementation.

    10. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Why posting as AC and why no examples?
      - which pieces of w3c standard? Specific functions/entries/styles/elements.
      - a code written to the standard may crash the system as well. The following wabbit:
      #!/bin/bash
      $0 &
      $0 &
      will bring most Linux/UNIX systems down to their knees, despite being a perfectly correct shell script. It's a design caveat, not a language specs error.
      Just fix design bugs in your JS program instead of complaining the code is standard-compilant but crashes.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    11. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Quite simple, change the UA for IE7, to something like Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; IE7, like Gecko)

      --
      I am trolling
    12. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      IE7 will never be Acid2 compliant so you will *always* have to code round it

      so now you will have to test against 4, 5, 6 AND 7

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    13. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Bob+ArdKor · · Score: 1

      It's a pain having to tune websites according to different browsers, I admit it.
      However, I don't know if you know about them but there's a (kinda) good workaround in this case, and they're provided by microsoft : Conditional comments for Internet Explorer.

      you can ask about ie's version easily :

      <!--[if gte IE 5]>
              IE 5.0 - 6.x
      <!--[if IE 5]>
              IE 5.0
      <!--[if lt IE 6]>
              IE 5.0 - 5.5

      and so on...
      It is still a pain, but it sure helps a lot. I usually use it to include a special css file for explorer :

      <link href="style.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
      <!--[if IE]>
      <link href="ie.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
      <![endif]-->

      oh wait, I should be bashing IE... well not for tonight I guess.

    14. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      Sure you can code your site so that it correctly handles all browsers; the trouble (for Microsoft at least) is that there are a LOT of poorly implemented sites which will fail to correctly support IE 7. Just think about all the sites which are not maintained anymore...

    15. Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Godkar · · Score: 1

      I think this will make IE's buggy rendering engine even more buggy... I hope that most of IE7 users go to Firefox because of this

      --
      Is "no" the answer to this question?
  25. More Vulnerabilities == More Fun by putko · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm so happy to see there are groundbreaking new hacking opportunities in IE, and we know it in advance.

    If people get victimized, you'll really be able to say that they were warned in advance.

    I hope Microsoft-loving IT admins take down their whole company with this, and get their dumbasses fired.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:More Vulnerabilities == More Fun by polaughlin · · Score: 1

      Anyone who puts a beta product into a production environment should be fired.

      --
      pat o.
    2. Re:More Vulnerabilities == More Fun by putko · · Score: 1

      Just putting it on your network is enough. This looks like the typical Microsoft experience. Everyone has been warned.

      I would love to be a blackhat, but I just can't stand running Windows. I'm quite torn: I want to do my part to cause Billy some pain for what he's done to me and others, yet I just can't bring myself to run his software in order to make that happen.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    3. Re:More Vulnerabilities == More Fun by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever got fired over installing Microsoft products.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
    4. Re:More Vulnerabilities == More Fun by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      They would if they worked here.

      We actually had someone come round from the Licencing Gestapo {maybe he got tipped off that we had ordered a few dozen PCs with no operating system}, so we thought we'd have a bit of fun with him ..... he asked us what measures we had in place to prevent users from copying software off company PCs. We told him none at all; in fact, we actively encouraged that sort of thing. The poor sod didn't know whether to spunk his pants with glee or explode with rage. He asked us if we were serious and if we knew what the penalties were for violating an End User Licence Agreement? Then we shew him the neat rows of machines running Mandrake 9.2 {so that'll tell you how long ago it was} and asked him which bit of the GPL he thought we were violating.

      As the advert says, for everything else, there's Mastercard.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  26. So what if it's a beta? by SpiritGod21 · · Score: 2, Informative

    OK, yeah, I got the point. It's a beta and betas will have bugs. But this isn't IE 1.0 Beta. This is freaking IE 7, and while it's a beta, you'd figure they'd have gotten at least some of these things straightened out in the past 6 versions. I'm not so much frustrated that a beta has bugs, but that even into version 7 they're still having huge problems and potential exploits.

  27. If this were Google.... by Churla · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They'd just release the product like this and slowly fix bugs, all the while calling it a beta. A beta which of course would last for YEARS (see news.google.com for reference). And the people here would be hailing this as the next great browser. Sometimes the sheer hipocracy of some posters here amazes me beyond rational response.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
    1. Re:If this were Google.... by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the sheer hipocracy of some posters here amazes me beyond rational response.

      You mean the oath of Hipocrates, to save lives no matter what and to follow the code of conduct in the job of physician? In this (IT) context that would mean that some posters fight for the good of software, for security and stability against all the odds, against corporate, governmental and law pressure, to make code better. Yes, amazing phenomenon, beyond rational response.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  28. Betas For Bugs BUT -- Also uninstalls IE 6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand that Betas are to find bugs, but doesn't installing IE7 mean that IE6 gets removed. This means that people are left with only the beta browser (assuming they don't have anything else on their computer).

    I use linux, so I haven't tested it -- but from posts yesterday I thought that IE7 and IE6 were mutally exclusive.

    In that case, this sounds like a larger issue than it would normally be for any other beta product.

    1. Re:Betas For Bugs BUT -- Also uninstalls IE 6? by elwin_windleaf · · Score: 1

      During the installation, it does recommend that you "backup your important files and close all programs." I'm asuming that is in case you need to revert back to IE6 at a later point, but it could just mean that they don't want whiners at their door if people lose all of their data and try to blame it on the beta.

    2. Re:Betas For Bugs BUT -- Also uninstalls IE 6? by Merle+Darling · · Score: 1

      They're mutually exclusive in the sense that you can't run 6 while 7beta is installed, but if you uninstall 7 you're left with 6. No big deal.

      Even if something should go wrong, you could always reinstall 6 assuming you have an XP CD. Maybe that's one reason to require the Windows validation during installation?

      --
      "Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
    3. Re:Betas For Bugs BUT -- Also uninstalls IE 6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, Captain Obvious. Fuckwit.

  29. Re:Microsoft Beta Crap by polaughlin · · Score: 1

    What is the point of this post? You should be sending this to Microsoft not whining about it on a Slashdot thread.

    --
    pat o.
  30. Nasty security flaw that Microsoft missed by OwlWhacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was about to post something about bugs being natrual in almost all beta software, then I read the article...

    An attacker could exploit the flaw by crafting a special Web page that could be used to crash the browser or gain complete control of a vulnerable system

    So, this is actually a relevant article, despite its initial appearance.

    We've got some new additions and enhancements to IE, and here we have a flaw that can give an attacker complete control over the user's computer!

    I guess this is a taste of things to come in Vista? Evidence that Microsoft's secure code development practices are mostly just verbal pacification?

    1. Re:Nasty security flaw that Microsoft missed by blowdart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We've got some new additions and enhancements to IE, and here we have a flaw that can give an attacker complete control over the user's computer!

      Actually you don't. There's a flaw that can crash the browser, but the reporter of this offers no proof that it will result in code execution or the ability to take over a user's computer. Very few buffer overruns result in code execution, and without proof, it's just another crash.

      Looking at how the reported went public before the vendor has a chance to respond it looks, to me, like someone attention whoring.

    2. Re:Nasty security flaw that Microsoft missed by Ventriloquate · · Score: 1

      "An attacker could exploit the flaw by crafting a special Web page that could be used to crash the browser or gain complete control of a vulnerable system"

      If you've ever read from the list of bugs patched in previous versions of IE this is hardly surprising. Microsoft bugs are definitely "special" but they are still bugs and that's what a beta is for.

    3. Re:Nasty security flaw that Microsoft missed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post shows to me that your critical reading skills are defficient. You read

      An attacker could exploit the flaw by crafting a special Web page that could be used to crash the browser or gain complete control of a vulnerable system

      and you think it means that IE7 is this woeful security flaw. But what are the facts that the article points out. an attacker COULD exploit .....that COULD....be used to crash the browser and gain complete controll. The operative word is COULD. there is no documented case of it yet. So all these bugs "flooding" in is slashdot histeria to overpromote the "superior" browser firefox. dont get me wrong i like firefox. But i am tired of the one sided views and histeria that the Anit Microsoft mob generates. Show me screenshots of a computer being taken over. And ill believe you. until then. These are just normal bugs that are being found in a typical beta release.

    4. Re:Nasty security flaw that Microsoft missed by zootm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fairly official response (taken from another comment).

      We received reports this morning that a security researcher had found a bug in the IE7 Beta 2 Preview release. This issue reportedly crashes IE and is exploitable to execute arbitrary code on the user's computer. Naturally, we take the security of IE and our users' safety very seriously, so we investigated immediately. We did confirm that the bug crashes IE. However, we did not find that the bug was exploitable by default to elevate privilege and run arbitrary code.

      This bug had already been found during our code review and analysis that is a mandatory part of our development process; it was scheduled to be fixed before our next public release. We do not believe this bug is easily exploitable, and as an extra defense, the /GS flag also catches the overrun. This is a compiler flag that tells Windows to watch for some classes of buffer overflows. If Windows sees a problem, it kills the application, in this case IE, instead of running the exploit code. While this is certainly not our primary line of protection, it does offer defense-in-depth to help keep our customers secure.

      So it appears that Microsoft's new development practices caught this bug internally before it was caught in the public beta, to find bugs like this. It also seems that the overrun is caught and dealt with (causing a crash as overruns should, but not allowing any degree of "control") by the system they are using for development anyway. Apparently the original article has not proven that the bug could be exploited at all yet anyway, so a response from his end will be required before this can really be seen as anything other than the sort of thing that's to be expected from a beta release.

    5. Re:Nasty security flaw that Microsoft missed by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

      Your post shows to me that your critical reading skills are defficient.

      Because...

      you think it means that IE7 is this woeful security flaw.

      Your comprehension of my post seems to be at fault, as I have made no such claim or representation.

      The issue I am bringing up is that Microsoft is supposed to have spent millions on securing its development process. If this is the case, Microsoft now seems to have provided evidence that its supposedly secure development process isn't as fantastically secure as claimed. Whether it's beta or not, the secure development process should have picked it up.

      That was my point.

      I was questioning the validity of Microsoft's claims of secure coding, not the fact that IE is a 'woeful security flaw'.

  31. Hmm Same ole Story by PacketScan · · Score: 1

    "Specific issues include the possibility of arbitrary code execution"
    This coming form the "new seruirty driven" microsoft.

  32. Re:Microsoft Beta Crap by masklinn · · Score: 1

    MSIE 7.0 is less stable than MSIE 6.

    My my my, how's that possible, that the preview release of a beta version could be less stable as a software released 5 years ago is unheard of, i'd suggest you to sue Microsoft.

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  33. w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fr157 p507!

    1m l33t

  34. Error in article... by Linker3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft had no immediate comment on Ferris' alert.

    Not so - they tried to post a reply on his site but their browser kept crashing.

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
    1. Re:Error in article... by jesterpilot · · Score: 1

      Like they don't use FireFox when nobody is looking over their shoulder.

      --
      Trust me, I work for the government.
  35. Re:Microsoft Beta Crap by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


        Ideally, they should be showing off how great their new version is. Not showing off how many bugs it still has.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  36. Using beta for banking by ben_1432 · · Score: 3, Informative

    What kind of dumb-ass uses a beta browser for their banking anyway? It's not going to kill them to flick back to whatever their regular (non-beta) browser is.

    I don't just mean IE either. Firefox in it's pre 1.0 days had a bug where tabs could read form data from other tabs. Like credit card numbers. All the way up to 1.0.

    Why aren't beta's being released with some sort of self-setting desktop wallpaper that says "Look dipshit this is a beta product, and not like Google Beta TM, like buggy beta, so spare a seconds thought before you go doing your finances".

    In next weeks news: some stupid fuck loses his identity and $20000 minutes after using IE7 Beta to pay his bills, therefore IE7 is bad.

    1. Re:Using beta for banking by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, IE7 replaced IE6.

      So, if you are one of those Microsofties that refused to use alternative browsers, you could easily get stuck using IE7 for your banking.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    2. Re:Using beta for banking by ben_1432 · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, IE7 replaced IE6
      Eventually yes. When the word Beta gets scratched out.

      It does install alongside 6 I believe, though people have had problems installing/uninstalling either or both from what I read.

    3. Re:Using beta for banking by ztirffritz · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is part of my gripe with the way they installed IE 7. It is not a standalone application. They actually replace IE 6 during the install. I was expecting it to be a stadalone application, like Firefox, Opera, etc. Why would they install a beta product that takes over part of the OS?

      --
      Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
    4. Re:Using beta for banking by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Er... because IE (be it 5, 6, or 7) is part of the OS, not a standalone application.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    5. Re:Using beta for banking by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Well, most of the coolness of IE7 is in the HTML rendering widget, which is a core OS component. After all, without it you wouldn't get all of the trickle-down CSS compliance, et cetera. This is actually a Good Thing in this case; rendering HTML is the kind of task that programs shouldn't have to do themselves (in this day and age). You can write - and indeed many people have written - new "iexplore"ish front ends to the MSIE widget. Heck, there's even an easy way for Firefox to use it to render pages. So people who care have had IE's rendering with tabs, etc, for a long time now.

      If you think of it as two upgrades, one to the renderer (much appreciated) and one to the front end (eh), it makes a lot more sense.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    6. Re:Using beta for banking by bod1988 · · Score: 0

      Even if IE6 is unreachable, who the hell is runnning a beta browser on their primary machine? It's almost as bad as the Linux tards running Vista on their machines and complaining their games/apps don't work properly :|

    7. Re:Using beta for banking by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      What kind of dumb-ass uses a beta browser for their banking anyway?

      The same kind of dumb-ass that runs an OS that won't let you install multiple versions of the same browser simultaneously; the same kind of idiots that use any version of IE for banking; and the same kind of morons that use a banking site that requires IE. Basically, I'd say that includes about 50% of the people who installed the beta.

    8. Re:Using beta for banking by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Under GNU/Linux, you can very easily have your distro's standard libraries in /usr/lib and newer versions of the same libraries in /usr/local/lib. Ask anyone who was running Debian Woody :)

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    9. Re:Using beta for banking by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      And under Windows, you can easily run IE6 as a standalone application (just Google for details, they're everywhere). That still doesn't change the fact that in your desktop environment you will have one default HTML rendering widget - whether your desktop is KDE, Gnome, OSX or WinXP. Installing IE7 upgrades that widget under Windows.

      Oh, heck, you don't even need to google it yourself. Here's one way of doing it without changing your standard renderer. You can use a similar technique to get a standalone IE6 image and then install IE7 traditionally to run both and get the new renderer as the default. See? Not too hard.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  37. It's actually quite good.... by trickmcsneak · · Score: 1

    Full of bugs due to only Beta stage, but it seems a really nice browser - far better than IE6. (Even if it borrows from some of Firefox's plus points).

    1. Re:It's actually quite good.... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      Usually when I borrow something I give it back.

    2. Re:It's actually quite good.... by Jon+Peterson · · Score: 1

      Really? Is that right? Well, I think Lucy Davis, age 12, currently in a playground somewhere near Cleveland, would like you to give her smart remark back to her.

      --
      ----- .sig: file not found
  38. Re:Microsoft Beta Crap by bloodredsun · · Score: 1

    What is the point of this post?

    Well maybe it's so that those of us who don't regularly try out "bleeding-edge" products can learn what is good and what is bad.

    While I take eveything I read on /. with a pinch of salt, I would expect the posters to be among the more technically literate. So a post like this is a great heads up to me as a Web Developer who also has input into supported platforms that neither Vista or IE7 are ready for consideration let alone usage.

    And as for the various people saying that a beta product is supposed to have bugs, I'm guessing they are firm believers in the "release early, release often, patch always" school of programming. For MS, having stated that security is their main focus, this amounts to them saying: "Our systems and bug tracking is so bad we need you to tell us what's wrong". Releasing a beta version is an opportunity to display new features that may or may not work completely, not to display the inherent vulnerability of a product.

  39. haha by Wizzandabe · · Score: 0, Troll

    Microsoft, give up yeah?

    --
    Ignorance Can Be Frowned Upon
  40. MSIE 7 in the wild by harmonica · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just looked at my logs for the last two days and MSIE 7 has already caused more requests than Opera/8, making it the #4 after MSIE 6, Mozilla and MSIE 5 (yes, grouping could be better for the Mozilla/Firefox family). It's a tech site, so the early adopters can be expected to show up here. Still, that was fast.

    1. Re:MSIE 7 in the wild by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      " MSIE 7 has already caused more requests than Opera/8, "

      So.... 2? *rimshot*

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  41. testing IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What i dont get is where they find beta testers for IE. It is bound to the opperating system. If i were testing say any non M$ application and it did not work correctly i can uninstall or delete the files. But with IE7 being your OS you cant back out.

    I as a rule dont use MS products untill SP1 is released for them, this is usually the first "stable release" as far as i am concerned.

  42. That a great day for Slashdot! by ninja_assault_kitten · · Score: 0, Troll

    HOORAY!

  43. No Linux support! by erroneus · · Score: 0

    I couldn't get it to work with Linux so I couldn't test it at all. I submitted my bug report but no answer yet.

  44. Re:no way by glens · · Score: 1

    I swear they weren't there when I submitted over my dialup connection! If I hadn't reloaded the page a few times just to see if it could possibly be true there were zero posts yet I would have made it... No doubt it was my chance of a lifetime.

    I should have just released the beta instead of trying to debug a little before submitting. I guess MS wouldn't want me on the payroll, hahaha!

  45. The obligatory... by emptycorp · · Score: 1

    What else is new?

    News implies that the subject matter is NEW, hence, NEWS. We already know IE7 is flawed, as has been every single microsoft product despite their propagandized advertising.

    1. Re:The obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. News is actually the proper plural form of "notice." Nothing about it implies newness in any way.

    2. Re:The obligatory... by emptycorp · · Score: 1

      Funny, the plural of notice is... notices...

    3. Re:The obligatory... by emptycorp · · Score: 1

      Forgot a link...

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=news

      Notice #2 - New information of any kind: The requirement was news to him. News DOES imply NEW, not OLD. Also #1a - Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.

  46. Re:Microsoft Beta Crap by masklinn · · Score: 1

    Or maybe they're just using their beta program how a beta program is supposed to be used beta test e.g. to test and debug over an extra wide user base?

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  47. The UI is ugly by Zerbey · · Score: 1

    The bugs, I can live with (after all it's a pre-release for a beta... so essentially it's an alpha release). The UI needs a lot of tweaking, however. Right now it is just plain ugly. The main complaint is the fact that there's no way to move the navigation buttons below the menu, an option for the "classic" look would be nice. Also, the fact that tabs are always visible is just annoying. I finally removed it because Windows Update locked my entire system up and Java just didn't work (essential for my job).

    Still, it has potential at least. IE will never be my primary browser (you'll pull Firefox from my cold, dead hands) but it is essential for certain apps I use at work so, unfortunately, I can't ignore it.

  48. The Acid 2 CSS Test by dshannon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The famed acid2 test renders truly badly: http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#to p

    1. Re:The Acid 2 CSS Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The famed acid2 test renders truly badly: http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html

      Uh, so what? They said ages ago that IE7 won't pass acid2:
      In that vein, I've seen a lot of comments asking if we will pass the Acid2 browser test published by the Web Standards Project when IE7 ships. I'll go ahead and relieve the suspense by saying we will not pass this test when IE7 ships. The original Acid Test tested only the CSS 1 box model, and actually became part of the W3C CSS1 Test Suite since it was a fairly narrow test - but the Acid 2 Test covers a wide set of functionality and standards, not just from CSS2.1 and HTML 4.01, selected by the authors as a "wish list" of features they'd like to have. It's pointedly not a compliance test (from the Test Guide: "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification"). As a wish list, it is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE7.
  49. Re:Microsoft Beta Crap by plague3106 · · Score: 1

    Um, maybe your problems are due to the fact that Vista is beta? And maybe that you don't have Vista drivers for you CF card? Perhaps you should wait until the RTM versions.

  50. What were these people thinking? by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

    Who was excited when IE7 came out??? WHo in their right mind would download, install, and use a piece of MS software that wasn't 'finished'? It's bad enough when the full release product comes out, but a beta? C'mon, let's face it, IE6 still has quite a few problems with it and anyone expecting 7 to work well is crackers.

    I'm sorry, but at this point I would rather install Sony's rootkit simply because *I (now) know* what junk is being loaded on my machine. With IE7 I'm loading the hacker's pandora box on my poor innocent rig.

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    1. Re:What were these people thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do shove your self-rightous microsoft bashing up something gross and disgusting. It's childlike - even more so than this post. What are you, 14?

  51. Internet Explorer has a flood of bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would have fucking thought!!!!11

    roflcopter

  52. So.. by bod1988 · · Score: 0

    You'd rather they not test the product and leave the bugs in there, like Linux does? :)

  53. Not even a beta then by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    What surprised me about beta 1 was that they hadn't even finished implementing features that were already on the final product's feature list.
    In that case the product has not even reached beta stage yet. You know, the stage where everything is actually implemented and you're just hammering on it to verify that it does what it was supposed to in the way it was supposed to. Using the non-MS definition of beta, I'm not so sure many of MS' products have even reached beta. Certainly, none have passed.
    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  54. Safest Browser ever by stevea1210 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I installed it the other day, and it was the safest browser I ever used, seriously. I couldn't get it to work with our proxy, so I could only browse the corp intranet. Amazingly, I didn't get infected by any malware.

  55. It's cool, but ... by sl0cb · · Score: 0

    I really like the IE7 interface, but it really sucks that you can't use IE6 in parallel ... I can't get to half of the sites I frequent with IE7 because of security restrictions and unsupported page content. Firefox still lets me get to half of these, but some are IE only sites for work. So now what options do I have but to dump IE7 ...

    --
    Ready for HD DVDs? http://hd-dvd.buy-on-sale.com
  56. Huh? by DrBytes · · Score: 0

    Seriously, bugs are being reported on a beta product? Djeezus, where is the industry coming to? Only on slashdot obvious stuff like this concerning ms makes it to the front page. What would be interesting is to see what happens to the bugs, how fast will they get fixed, etc next,...

  57. What did you expect? by BigCheese · · Score: 1

    Yea, it's a beta from MS and it crashes. It still wouldn't be news if it was a released product. Just more of the same old, same old.

    Frankly, there is no news from MS. Just a lot of "Me too!" or DRM product announcements.

    --
    The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
  58. MSDN by smallguy78 · · Score: 1

    IE 7 also breaks your local MSDN helper documentation, rendering all documentation in giant Times Roman 12 point with all layout broken.

    Of course if you're a Java (doc) user this will probably make you feel at home.

    --
    Nothing costs nothing
  59. Can we sue? by gmerideth · · Score: 1

    Can we get a class action lawsuit against Microsoft much like the assclown who's suing Apple by claiming there's no large warning on the IE7 install that our computers can be comprimised by a damm beta?

    --
    Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
    1. Re:Can we sue? by Vo0k · · Score: 1

      No. 'cause it's beta.
      If Apple slapped a big "BETA" sticker on the iPods, nobody could do a shit about any faults in them.

      --
      Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  60. MS Mantra: "Make the customer pay." (Repeat.) by zenwarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft once again found itself playing catchup, this time in the browser market [again]. And with virtually all firms, that means a product often gets pushed out the door too quickly. That is clearly the case with I.E.7 (a.k.a. Deep-Six 7).

    This release qualifies as no more than an alpha. Anyone who feels otherwise has either done little beta testing, or refuses to open their eyes. (And no, I am not a MS basher. In fact, I still use IE6.) Think about it. It's been over a year since Firefox began stealing market share. Microsoft saw (and clearly thought) it could wait no longer, even if the release was far from ready. They simply had to get "a new browser" on the market.

    It may backfire, however. I tried Deep-Six 7, saw it was only an alpha, attempted to uninstall it, and then found it left my system in tatters! A beta should not do that; an alpha well may, however.

    Microsoft sees its customers as guinea pigs, at least in this case. There is no way that junk should have been released on an unsuspecting public. Many here clearly forget that only 1% of computer users are geeks. The rest are "normal people." The latter will see a download available and simply get it, with no thought [knowledge?] of what they're actually doing. Microsoft should remember that itself.

    I'm certain there were heated discussion about releasing it now (for marketing purposes) or holding off (for better quality before any public release). And now, the quality assurance folks are saying, "I told you so." This release has only further tarnished Microsoft's image as an innovative and quality-focused company. Instead, it now appear to be a behemoth that can barely move its own weight around, and certainly not nimbly keep up with its major competitors.

    --
    /.'s Psychic-in-Residence: Psychic to the Geeks
    1. Re:MS Mantra: "Make the customer pay." (Repeat.) by Merle+Darling · · Score: 1
      Microsoft sees its customers as guinea pigs, at least in this case.

      Of course MS sees the beta testers as guinea pigs! To most rational people the phrase "beta test" would imply some sort of testing.

      Then again, you probably downloaded the beta to bitch about it rather than to help test. I love your trolling attempts in the microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general newsgroup, for instance:

      Subject: We waited for this [POS]?
      Date: 2/1/2006 7:41 AM PST
      By: ZenWarrior
      In: microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general
      [snip]
      It's now official: There are some *really* stupid people working at
      Microsoft. They couldn't even copy good ideas. They didn't even re-invent any
      wheels. Instead, MS still tries to operate a browser with at least one or two
      wheels fully missing! In sum, IE Deep-6 is far from a 21st century browser.
      Instead, it hearkens back to Microsoft's own Dark Ages.

      [snip]


      With helpful feedback like that from you and the rest of Slashdot mentalities I'm surprised they haven't already squashed all the bugs and announced a final release..
      --
      "Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
    2. Re:MS Mantra: "Make the customer pay." (Repeat.) by zenwarrior · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's naming of this release reminds me of something from several years ago. It was the occasion (but I cannot recall the precise problem) where everyone else in the known universe saw something in one of Microsoft's products as a "bug," but Microsoft publicly went on record to call it a "feature." Remember that one? Everybody got a kick out of it.

      So to call this release a "beta 2 preview" seems not at all different. Had I been thinking, I would have read between the lines to translate the nomenclature from Micro-Speak to real world terminology -- that is, an "alpha" release.

      To support my observation, try searching on "beta 2 preview." Unless you get results different than I, you will see the *only* time that nomenclature has ever been used is now by Microsoft. That is not at unlike other behaviors where Microsoft has decided to do things their own way and eschew recognized standards. The only difference is that in this case it's recognized nomenclature.

      BTW, guinea pigs are not the same as beta testers. The definition of guinea pig is an animal or person used in an *experiment*; -- also applied to people who are unwillingly or unknowingly subjected by authorities to policies or procedures which might cause bodily or mental harm. (Note: It certainly harmed my computer. Does that count? Thank goodness for ERUNT.)

      And from Wikipedia: "The alpha version of a product...**is feature complete** and ready for testing. A build is feature complete if it implements all of the features in the software requirements." Even Microsoft [at least implicitly] admits this release does not meet that definition. That is, this release is not "feature complete." (Okay, I'll admit to personal bias and say I certainly hope this is not what Microsoft considers a "feature complete" browser.)

      In sum, and by standard accepted definitions, this is indeed an "alpha release" unleashed on "guinea pigs."

      --
      /.'s Psychic-in-Residence: Psychic to the Geeks
    3. Re:MS Mantra: "Make the customer pay." (Repeat.) by Merle+Darling · · Score: 1

      BTW, guinea pigs are not the same as beta testers. The definition of guinea pig is an animal or person used in an *experiment*; -- also applied to people who are unwillingly or unknowingly subjected by authorities to policies or procedures which might cause bodily or mental harm. (Note: It certainly harmed my computer. Does that count? Thank goodness for ERUNT.)

      That would make us knowing guinea pigs then, I suppose. =) MS is experimenting on IE, they're moving it into a larger environment to see what works and what breaks. I guess in another sense you could say that IE7 is the guinea pig and we're all being invited to experiment on it. You could even argue that the users are being experimented on to see how the average user reacts to the software in its current state. As your situation shows, our computers are most certainly being experimented on.

      I consider the "beta" thing fair warning myself, but then again I haven't run into half of the problems others have. For example, the Live Mail beta works perfectly for me with IE7 and I have yet to run into a single crash or a page that rendered incorrectly. Maybe I got off lucky. I removed my shortcut to Firefox and started using IE7 as my default browser to get some realistic usage/testing in on it. All's well so far aside from one stupid bug with the initial runonce page, and that's hardly a showstopper.

      If it had trashed my computer I'd be pissed too, though. That sucks.

      (Okay, I'll admit to personal bias and say I certainly hope this is not what Microsoft considers a "feature complete" browser.)

      Yeah, no kidding. IE7 will be a real disappointment if this is all there is in the final version. That said, even if nothing else is added I think it might be good enough for me to use in place of Firefox. FF is still better but it's not so much better as to justify keeping two browsers installed.

      As for naming conventions, you're right. Maybe the choice to call it a beta had to do with the fact that most people have heard of beta testing before, but not as many know of alpha/gamma/whatever other Greek letters the programmers decide to use. Maybe they use beta to mean that this version will be released to the public for testing. Dunno what they're thinking, but I do sincerely hope they don't consider this thing feature-complete.

      --
      "Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
  61. From the IE Team Blog by Pedrito · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Finally, I'd like to reiterate the importance of the responsible disclosure of security issues. We firmly believe that privately disclosing security issues to software vendors is the best way to keep the users of the world secure.

    I'm sorry, but I take issue with this, particularly with a product being beta-tested, but really, with any product. Users need to know what exploits are known. If there are serious, known, security flaws in IE, that may very well affect my decision of whether or not I want to install it on my system. THe idea of keeping it hush-hush doesn't really help anyone.

    1. Re:From the IE Team Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History has proven otherwise.

  62. And all this without the source code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this puts to rest the myth that keeping the source secret makes you more secure.

  63. Gee, its BETA SOFTWARE! by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know many people will just jump down Microsoft's throat for anything they do, they aren't my favourite company either. But I can't be sympathetic to people that complain about beta software.

    1) NOBODY is forcing you to install a beta product. If you are curious or impulsive, and feel compelled to install beta software, your doing so at great risk to your security and data. Whether it's Microsoft beta's, Google beta's, or Linux Beta's, you are accepting that risk by the nature of installing beta software (its in the disclaimer)

    2) THE REASON for beta software is to open it up to wider testing to CATCH AND FIX Bugs. This is a good thing, that bugs are flowing back to Microsoft. It will force them to fix the bugs and strengthen the product.

    3) No, you CAN'T Sue, see 1)

    4) Get a life. I mean, if IE 7 was in full release and these bugs were being reported, I would jump on the bandwagon myself and fire a few shots at MS, but this is still beta software, it isn't even a release candidate yet. Its intended for people with a brain to install it at their own risk and test the product, to REPORT bugs is the definition of what Beta software is. Obviously lots of stupid people are installing IE 7!

    This is NOT NEWS, this is sad. To report and complain that Microsoft's beta software is full of bugs suggest a complete bias, prejudice, and ignorance towards them without merit or provocation. This is not microsoft screwing up, this is microsoft doing what countless other software companies do, release a beta in order to get feedback and bug reporting in order to fix and strengthen the product.

    When FireFox 1.5 beta was released, it was full of bugs, but people praised Mozilla for their innovation and success. I can't stand double standards.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  64. Does the number of bugs really matter in Beta? by MacGene · · Score: 1

    The way I understand it Beta means that it somewhat works but still has problems. Someone releases a beta to get help with fixing it and/or to shut people up on when it'll be out. I don't hate MS like some here do and I love Macs but come on... this is MS and bugs should be expected. The real question is if they will fix all the problems that people find before sending IE7 to retail. I am just glad that they are bringing their browser up to date a bit since most of the world, like it or not, is going to design their sites for the current version of IE primarily and then cater to those of us who love Firefox and Safari later (or never).

    1. Re:Does the number of bugs really matter in Beta? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      The real question is if they will fix all the problems that people find before sending IE7 to retail.

      You consider that a question? Well, here's the answer. No. Implementing a broken version of the standard benefits them so they will make sure there are plenty of bugs left in the way they implement HTML, CSS, etc.

    2. Re:Does the number of bugs really matter in Beta? by MacGene · · Score: 1

      Pardon my ignorance, but will you elaborate on this some more?

    3. Re:Does the number of bugs really matter in Beta? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Pardon my ignorance, but will you elaborate on this some more?

      Sure, this is MS's embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. Open standards promote interoperability and competition, both of which are detrimental to MS's business. As a monopoly, anything that makes it harder for someone to move to an alternative product benefits them. They can assume most people are using their monopoly products, so they don't need to worry too much about interoperability for people switching to their monopolized products.

      In this particular instance, MS benefits by implementing a broken version of the HTML and CSS specifications. Due to the market share they have due to their monopoly, they can assume almost all web sites will be tested on their OS with their browser. Thus, they can make the Web itself conform to a broken version of the standard, rather than the published standard. This is a huge barrier to competition in that other Web browsers have to spend engineering time gracefully dealing with Web pages which are broken by design. They can't just implement the MS versions of web standards because they are unpublished and because some sites do follow standards and then will rightfully report these behaviors as bugs.

      The upshot is browsers that are not broken, can't read certain pages, because those pages are designed to work with a broken browser. To the end user this makes it appear that the browsers don't work as well as the MS offering, even though it is IE that is broken.

      Further, not only does IE read a broken version of several standards, but Frontpage creates a broken version of the standard. That both major MS Web related pieces of software implement horribly broken versions of HTML speaks to an intentional design choice, rather than an accident. Also, MS has used this exact same method of operation to corrupt numerous other open standards in other areas of software interoperability.

      MS is immune to the competitive pressures of the normal market due to their monopoly. They don't have to respond to customers so they intentionally give their customers a worse experience in order to strategically create a barrier to entry for other software.

      I hope that explains things to you. I'm sure you can find a better explanation somewhere by searching for "embrace extend extinguish."

  65. Could someone do me a favor... by neveragain4181 · · Score: 0

    ..and grab the article text for me please?

    I can't seem to view it in my browser. I just finished doing my online banking with the help of nice Nigerian contact, Sasser I think his name is. I needed to the money for the last payment on the new London Bridge I am investing in.

    Beta does mean Version 2, right?

    N/A

  66. Gotta love those MS-apologizers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, of course it's no surprise that it has bugs, that's a no-brainer -- not only is it a Beta, but it's also MS -- two strikes right there.

    But seriously, there's more to the story than that -- this is a bug (or bugs, didn't RTFA) that can lead to a complete system compromise... with software that *lots* of numb-skulls are beta-testing...

    I'd call that news-worthy.

    1. Re:Gotta love those MS-apologizers by Shakes268 · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't call it news worthy. Maybe yellow journalism but not true news. The whole reason it has a disclaimer is because its not stable software.

      Anyone running the software is taking full responsibility - the whole point of a beta is to find, report and fix bugs. If they had the bugs fixed it wouldn't be a beta.

    2. Re:Gotta love those MS-apologizers by DigitlDud · · Score: 1

      I can't find any proof inthis vulnerability that suggests it allows remote code execution or does anything but crash the browser.

    3. Re:Gotta love those MS-apologizers by PastAustin · · Score: 0
      I wouldn't call it news worthy. Maybe yellow journalism but not true news. The whole reason it has a disclaimer is because its not stable software.


      Granted it is a beta and it should have bugs but from what I have seen in taking it apart it's still on the same code base. I had expected IE7 to be a new code base and a new system. I sure hope it works better in vista. Also with adding new features they cut out a lot of the old shortcuts I liked that Firefox doesn't have... Ctrl + Tab to get to address bar for example (I know it's used for tabs now). I just am very unimpressed by this beta. Even for Microsoft...
      --
      Firefox 2.0 - Spell Rightly.
    4. Re:Gotta love those MS-apologizers by Loonacy · · Score: 1

      Ctrl-L goes to the address bar in Firefox. It also works in a few file browsers, making it a standard key combination that i use a lot.

    5. Re:Gotta love those MS-apologizers by LordNightwalker · · Score: 1

      In firefox it's ctrl-l; it does something similar in IE, but not quite the same...

      --
      Install windows on my workstation? You crazy? Got any idea how much I paid for the damn thing?
  67. XHTML support by Xugumad · · Score: 3, Informative

    IE still lacks XHTML support of any kind - I don't want to seem picky here, but it has been 6 years. Sure, I can have applications I work on spit out XHTML that's mostly like HTML 4, and send the appropriate MIME type based on the Accept header, but I'd really quite like to see IE support vaguely recent standards, y'know...

  68. EULA by cg0def · · Score: 1

    All I have to say is READ THE EULA. This software is not stable and no one at MS ever claimed to be. You should also keep in mind that while some companies ( Google for one ) use the term beta very loosely MS does not. Beta usually means that the features are finalized but the software is till not stable. Plus if you chose to use beta software you are pretty much signing up to be a tester so stop complaining.

  69. IE7 not using .NET?? by toptech1021 · · Score: 1

    Is IE7 NOT using .NET?? I thought this was exactly the type of program that should be written using .NET - to prevent the type of exploits that are being reported. Did I miss something in the MS .NET hype??

  70. yeah, but those aren't all bugs in IE by r00t · · Score: 1

    I hope they don't "fix" IE to handle that banking site correctly. The banking site is probably very broken. Most banking sites are broken it seems. The banking site probably only supports IE 6.

    1. Re:yeah, but those aren't all bugs in IE by yerfatma · · Score: 1
      Exactly. I'm sure the bug reports are coming in, but it's tough to fix userAgenet.indexOf("MSIE6") or whatever.

      Not that I'm switching to IE anytime soon. IE7's currently consuming all the memory on one of our test machines.

  71. It's not even a beta, its pre-beta 2 by DigitlDud · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  72. Acid2 test by marklark · · Score: 1

    It does an even worse job on the Acid2 (CSS) test than IE6 did. Bah!

  73. My dog ate the ... by jheath314 · · Score: 1

    Spare the dog; blame the bug

    --
    Procrastination Man strikes again!
  74. Bugs in beta - not surprising, but... by kadathseeker · · Score: 1

    what concerns me is M$'s track record of not exactly fixing things in a timely manner. Firefox has come leaps and bounds in half a version, and by 2.1 I expect that almost all significant issues will be gone (I'm not saying it's perfect, just improving faster and more noticeably). I just don't see IE7 becoming any more bug-free than IE6, or most other M$ product.

    --
    The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
  75. mod abuse by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    Whomever modded this flamebait is abusing the mod system. The previous post I made contains three on-topic answers to the previous poster's question, none of which are any any way inflammatory. I hope the meta-moderators properly deal with this.

    1. Re:mod abuse by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      It's your name. They're all pissed that you have more beer than they do.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    2. Re:mod abuse by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      It's your name. They're all pissed that you have more beer than they do.

      It's true! Doh, this post is removing my moderation, isn't it?
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  76. Let's explain something. by Vo0k · · Score: 1

    Bugs found in Beta software: No news, standard procedure. Last bugs being found and patched before release.
    Tons of bugs found in Beta 2: Important news. MS QA screwed up by allowing it to leave alpha stage. Programmers did the usual thing, wrote the program, but the QA screwed up a big time by passing it as beta. It's not beta, it's alpha, released prematurely.
    Complaining that bugs were reported in IE7 Beta is silly. Bashing the fact that a FLOOD of bugreports appeared is good slashdot frontpage news, meaning Microsoft screwed up a big time again. It's about the magnitude, and about a serious failure on the QA side during the alpha stage.

    --
    Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
  77. It's a trap! by kentyman · · Score: 1

    An attacker could exploit the flaw by crafting a special Web page ... Ferris said in an advisory on his Web site.

    <akbar>It's a trap!</akbar>

    --
    You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
  78. Why would it ever be perfect? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    There is no incentive for any piece of closed-source software ever to be perfect.

    I suppose you have heard of /bin/cat? That is a perfect program. It does exactly what it is supposed to do, no more and no less.

    Once a piece of software works perfectly in all conceivable circumstances, it is finished. It is dead. There is nowhere else for it to go. And when everyone else has a copy of it, there is no more reason for them ever to upgrade. It's not as though software ever wears out ..... once you've got it, you've effectively got it forever.

    IE will never be perfect, and for that matter Windows will never be perfect; because if they were, then Microsoft would not be able to sell you new versions.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  79. Bill not a programmer? by blakespot · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Calling Tom Ferris a "Security Researcher" is like calling Bill Gates a programmer...

    • Why don't you sit down and code a BASIC interpreter for the MITS Altair on punch tape, asshat. Bill may be many things but he's busted out enough hardcore coding in years past to never lost the title of skilled coder.


    blakespot

    --
    -- Heisenberg may have slept here.
    iPod Hacks.com
  80. Excellent! by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

    I find it more than a little funny that people are making their machines even less secure by volunteering to install what is basically a reverse-patch to internet explorer. Now the internet is being flooded with machines that are even more likely to be infected by a virus from viewing a jpg or some other mundane task.

    Not satisfied with the non-security of IE6? Download IE7 for free!

  81. Without question, this must be... by C-Diddy · · Score: 1

    ...the bottom news story of the day. C'mon, Slashdot.

    --
    "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph
  82. Hm... by Godkar · · Score: 1

    OMG... It's beta... I thought it was the final release :P

    --
    Is "no" the answer to this question?
  83. There was an immediate comment by ClubStew · · Score: 1

    Does everything need to be officially announced to qualify as an "immediate comment" Blogging seems to be good enough for many other companies. A reply was posted in the IE blog (which IE 7 b2 Preview even adds links to when installed): http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/01/522682 .aspx.

  84. Wait until it's released! by caluml · · Score: 1

    Listen, bug discoverers!! Don't let Microsoft know about bugs in their new IE7 - until it's released! Unless of course, that is, you actually want to help them out....

  85. But WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's what I dont understand, why in the world would you want to beta test a corporations software, and file bugs for it? are they paying you for it? are you getting the freedom to reuse that code? Please explain to me why people file bug reports for IE beta?
    - Eldo

  86. Preliminary IE7 test results here (no joke) by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 1

    Nota Bene: I tested Beta 2 in "local mode" -- that is, instead of running the installer I unpacked it as a RAR archive and waved the usual dead chickens to make the executable run without believing it was the installed version. Google "ie7 local mode" for instructions.

    That said, this is what I found.

    1. The most awful CSS mistakes frequently pointed out on sites like positioniseverything are fixed.
    2. The missing implementations like min/max-height are still missing.
    3. The HTML mistakes like OBJECT and BUTTON are still screwed up: you can't use OBJECT in place of IMG despite it being the W3C spec for half a decade now.

    As far as the renderer is concerned, all they seem to have done was fix a selected handful of CSS2 mistakes rather than build a full CSS2 spec.

    I also experienced a series of incredible weirdnesses which may have been the result of running in local mode: SELECT menus refused to open when clicked, some triggered popup blocker warnings, and many pages without popups triggered popup blocker warnings as well. The "hovercraft" JS/behavior: trick which retrains IE6 to apply hover: to all HTML elements appears to cause problems with IE7 which already knows to do this.

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
  87. IE 7 broken rendering by geekwithsoul · · Score: 1
    I'm just wondering if anyone else here has loaded up the beta and noticed how many websites don't render correctly (or even in the same incorrect way IE 6 rendered them)?

    All of the websites I maintain are XHTML 1.0 Trans and CSS2 compliant, and render great in non-IE browsers, okay in IE 6, and look very broken in IE 7. I'm using a few "* html" type hacks, and only one IE specific hack
    <!--[if IE 6]><style media="screen">body {height: 100%;}</style><![endif]-->
    to control the page size, and no specialized css for specific browsers.

    It appears to me that MS intends to break all the hacks developers have used to create standard-compliant code that still works in IE, but without fixing the lack of CSS support that made those hacks necessary. Oh how I hate them! :)
  88. Report Non-Compliance As A Bug by Xopl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm really serious about this... I'm not kidding...

    The web community should start flooding the bug reporting for the IE beta with reports about CSS and XHTML/HTML standards non-compliance. Anything IE 7 does that isn't in line with web standards should be reported as a bug, by as many people as possible. And we should keep reporting these, daily, until the IE team wakes up to web standards and decides to support them.

    Then, webmasters can make one version of the website that works in all modern browsers. Oh happy day. The IE team won't have to worry about supporting the weird IE quirks... people who haven't upgraded and are still using IE 6 will continue getting the same hacks that fix IE 6 and are ignored by Firefox et al, and IE 7 can ignore them just the same.

    Seriously... it's best for everybody.

    What's really going to piss me off is when they "fix" the hacks but not the non-compliance... AND on top of it they support some CSS 3 stuff in a non-standard way so we can go through this all over again when IE 8 comes out.

  89. Firrrr-Dah! by webzombie · · Score: 1

    http://www.mozilla.com/

    Nuff said... move along.

  90. Capabilities and Conditional Comments by Kelson · · Score: 1

    A few months ago, the IE team asked web developers to switch from using CSS hacks (which depend on additional bugs which may not get fixed at the same time as the ones you're working around) to using Conditional Comments, which let you target specific versions of IE using intended functionality rather than bug side effects.

    This still requires effort on the part of web developers, but they at least tried to get the ball rolling back in October.

    It can also be mitigated by checking for capabilities rather than browsers. For example, look for a DOM function, and if you don't find it, look for the IE function, instead of the other way around. It's the way they recommended handling AJAX when they announced the native (i.e. non-ActiveX) implementation of XMLHTTPRequest.

    if (has standard function) {
    do standards-based stuff for Firefox, Opera, Safari, IE7, etc.
    }
    else if (has IE function) {
    do IE-specific stuff
    }
    else {
    do fallback stuff for primitive browsers
    }

    From looking at my own sites, half the bugs have been the result of CSS hacks I'd forgotten about, and the other half have been attributed to a particular bug in the new beta/preview/whatever: Horizontal padding is applied incorrectly on absolutely positioned elements, causing the text to overflow the right edge of the box. I put together a testcase and reproted it on the IE blog, where I found that at least 2 other people had reported the same bug.

  91. Pseudomod +1 Funny by Kelson · · Score: 1

    If I had mod points today... ...well, I would've disqualified myself already by posting in the thread, but if I had mod points *and* hadn't posted, you'd be getting modded up.

  92. Bill a hardcore programmer? by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    A BASIC interpreter, and a poor one[*] at that, counts as "hardcore programming" these days?

    I hacked around a bit in his BASIC interpreter back in those days, and I was less than impressed. GOTO in MS BASIC was O(n). Anyone who has ever programmer BASIC should know that GOTO is the key command to run fast in that language. Just about anyone else, working under similar constraints got that right.

    MS BASIC is really a testament to Bill Gates marketing skills, not his programming skills, since he actually managed to sell that piece of junk

  93. Beta Schmeta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, we're at version 7 of IE. Logic would have it that with each new version, fewer and fewer bugs would be seen. But this is MS we're talking about. Why are they having so much trouble making a browser that works properly? Others, with far smaller budgets have done it.

    Let the MS apologists' excuses begin.

  94. No way! by morganix · · Score: 0

    What?! Bugs in IE7? It must be written by hobbyists.....

  95. You miss the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point is, they've been working on this the longest time! and it still has security issues!

    Beta or not, is security job 1? I don't think so!

  96. Patched iecustom.dll fixed my only "bug" by HazE_nMe · · Score: 1

    http://www.jcxp.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=449 9
    That page helped me fix the only "bug" I had with this release ;)

  97. The First Bug I Noticed...... by carney1979 · · Score: 0

    ...was that it did not display Slashdot correctly.

    You have to scroll a page or two down to get to the main body of the page, unless you change to teeny, tiny type.

    At least on my monitor at 1280x1024.