[Großer]

Firefox immun gegen Spyware
ActiveX und JavaScript machen den Internet Explorer anfällig

Wer sich vor lästiger Sypware auf seinem Rechner schützen will, kann das Risiko schon über die Wahl des Browsers steuern. So ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit 21 Mal höher, ein Spionage-Programm auf den Rechner zu bekommen, nutzt man den Internet Explorer von Microsoft.

Das haben Wissenschaftler der Universität Washington jetzt in einer Untersuchung festgestellt. "Wir können deshalb aber nicht sagen, ob der Firefox letztlich ein sicherer Browser ist oder nicht", erklärte Professor Henry Levy, jedoch hätten die Nutzer - besonders die unbedarften - beim Browsen eine sicherere Erfahrung.

Vollständiger Artikel und Quelle

Download Mozilla Firefox

[species]

http://mywebpages.co...refoxMyths.html

[Rika]

ActiveX ist per se eine Sicherheitslücke, aber JavaScript ist anundfürsich kein Problem, wenn die Implementierung nicht total scheiße ist.

@species: extra für dich...

Zitat

Hello.

I would just state that, mildly expressed, your content is total
bullshit. Some corrections might get you a clue:


1. System Requirements

Whatever Firefox and IE claim to have as requirements, it's simply not
true. Firefox runs on slower computers, and running IE on a computer as
slow as its requirements state also is an absolute mess.

I think you should simply drop this point at all


2. Fastest Web Browser

The test you're refering to isn't correct at all. It completely ignores
how webbrowser do the rendering and doesn't pay any respect to that
leading to incorrect interpretation and no valueable results.

Recommendation: Drop it.


3. Market Share

Doesn't mean anything at all, as most measurements are inaccurate do to
a) Firefox saving most requests due to HTTP Pipeling and alike
b) Firefox sometimes generating less queries because it supports RSS
c) many other software sending the MSIE useragent identifier

Simply drop it, it's meaningless.


4. Firefox is Secure

Not just to notice that Secunia is totally out of date, you don't either
value how severe the issues are neither that in most cases the bugfix
was already released, not yet to notice that some issues are none at all
(read description of http://secunia.com/advisories/12979/ and the
original advisory to http://secunia.com/advisories/12580/) and, even
further, that MSIE currently has 49 unpatched critical security holes.

Recommendation: Damn drop it, you're statements are totally false.


5. Most Secure Web Browser -> dito


6. Firefox is More Secure because it is not integrated into the OS.

This is actually pretty true, as IE is integrated within Windows and a
compromise of IE immediately leads to a compromise of the entire
explorer.exe Desktop shell. Also Windows prefers IE in terms of memory
management, so there are memory DoS attacks against IE that bring the
entire systemt to halt whereas other browsers just slow down everything.


7. Firefox is More Secure because it does not use ActiveX

Your description of the problem is entirely false. The problems from
ActiveX arise from two big issues:
a) Inseucirty of pre-installed TRUSTED ActiveX controls
b) circumvention of ActiveX control install choice

IE has serious problems regarding these two catgeories, and that's why
the absence of ActiveX is a real security measure.


8. Firefox is a Solution to Spyware

Yet again messing up everything. The problem with Spyware in IE is that
it can automatically install due to an enormous hog of unpatched
security holes wherease the same is not possible with Firefox and
alikes. Claiming that Firefox cannot clean up a compromised system is a
joke, as this is neither the job of a webbrowser nor was that claimed at
all.
It's a blatant lie that IE on XPSP2 would be more secure. I'm counting
49 unpatched (!) security holes for a FULLY PATCHED IE, even more for
previous versions of IE.

Refering to your SecureXP guide is a joke as well, but I'm too lazy to
rip it of as well. It doesn't solve security issues in IE at all!


9. Firefox Blocks all Popups

It does. Simply, the two stated variants are no popups at all.


10. Acid 2 Browser Test

You may or may not have noticed that, unlike Acid1, the Acid2 test is
heavily discussed because indeed it does not accurately represent the
wished of web designers. The guys at Mozilla explicitely decided that
all actually relevant features are already supported and there're no
intentions to support the rest just because of redicolous claims form
the Acid2 people. It's not bad to not support Acid2!


11. Web Page Rendering

Not just to state that Firefox messes up much less websites than IE (!),
IE shouldn't be used as a webbrowser at all because of its insecurity
and therefore is no valid comparison.



In this context, your "Disputes" section claiming that "The sources
speak for themselves and the facts are irrefutable." is just funny as
your sources only speak for themselves, but not the truth, and your
facts are no facts at all.

My recommendation is to pull of the entire site and carefully rework it.
As you might notice, it won't leave anything spectacular at all, so you
should simply remove it at all. Except you want to keep on being laughed
by almost everyone who encountered a serious review of your so-called
"facts".


Sincerely, [...]

Zitat

Thanks for the feedback...

> Hello.
>
> I would just state that, mildly expressed, your content is total
> bullshit. Some corrections might get you a clue:

Nope it is all factually based.

> 1. System Requirements
>
> Whatever Firefox and IE claim to have as requirements, it's simply not
> true. Firefox runs on slower computers, and running IE on a computer as
> slow as its requirements state also is an absolute mess.
>
> I think you should simply drop this point at all

Nope, this is a good point, sourced and factually accurate = Stays.

> 2. Fastest Web Browser
>
> The test you're refering to isn't correct at all. It completely ignores
> how webbrowser do the rendering and doesn't pay any respect to that
> leading to incorrect interpretation and no valueable results.
>
> Recommendation: Drop it.

The test is completely accurate, fully documented and reproduceable = Stays

> 3. Market Share
>
> Doesn't mean anything at all, as most measurements are inaccurate do to
> a) Firefox saving most requests due to HTTP Pipeling and alike
> b) Firefox sometimes generating less queries because it supports RSS
> c) many other software sending the MSIE useragent identifier
>
> Simply drop it, it's meaningless.

The only other browser sending MSIE user agent was old versions of Opera but
this is not true anymore. = Stays

> 4. Firefox is Secure
>
> Not just to notice that Secunia is totally out of date, you don't either
> value how severe the issues are neither that in most cases the bugfix
> was already released, not yet to notice that some issues are none at all
> (read description of http://secunia.com/advisories/12979/ and the
> original advisory to http://secunia.com/advisories/12580/) and, even
> further, that MSIE currently has 49 unpatched critical security holes.
>
> Recommendation: Damn drop it, you're statements are totally false.

Secunia is updated daily. All the Firefox vulnerabilities are accounted for and
fully documented. = Stays

> 5. Most Secure Web Browser -> dito

Firefox is not, this is a Myth. = Stays

> 6. Firefox is More Secure because it is not integrated into the OS.
>
> This is actually pretty true, as IE is integrated within Windows and a
> compromise of IE immediately leads to a compromise of the entire
> explorer.exe Desktop shell. Also Windows prefers IE in terms of memory
> management, so there are memory DoS attacks against IE that bring the
> entire systemt to halt whereas other browsers just slow down everything.

Actually this is not true, check out the source. = Stays

> 7. Firefox is More Secure because it does not use ActiveX
>
> Your description of the problem is entirely false. The problems from
> ActiveX arise from two big issues:
> a) Inseucirty of pre-installed TRUSTED ActiveX controls
> b) circumvention of ActiveX control install choice
>
> IE has serious problems regarding these two catgeories, and that's why
> the absence of ActiveX is a real security measure.

Actually that is not true. Malware exploits security vulnerabilities or
relies on the user clicking on yes to install itself. = Stays

> 8. Firefox is a Solution to Spyware
>
> Yet again messing up everything. The problem with Spyware in IE is that
> it can automatically install due to an enormous hog of unpatched
> security holes wherease the same is not possible with Firefox and
> alikes. Claiming that Firefox cannot clean up a compromised system is a
> joke, as this is neither the job of a webbrowser nor was that claimed at
> all.
> It's a blatant lie that IE on XPSP2 would be more secure. I'm counting
> 49 unpatched (!) security holes for a FULLY PATCHED IE, even more for
> previous versions of IE.

Malware cannot auto-install on patched system, especially with SP2. Please
provide proof of this claim. It is widely made but with ZERO proof. IE with
SP2 is just AS secure as Firefox in regards to Spyware infection. = Stays

> Refering to your SecureXP guide is a joke as well, but I'm too lazy to
> rip it of as well. It doesn't solve security issues in IE at all!

Actually it does, try it sometime and use IE securely. = Stays

> 9. Firefox Blocks all Popups
>
> It does. Simply, the two stated variants are no popups at all.

People consider them Popups and the "Other" link provides another example. = Stays

> 10. Acid 2 Browser Test
>
> You may or may not have noticed that, unlike Acid1, the Acid2 test is
> heavily discussed because indeed it does not accurately represent the
> wished of web designers. The guys at Mozilla explicitely decided that
> all actually relevant features are already supported and there're no
> intentions to support the rest just because of redicolous claims form
> the Acid2 people. It's not bad to not support Acid2!

Firefox still does not pass it, which is just more Proof Firefox does not
support standards. = Stays

> 11. Web Page Rendering
>
> Not just to state that Firefox messes up much less websites than IE (!),
> IE shouldn't be used as a webbrowser at all because of its insecurity
> and therefore is no valid comparison.

Your whole statement is laughable. = Stays

> In this context, your "Disputes" section claiming that "The sources
> speak for themselves and the facts are irrefutable." is just funny as
> your sources only speak for themselves, but not the truth, and your
> facts are no facts at all.

The sources DO speak for themselves and the facts ARE irrefutable.

> My recommendation is to pull of the entire site and carefully rework it.
> As you might notice, it won't leave anything spectacular at all, so you
> should simply remove it at all. Except you want to keep on being laughed
> by almost everyone who encountered a serious review of your so-called
> "facts".

Hum, let me think for a second = No, it will stay up. Enjoy.

> Sincerely,

Thanks again for the feedback but nothing was changed on the page because of
it. Check out some free games:

http://mywebpages.co...CD/XPGames.html

Take Care.

--www.optimizeguides.com

[...]

Und so geht das weiter. Eigentlich nur ein eingebildeter Fatzke, der keine Ahnung, aber einen großen Geltungstrieb hat.

Dieser Beitrag wurde von Rika bearbeitet: 10. Februar 2006 - 19:53

[Großer]

Ich denke das Microsoft sich viel gutes tun würde, wenn sie sich endlich mal von ActiveX trennen würden.
Der IE7 ist für mich bisher nicht viel besser als der 6er. Die Lücken und Probleme bleiben die selben. Microsoft beansprucht schon eine Menge Zeit für die Entwicklung am IE7, aber schafft es dennoch nicht, ihn mal richtig zu überarbeiten. Flickschusterei und ein paar abgeguckte Features - mehr ist der IE7 in meinen Augen nicht.

[swissboy]

@Großer:

Wenn du z.B. im IEBlog mitverfolgen würdest was Microsoft alles für den IE7 tut, würdest du nicht so undifferenziert urteilen. Es dauert so lange weil sich Microsoft wirklich Mühe gibt es gutes Produkt herauszubringen und die IE7-Entwicklung eng mit Windows Vista verknüpft ist.

Sorry, aber ich werde das Gefühl nicht los das du mit diesem News-Thread lediglich deine Vorurteile bzw. Präferenzen bestätigt haben willst. Wo diese liegen merkt bei dieser "News" selbst ein Blinder. Schon der absolute Titel "Firefox immun gegen Spyware" ist ein Witz, 100-prozentige Immunität gibt es nicht. Das danach die üblichen alt bekannten abgedroschenen Argumente hervorgekramt werden braucht nicht weiter zu wundern. Viel Spass dann noch beim IE-Bashing.

Dieser Beitrag wurde von swissboy bearbeitet: 10. Februar 2006 - 20:59

[flo]

Ohne Worte

<--Thema Geschlossen-->