Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IE7 Vulnerability Discovered

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the that-didn't-take-long dept.

slidersv writes "Not 24 hours after the release of IE7, Secunia reports Internet Explorer Arbitrary Content Disclosure Vulnerability. So much for the "you wanted it easier and more secure" slogan found on Microsoft's IE Website."

5 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Firefox by HardSide · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Do Firefox fan boys get a nickel everytime they defend firefox? Honestly, this browser fan boy war needs to end, this isn't digg.com, we are more civilized. Besides, if firefox had as many users as internet explorer, im sure their would be vulnerabilities popping up from left to right for FF.

  2. Re:IE7 is actually pretty good by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    I overall like ff, but I find besides the memory feature, that it is just slow and balky compared to IE (and I have tweaked the ff settings for speed).


    Are we done with this memory issue crap? The vast, vast, VAST majority of memory issues with Firefox were and are extension related. I've been running it since the 0.8 Phoenix days and have never had any problem with memory issues. This includes my now 1G of ram Windows 2000 system I run at home. Want to see how the current RC version compares in memory usage to IE7 and Opera, try this: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=4685 25

    Note the huge discrepancy between memory usage.

    Slow and balky? You're obviously a troll because from day one Firefox has always been faster than IE on every page I visit, including Microsoft's own site, regardless of what OS I'm using. On average, Firefox is 1-2 seconds faster loading a page than IE. In some cases the page loading times are nearly five seconds faster using Firefox.

    You're free to use whatever browser you want, no matter how insecure its, but stop throwing FUD out. It only makes you look stupid.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  3. Re:Browsers are just too complex by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    If Microsoft would just stick to the bloody standards, we'd all be better off.

    The real problem is that the standards suck, mostly because they are trying to be 'human readable'. For instance in-line scripts as ascii... if the page were delivered as a .zip where page.html was the html, scripts.js had the javascript, and the html could only refer to the external scripts then XSS would be impossible. Well, at least it would be limited to running the site's existing scripts rather than any arbitrary JavaScript code.
  4. You sound like you could use... by lullabud · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You sound like you could use an Apple. Most people I know who have been frustrated with complexity do find that OS X is a nice peaceful place with much less feature overhead. I'm not just talking about artists either, I'm talking about oracle-on-linux admin's, ajax engineers, qa engineers, and my mom. I'm not saying Apple is for everybody, but it does sound like it might be for you. I'm also not saying switch, because there's no sense in giving up a perfectly good Microsoft or Linux OS just because you try out yet another alternative.

  5. Re:Browsers are just too complex by Curtman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    >> Thats the root of the problem. I'd wager 90% of the functioanlity for browsers is only used by 5% of end users.

    > I don't think this is the case, because for the most part users don't choose which broswer features they use; web sites do that for them.

    Speaking of which, Firefox2 has a really nice spell checker. ;)