Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Says IE9 Blocks More Malware Than Chrome

Posted by Unknown on from the i-heard-macs-don't-get-viruses dept.

CSHARP123 writes "In a move that's sure to raise some eyebrows, Microsoft today debuted a new web site designed to raise awareness of security issues in web browsers. When you visit the site, called Your Browser Matters, it allows you to see a score for the browser you're using. Only IE, Chrome, or Firefox are included — other browsers are excluded. Not surprisingly, Microsoft's latest release, Internet Explorer 9, gets a perfect 4 out of 4. Chrome or Firefox do not even come close to the score of 4. Even though the web site makes it easy for users to upgrade to the latest version of their choice of browser, Roger Capriotti hopes people will choose IE9, as it blocks more malware compared to Chrome or Firefox." Of note in the Windows Team post is that the latest Microsoft Security Intelligence Report discovered that 0-day exploits account for a mere tenth of a percent of all intrusions. Holes in outdated software and social engineering account for the majority of successful attacks.

9 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. NoScript by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NoScript blocks more malware than either.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:NoScript by North+Korea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, and is pain in the ass to use and something that no normal person will ever do. Hell, even I don't want to use it while being a geek and fully understand it's potential.. but it's just so pain in the ass.

    2. Re:NoScript by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If my artist girlfriend can use it with no instruction from me, complaints about complexity ring hollow.

      Personally, I find that javascript on average detracts more from the browsing experience than it adds. Slashdot is a perfect example, it's simply not usable with javascript enabled. So even if there was no security benefit at all, it would still be less of a pain in the ass to use NoScript than it would be to browse without it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:NoScript by TechLA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No one talked about complexity, but just being pain in the ass to use. You always have to keep reloading sites, allowing scripts and so on when you go new sites. And if you just allow most, then there's no point anyway. Most of the internet now relies on JavaScript and it really does make things easier, allows AJAX and so on. You break a lot of functionality without JavaScript. Yes, most good sites allow non-javascript fallback, but it's not as nice as with JavaScript enabled.

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

      To help geek up this analogy: enjoying the web without Javascript is like having sex but avoiding partners with STDs.

      For a typical user, a better analogy would be: Enjoying the web without Javascript is like having sex while wearing a condom made of inch-thick rubber.

      and while also wearing a blindfold...

    5. Re:NoScript by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "WE CAN'T GIVE YOU A SCORE FOR YOUR BROWSER."

      "WHAT DOES THIS SCORE MEAN?"

      I guess that means that my browser is more secure than they expected, and they don't want to admit it? Or, they can't exploit a vulnerability that they expected to find in my browser? WTF?

      Chromium, with Ghostery, AdBlock Plus, Flashblock, and NoScript. Go figure . . .

      Let's see what it looks like in Firefox:

      "How well is your browser protecting you?

      We do not have any data for your browser, so we can’t give your browser a score.
      See how other browsers scored > "

      The site like my Firefox setup better than it liked my Chromium setup - I can at least advance through the menus. But, they can't rank my browser. Phht. Same old tired FUD, if you ask me. What a waste of bandwidth!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    6. Re:NoScript by HermMunster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We all know Microsoft's response is total bullshit. What this is in response to is that a recent report indicating that IE is the primary vector for infection in Windows environments, which is nearly all of them as the infection rate for other OSes isn't even measurable.

      This is a deflection tactic. It is mean to push notice on the competition that is suffering now in the press at various stages. It has no merit, none at all. It is a weak tactic and one we all should despise.

      Instead of Microsoft actually fixing their problems, or exiting the market, they have to make others look bad to make themselves look better. I'm sure few of us will take the bait, but when addressing the unwashed masses it has it's intended affect.

      Everyone here should be a correction mechanism for this for their family and friends. Microsoft can reach more people with a single utterance than any of us can, but together we can work to ensure we offset that with the real causes of infections (Microsoft's shoddy work), and we can shed light on our family and friends to make it clear that they understand these are shameful tactics.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  2. If only it werent for the inaccuracies... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It might have been informative. Seriously, when you accuse Chrome of not meeting the requirement,
    "Does the browser help protect you from websites that are known to distribute socially engineered malware?"
    when google's anti-malware service is the basis for at least two browsers, and predates IE's effort by at least a year (probably more like 2), it sort of hampers your credibility.

  3. Cut'em some slack by FyberOptic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does everyone fall back on attacking Microsoft for press releases like this? Statistically, IE HAS been safer than other browsers in certain respects nowadays. It's silly to dismiss their complete turnaround in taking security seriously just because it's fun to hate on the company.

    Of course there's going to be some marketing thrown into it as well. But what company doesn't? Why isn't everyone attacking Apple when they claim Safari is the fastest and safest browser? Or Mozilla, which has made the same claims for years too? It's not true for either of those, and they certainly can't both be right at the same time. Everyone lets that slide, because it's not cool to hate on them, despite their own terrible histories with security/vulnerability problems.

    I haven't used IE for years (stopped for security reasons, in fact), but that doesn't change the fact that I can still offer them kudos for helping keep the web a safer place, especially when they still provide the dominant browser. The less infected machines on the internet is beneficial to ALL of us.