Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Internet Users Not Updating Browser

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the but-it's-just-so-hard dept.

Jackson writes "Security researchers from ETH Zurich, Google, and IBM Internet Security Systems have shown that more than 600 million Internet users don't use the latest version of their browser. The researchers' paper, shows that as of June 2008, only 59.1 percent of Internet users worldwide use the latest major version of their preferred web browser. Suggestions have also been made to inform users that their browser is out of date."

65 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. How many of those users CAN upgrade? by gravyface · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you're running Win9x/2000, you can't upgrade to the latest version of Internet Explorer.

    --
    body massage!
    1. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Windows 9x users cannot use the latest version of Firefox either.

    2. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by badpazzword · · Score: 5, Informative

      They can still upgrade to Opera, which supports down to Windows 95.

      --
      When ideas fail, words become very handy.
    3. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Which is like 1-2% of the users. Our website gets about 10k hits per week, and maybe 1% of them are Win2k/98. We actually see more Mac users now. Most of it is just people who are using IE6 or 7 and click off the annoying update popup they get. Heck I use Opera and I was a couple versions behind until 9.5 came out (and I haven't upgraded to 9.51). I haven't had any spyware/etc. issues since the IE5 days, so I'm not exactly in a hurry.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    4. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Minwee · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would have assumed that Windows ME users were pretty much screwed from the beginning.

      As I recall, current versions of Firefox 2 will still run on anything newer than Windows 95. It's just the 3.0 branch which dropped support for 98 and ME.

    5. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by amnezick · · Score: 5, Funny

      that was very subtle: "upgrade TO opera"

      --
      mov ax,4c00h
      int 21h
    6. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neither can Vista users.

      Both Firefox and Thunderbird refuse to update automatically under certain conditions (not running under Admin all the time as one of those conditions). Fixing it is more or less a PITA, too. I haven't done it yet, so I can hardly expect, for instance, my grandmother to do it.

    7. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 4, Informative

      While Firefox 3 chose to abandon Windows 95 compatibility, Firefox 2 is still being patched and maintained.
      Unlike the IE6 users of Windows 95, who no longer get MS patches.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    8. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Skapare · · Score: 4, Informative

      Who in their right mind have a computer online with Windows 95/98 or ME on it?

      Someone whose business applications only run on Windows 95/98 or ME, and either there is no upgraded version of it (maybe the vendor went out of business) or the upgrade doesn't convert the old data, or doesn't have a feature being used, or otherwise isn't workable.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    9. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... not that I think this is at all the reason people don't update.
      http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

      Windows 98 is listed as less than 1%.
      And I'm pretty sure FF3 still works on Windows 2000 which just barely beats out Linux in popularity.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    10. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but the point of the article was security. As you said, FF2 is still being patched and maintained. As a result, the article's assumption - people who are using FF2 (with all the latest upgrades and patches) aren't using the most secure version - isn't really valid. It might not have all the bells and whistles of FF3, and it's definitely slower, but it should be at least as secure as FF3.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    11. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by rvw · · Score: 3, Informative

      And I'm pretty sure FF3 still works on Windows 2000 which just barely beats out Linux in popularity.

      FF3 works in Windows 2000. I installed it last month on an older computer, and it is used daily as the default browser.

    12. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Minwee · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Exactly. FF2 is still current, and is still preferable to FF3 in some cases. I could argue that anyone not running a nightly build from CVS isn't running the newest/latest, but that would just be silly.

      Firefox 2.0 is just as current as 3.0, and will be until the end of this year. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

    13. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Creepy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are other reasons not to upgrade to Firefox 3 - in particular, my company has production code that uses something like div_element.offsetParent.offsetTop (variable name changed intentionally to protect the guilty) without checking first to see if offsetTop is null (this is used to get the height in a browser) and Firefox 3 javascript crashes and burns but no other browser has a problem with it (of the four we support).

      Our official policy is that Firefox 3 is not supported, meaning every single one of our customers needs to either use Firefox 2 or a different browser until we do certification on it (which I believe isn't even planned for this year due to other scheduling needs). I have notified the people in charge of that javascript, so it potentially could be fixed/patched beforehand, or if it's a FF3 bug, the Mozilla team will get notified - I'm not the author or maintainer and have no power to change that code.

    14. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by mixmatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The largest operating system security problem is lack of separation between the ordinary user and administrator account. Linux has had that for a considerable time, which explains the low quantity of malware attacks. "Meager market share" does not explain this phenomenon because Linux is strong in the server market, making it more lucrative to exploit because of increased computing power, bandwidth and sensitive client/business information.

    15. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by pxc · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're having connection speed issues that seem to arise especially doing name lookups or connection initiation, you might try disabling IPv6. If you have IPv6 installed, but your hardware/software doesn't support it somewhere along the line, you can waste a lot of time doing IPv6 lookups.

    16. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But you'd still be crazy to browse the web from an OS that hasn't had any security updates in years.

      Dare I ask why? Unless you know of some security vulnerability in Win 9x's TCP/IP stack, I'm not sure what would be the problem in running Opera 9.51 on Windows 9x. Should you use outdated flash plugins, java plugins, etc? No. But you don't *need* those to browse the web (and odds are good that if you're running Win 9x, you're using a machine that wouldn't work well with the latest flash/java apps anyways).

      I wouldn't advocate people go out of their way to use Win 9x for web browsing. But, unless you can describe an actual attack vector instead of general fear mongering, your complaint falls into the same category of bitching about *any* computer accessing the web. All computers have the potential to be exploited (that's a failing, of sorts, of computers). But it'd be nice to hear a bit more pragmatic argument than general handwaving.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    17. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While Firefox 3 chose to abandon Windows 95 compatibility, Firefox 2 is still being patched and maintained. Unlike the IE6 users of Windows 95, who no longer get MS patches.

      If you're running an OS thats 13 years old, you have much bigger issues than running the latest web browser.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    18. Re:How many of those users CAN upgrade? by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Same month Opera 9.5 was released, same month Safari 4.0 was released.

      Which, maybe it means that they waited exactly for that month, or maybe its entirely the wrong moment since no one was really upgrading anything if it was just before those releases.

  2. How many are IE6? by neokushan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder how many of those are IE6, which a lot of people use because they CAN'T upgrade to IE7.
    And as an above commenter pointed out, I highly doubt they factored in that some OS's can't actually run the latest version of their browser.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:How many are IE6? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder how many of those are IE6, which a lot of people use because they CAN'T upgrade to IE7.

      Can't? More like won't for me.

      I really don't know what it was. May its the fact that IE7 always ran sluggish for me or the fact that Firefox and Opera run so much quicker and with fewer crashes.

      IE7 was my last straw when it came to Microsoft applications.

      --
      The game.
    2. Re:How many are IE6? by badpazzword · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even if you do not explicitly use Internet Explorer for browsing, you should upgrade it as it is a core part of the Windows Kernel.

      Internet Explorer it is used behind the scenes in many places; the eye-candy interfaces of most Norton products, for example, runs on the IE engine.

      Not that I recommend Norton products, still...

      --
      When ideas fail, words become very handy.
    3. Re:How many are IE6? by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if you do not explicitly use Internet Explorer for browsing, you should upgrade it as it is a core part of the Windows Kernel.

      That is another part about IE that I have issues with. Why make a web browser part of the OS? It makes very little sense. It should, at most, be a bloated application that I could uninstall at whim. But no! It has to totally screw with everything else. As it is now, I specify Firefox as the default browser and disable access to IE. It doesn't matter which version of IE, I'm still not using it.

      Not that I recommend Norton products, still...

      Thanks to a run-in with their overly-aggressive virus scanning process (that can't be turned off) I no longer use Norton home products. Their corporate/enterprise software that I use at work is waaaaaay better.

      --
      The game.
    4. Re:How many are IE6? by Z34107 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Every version of Internet Explorer in recent history has exported a COM interface. This makes it trivial for a Win32 developer to add web rendering support to an application - you just hook the interfaces Internet Explorer provides, and *bam!* HTML rendering!

      This is why it's difficult (and why you're not "supposed" to) remove Internet Explorer - a lot of applications use it, even if it's just one function call to process a blue hyperlink in their help-about.

      That's also why it's a good idea to upgrade it. "Core part of the Windows kernel" is a bit far, but that's the right idea - lots of programs take the two-lines-of-code solution to link with something guaranteed to be on 99.9% of Windows boxes rather than writing their own browsing engine around Webkit.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    5. Re:How many are IE6? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why yes, who could possibly have any use for a high-quality HTML renderer anywhere but in the browser.

      This is the problem, though. Internet Explorer has never been - and still isn't - a high quality HTML renderer. It's sub-standard on performance, and still woefully sub-standard on the actual rendering.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
  3. So a better title would be.. by arkham6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    40 percent of internet users are not updating their browser.

    And these same users are probably happily using windows 98 on their Pentium II's, and don't give a damn about having the most shiny, newest toy.

  4. Maybe they *can't* upgrade by Scutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Large numbers of corporate users are at the mercy of the IT department's update/upgrade schedule. In my environment, there are a large number of applications that will break if IE7 is installed, and the schedule to update and test those dependencies is lengthy.

    Furthermore, we've spent so much time training users to ignore messages that say "Your $FOO is out of date! Click here to install the latest version because it's almost always malware, and now you want to turn around and do the exact opposite?

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    1. Re:Maybe they *can't* upgrade by Snover · · Score: 4, Informative

      If using a different Web browser to access a server causes it to crash, you have more serious things to worry about, like finding another vendor that doesn't write software that takes down your server when it's accessed in a perfectly reasonable manner.

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    2. Re:Maybe they *can't* upgrade by Scutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait, your server is so bad that is crashes when it's accessed by Firefox?! And you're blaming FIREFOX for that?!!

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    3. Re:Maybe they *can't* upgrade by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No thats the failing of an admin too. A lot of this stuff can be traced with filemon and other tools. Then just update GPO to give them whatever rights they need. Then bug your vendor so they sell you software that fits your security model.

  5. Firefox vs. IE by Puls4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Firefox already automatically updates.

    If you have automatic updates turned on in Windows, they automatically update as well.

    However, most people I know turn off automatic updates because it can be so obnoxious. Many folks also disable the BITS service because of the process overhead it chews up.

    It's the difference between being a virtually seamless integration (like Firefox) or an overly-obtrusive integration that eats up system resources.

    For instance - firefox tells you when you go to close the program that there are updates ready. Microsoft pops a little icon that #1 interrupts what you are doing #2 may very well crash the machine or lock it up if it happens while you're playing a game, etc. Remember that letter Gates sent about usability? It's the key in this case, I think.

    I also wonder if this took business users into account - I can't update because my IT department won't let me. I doubt that would be different if we were using Firefox or Opera rather than IE.

    1. Re:Firefox vs. IE by FictionPimp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I'm trying to figure this out on my mac. Last night I got the update popup. I clicked yes and realized I was not an admin. I waited for it to prompt me for my admin user/pass or just error out, but it said it completed successfully.

      I'm really confused.

    2. Re:Firefox vs. IE by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since they're continuing to patch and maintain FF2, they're not forcing people to upgrade to FF3. You'll continue to get patches and security updates for FF2 until they decide to (a) stop maintaining it or (b) get people like you to upgrade, which isn't really critical since FF2 will continue to be a secure browser.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:Firefox vs. IE by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Noscript is ridiculous... I mean, it's not like ad-block where advertisers find new ways to annoy you and ad-block has to find a way to counter it; nocscript simply disallows running scripts... is it that bad that there's three new versions a week?

      The answer is no... from what I read elsewhere, noscript updates take advantage of a flaw in computing the popularity of plug-ins by continuously updating so that they always get ranked at or near the top.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  6. Only 59.1%? by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only 59.1% of users are up-to-date? I guess the submitter is the kind who sees the glass 40.9% empty.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  7. Yeah, but by krkhan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't upgrade to the latest version. It makes my tabs crash and causes me to lose m

  8. No point in updating IE6 by Blindman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the case of Internet Explorer 7, there are reasons not to upgrade to it over version 6. I use IE6 only for the websites that don't work properly in Firefox and I am not interested in the additional integration that IE7 provides. A person concerned with security wouldn't use an integrated browser in the first place.

    By the way, Microsoft does remind me that IE6 is out of date every chance that it gets.

    --
    I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
    1. Re:No point in updating IE6 by ErikZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please, for the love of all that's holy, upgrade to IE7.

      Once IE6 installations get down below a certain point, we won't have to spend crazy amounts of time rewriting web pages so they *also* work in IE6.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  9. Any idea... by cvd6262 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many FF2 users just hate "AwsomeBar"?

    Last I checked, FF2 security updates were still being pushed automatically, so what's the big deal about using 2.x over 3.0?

    --

    I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

    1. Re:Any idea... by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love the Awesome Bar. I'll often want to visit a site I saw the other day but all I can remember is part of one word of the site title. That's all I need in FF3 - I just type in the partial name and the correct site is usually the top result. Now, instead of clicking my bookmarks, I just type one or two letters in the address bar and if the intended site isn't the top result this time it will be next time.

      Awesome Bar was a feature I wasn't even aware of until FF3 went gold, but it was as appreciated and innovative as it was unexpected. Words are for people, DNS names are for computers.

  10. Browsers at work by rdev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about your browsers that are provided by your IT department of your company?

    I work in pretty large company and our IT dept. have disabled auto-updates from XP, Firefox and so on. Then they push updates to users when needed.

    Above works fine in my company, but what about those companies with similar policies and non-existing or incompetent IT department? Browsing tubes all day long with old versions.

    --
    rdev
  11. A good chuck of that 52% is corporate policy. by 1shooter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The IT drones at my employer rigidly demand that all company machines must run IE6. They've coded all their intranet applications solely for that version and by god they will not budge. Firefox is forbidden as a "security risk" and no where to be seen is IE7. Fortunately for me I work on Linux based projects and and run what I please.

    --
    6F 9E A9 1E 96 9F 74 27 ED B8 81 6D 0C 4E 1E 78
    My other Sig is a 229.
  12. Do they count IE 6.latest or FoxPro 2.latest? by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they say "IE 6.latest" or "Foxpro 2.latest" doesn't count as "latest" and those versions have no known unpatched vulnerabilities not shared by IE 7.latest or Foxpro 3.latest then they aren't counting properly.

    There are good reasons not to do a major version upgrade the first few months it is out, but a prerequisite is that your existing browser continue to get security patches.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Do they count IE 6.latest or FoxPro 2.latest? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they say "IE 6.latest" or "Foxpro 2.latest" doesn't count as "latest" and those versions have no known unpatched vulnerabilities not shared by IE 7.latest or Foxpro 3.latest then they aren't counting properly.

      I agree. dBASE III works just fine for me, and I see no reason to update to dBASE IV when Ashton Tate currently provides the same level of support for both.

  13. Murphy Was an Optimist by s31523 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I tend not to update my browser, or anything else that isn't broken, on my stable machine. No matter how many beta tests or how reliable or how improved a new version is touted to be I am always finding things that used to work and now don't. At some point you just want things to work and do not want to have to spend time reconfiguring or working around something that worked. Unless there is a new feature that I am excited about, or a huge security hole plugged, I stick with what works and it is no surprise to me that others do the same.

  14. Re:What do you expect? by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fortunately for us, people like you are willing to deal with your house exploding while the rest of us use candles for a few months more while the bugs in gas lighting are being sorted out. Having the latest 1337 illumination technology is more important to you than it is to us, so it's a win-win situation.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  15. no Firefox-3.x by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    how I use web browsers is:

    Firefox-2.0.0.16 with NoScript and without any plugins - for general purpose web browsing...

    Seamonkey-1.1.11 with all the plugins, flash, java & mplayerplug-in - used only at trusted websites and only when there is media I want to see (used rarely) and Seamonkey for email too (I dont like thunderbird enough to use it)...

    I don't really like Firefox-3.x because of the way it is being developed which is starting to look like feature creep is going to bloat it up, I would like to see it forked and have the fat trimmed off of it more, make it like dillo only better, if I was a clever code monkey genius I would grab the source for Firefox-3.x and fork it myself and trim it down to something like Firefox-1.x or 2.x (or a little leaner)...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  16. Boring "security" by Bromskloss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Computer security includes things like
    - encryption
    - steganography
    - signatures
    - passwords and
    - access control lists.

    That is cool maths and tech. Stuff that matters. How disappointed I get when the "security researchers" write about, not interesting security measures, but just how the security is implemented. Boring, that's sociology! Making sure your users use secure software is important and all, but it's not something I want to read about on Slashdot. I want my old geeky Slashdot back!

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  17. If it works? by rotide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For most "grandmothers" and other non-technically inclined users, why upgrade? Heck, I'd wager most don't even know there is an update, or that you should be updating. Only those that know the technology and the potential risks will care to keep things up to date. And even then, I rarely update, but then again, I routinely format my windows boxes due to all the other issues that come up.

  18. Conclusions? The (not actually) hidden message? by paradeiser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So people don't really care so much about all those new features that make the new generation browser deliver the best internet browsing experience ever. Does this tell us something about product management? Software development?

  19. I am not going to upgrade to Fire Fox 3 by diskofish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems like when a new Fire Fox browser gets "released" there are still some rather annoying bugs. I usually wait about six months for the main bugs to be worked out before I upgrade.

  20. Upgrades are not free by Estragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Users with broadband connections are under the misimpression that upgrades are free and that everyone should do them. Some of us are still stuck in dialup hell, and downloading an upgrade costs a lot of time. And besides, the old software is perfectly adequate.

    --
    I rejoice that there are owls.
  21. Yes there is a point by WD · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not upgrading to IE7 because you don't "use" it is dangerous. Because, as you mentioned, IE is closely integrated into the operating system, its components can be used by other applications regardless of whether you click the blue 'E' icon or not. Any Windows application that has the ability to handle HTML content is likely to use some IE components. So if IE is not fully up to date, these other applications can put you at risk.

    So, for example, vulnerabilities that only affect IE6 may affect other applications that use the relevant IE components for HTML rendering (think email, IM, etc.). Such as:
    http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/923508

    Or, even better... A recent Safari for Windows vulnerability:
    http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/127185
    Safari, a "stand-alone" web browser, is actually at a higher risk on systems with IE6 as opposed to IE7.

    As with any software on your computer, you should upgrade it whether you *think* you use it or not.

  22. Opera users have upgraded, then reverted to 9.27 by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Opera 9.51 (and the 9.52 beta) just does not work well enough for every day use. If you read the Opera news groups, you will see that Opera users are reverting to 9.27.

  23. It depends on the browser. by the_other_chewey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I run a rather busy Mozilla related server (~200k hits per day).

    Within days after the release of Firefox 3, over 40% of my visitors
    had switched to it. Another ~50% use the newest 2.0.x version.

    Conclusion:
    It makes a huge difference if the user is aware of existing choices and has
    actively chosen a certain browser (i.e. installed something other than the default).
    Also, Firefox' autoupdate mechanism works very well.

    I cannot say anything about IE users - they make for less than 0,2% of my hits :-)

    Also, I don't claim to have representative numbers for the "general Mozilla crowd",
    as my target audience are the more tech-savvy.

  24. hmm, let's see... by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lynx 2.8.6... yep, I'm up-to-date...

    in a manner of speaking.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
  25. Re:Why *should* people update? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 2, Informative

    Suggestions have also been made to inform users that their browser is out of date.

    Why? I know I run an out-of-date browser (FF1.5), and just don't care.

    Well, you should.
    Most of those issues are present in earlier versions as well, as stated on the vulnerabilities page for 1.5
    Have a look at http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/ - and have fun browsing on with your sieve.

  26. Wait for native video/audio support... by GNUPublicLicense · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When the media player DOM and the will be in most browsers and once main video web sites support all that media boiler plate, people may think its a good incentive to upgrade.

  27. Re:Why *should* people update? by the_other_chewey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and when Firefox 5 is out, people will say the same about Firefox 3 users. "OMG security vulnerabilities have fun browsing on your sieve."
    People said the same thing about 1 vs 1.5 as well. You HAVE to upgrade to 1.5 because it's the secure version and it doesn't have all those security holes.
    What's the difference?

    Is that a serious question?
    Did you look at the links I gave?

    Time is the difference. Those lists list known vulnerabilities. They are in those versions of Firefox, and some are actively exploited by malicious websites, right now.
    Those lists get longer with time due to exposure of the software to a curious public. I can guarantee you that a lot of the unknown vulnerabilities in Firefox 3 will have become
    very well known ones by the time Firefox 5 will be out.

  28. Corporate users by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 3, Informative

    General Electric (at least in Europe, can't speak for other territories) only supports IE6 on their client pc's. IE7 breaks many internal web pages and if found on a user's computer, is uninstalled immediately. Stupid policy? Horrible web page design? Sure. But with 300,000+ worldwide employees, all stuck on an older version of Internet Explorer with no upgrade path or timeline in sight, I don't see this changing anytime soon. And GE (particularly under Jack Welch) has always struck me as a fairly nimble company compared to others it's size. I wonder how many other mega-corporations are similarly locked into older versions of web browsers and how much they contribute to the overall percentage of non-updated persons.

    --
    Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
  29. That's what emulators are for. by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone whose business applications only run on Windows 95/98 or ME

    ...can run existing Windows 95/98 or ME licenses in a virtual machine.

    1. Re:That's what emulators are for. by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends. Many proprietary systems and software will use things like hardware dongles and such that don't always behave inside a VM. A few years back I actually had to setup a machine using DOS 6.0. A professor at school was performing a psychology experiment using some special software that worked only in older versions of DOS. It too used a hardware dongle or it wouldn't function.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  30. IBM doesn't support IE 7 by metamatic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought it was ironic that IBM Security Systems put out the report, since IBM doesn't support use of IE 7 internally--everyone is told to stay on IE 6 until various applications can be updated.

    Firefox is supported, however.

    [Opinions mine, not IBM's.]

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  31. Join the TNAA!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you hate twitter? Do you loath Slashdot? Are you a total fuckwad? Then join the Twitter Negation Association of America (TNAA) and help ruin Slashdot. How does it work? Easy:

    • Accuse everone of being twitter. Did they say "M$" or "Windoze"? It's gotta be twitter.
    • Sign up lots of accounts to accuse twitter of the same. Hypocrisy? No, Genius! Be sure to mod up anything derogatory and genreally midless.
    • Be an ass. This should come naturally.

    The point is to increase noise to signal ratios. Join today!

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion