Microsoft Says IE9 Blocks More Malware Than Chrome

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 Holes in outdated software and social engineering account for the majority of successful attacks.

Comments

NoScript

[Hatta]

NoScript blocks more malware than either.

Re:NoScript

[HermMunster]

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.

Seen the same data elsewhere, re: Exploits

[Tridus]

I've seen the same data from Mcafee, and it was really something. For every computer exploited using a Windows flaw, 100 are exploited using Flash. Acrobat Reader and Java are the other major culprits.

In a lot of ways, browser security itself has never been better. There's several highly capable ones out there in this area. The weak link is some truly terrible plugins.

If only it werent for the inaccuracies...

[LordLimecat]

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.

Site is fake, not tests are run

[Derling Whirvish]

The site is fake and does nothing other than tell you to use IE9. It determines your user agent and responds based on the result. It does not run any security tests against your browser. When I go the the site with IE9 I get a score of 4 of 4. When I go to it with Firefox 8 I get a 2 of 4 score. When I switch my user agent in Firefox 8 with the user agent switcher add-on to report I am using IE9 and go to the site using Firefox 8, I get a score of 4 of 4.

It doesn't rate Opera either, but

[Eadwacer]

When I went there with my Opera browser, it said it couldn't rate it. So I used Opera's site preferences to lie to the site and tell it I was using IE (version unspecified). I then got a rating of 4/4. So even a fake IE is better than none.

Typical Microsoft Site

[dtjohnson]

All show and no go. It doesn't actually test your browser or system, it just attempts to identify the browser and then matches it up with a "score." My firefox 6 got a score of 2 out of 4 based on a list of features that it allegedly had or did not have and, among other things, gave me a check box under 'yes' for "Does the browser benefit from Windows Operating System features that protect against arbitrary data execution?" even though I was running a non-Windows OS. Then I hit it with Netscape 2, Netscape 4, HotJava 3, and Opera 3 and it was unable to identify any of those and just said it couldn't give a score. The best part, though, was where it said 'The flash plugin was needed to display the page' advising me on security.