Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

IE7 Bug Reports Flooding In

Posted by Zonk on Thu Feb 02, 2006 08:32 AM
from the experience-them-now-avoid-the-rush dept.
the JoshMeister writes "According to ZDNet, bug reports are already flooding in for Microsoft's new Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview. Specific issues include the possibility of arbitrary code execution as well as incompatibilities with McAfee Security Center, anti-spyware programs, and online banking sites." From the article: "... browser testers may already be at risk, according to security researcher Tom Ferris. Late Tuesday, Ferris released details of a potential security flaw in IE 7. An attacker could exploit the flaw by crafting a special Web page that could be used to crash the browser or gain complete control of a vulnerable system, Ferris said in an advisory on his Web site. Microsoft had no immediate comment on Ferris' alert."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
IE7 Bug Reports Flooding In | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 259 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sparkydevil (261897) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:34AM (#14624941)
    Of course it's got bugs -- it's a beta!
  • Wow (Score:4, Funny)

    by saboola (655522) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:34AM (#14624943)
    A beta of a Microsoft product has bugs? Color me surprised!
    • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ucahg (898110) on Thursday February 02 2006, @09:11AM (#14625239)
      A beta of anything better have bugs. Otherwise the testers aren't finding them because they are most certainly there.

      I don't even see how this is a news-worthy... it's a beta!
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Wow by Firehed (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @01:41PM
      • Re:Wow by WhiteWolf666 (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @03:25PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Wow by vertinox (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @02:02PM
  • Bug reports already? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by VJTod (563763) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:34AM (#14624945)
    It's beta software. Of course there will be bugs. The public B2 is much better than the leaked B2 which was still better than B1.

    Taken with grain of salt... it's still beta.
  • good! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by steve.m (80410) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:36AM (#14624958)
    (Last Journal: Monday September 13 2004, @04:10AM)
    sounds like a productive beta test. end users finding lots of bugs.

    (anyone who would use it - or anything else beta - in a production environment is insane)
    • Re:good! by accessdeniednsp (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:47AM
      • Re:good! by generic-man (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @11:26AM
    • Re:good! by Greywolf428 (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:51AM
    • Re:good! by Bob The Cowboy (Score:1) Friday February 03 2006, @01:18AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • OMG.... by Lxy (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:37AM
  • Security is Job 1? (Score:3, Funny)

    by InfinityWpi (175421) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:39AM (#14624969)
    (http://www.techcomedy.com/)
    This just goes to prove that Microsoft's newfound 'dedication to security' and focus on writing code with less bugs in it is just a pure crock of doodie. Obviously, if they opened their source and let us all look at it, we'd be glad to help them find and iron out all the bugs by releasing several dozen exploits into the wild at the same time. My god, if the beta's this bad, how bad will the finished product be when they've finished adding features? ... um, my sarcasm tag is on, right?
  • This a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beelub (252407) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:39AM (#14624970)
    Getting bug reports on beta software is good. That's why it's released as beta.

    Why is this front page, unless it's just the usual knee-jerk, let's-find-something-bad-to-say-about-Microsoft thing that makes Slashdot less than useful for info about anything about Microsoft.

    Yeesh.

    • Re:This a good thing by BuR4N (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:31AM
    • Re:This a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday February 02 2006, @10:27AM (#14626019)

      Why is this front page

      This is on the front page for a number of reasons. First, it is somewhat indicative of the quality of the new software MS is planning to release. Yes, betas will have bugs, but no comment has been made about the remote exploit from MS, nor about the myriad failures to implement CSS properly. The number of bugs found in such a small time, is a meaningful metric and of interest to people here. It indicates to many of us, that the final version is still unlikely to properly implement the spec and that whatever new security practices MS is employing are probably not working to stop vulnerabilities. (Gee, big surprise.) The number of incompatibilities with current banking and other Websites is a useful indication to how much work the Web designers among us are likely to have ahead of us.

      Second, because of the design of Windows and IE you can either install this beta for testing, or you can install the current IE, but not both. This means a number of people will install the beta, but end up also using it as an everyday browser, since they don't want to be constantly installing and uninstalling it for testing. Thus, security concerns with this beta may actually be a real concern. Those among us working to secure networks may want to account for this by restricting use of this browser for the time being.

      Finally, the number of bug reports is a useful metric for gauging interest in the product, which is also of concern to people here.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:This a good thing by vertinox (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @02:04PM
    • Re:This a good thing by WED Fan (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:08AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Story is inaccurate... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Manip (656104) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:40AM (#14624977)
    Calling Tom Ferris a "Security Researcher" is like calling Bill Gates a programmer... He is more a 'Robert Scoble' character. And his discovery of arbitrary code execution is incorrect as per the link: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/01/522682 .aspx [msdn.com]

    The guy is not a professional anything, I mean he lists workarounds as 'Firefox'; which just shows how little he understands the security field which he claims to work in (A workaround should be a way to fix or bypass the bug, not a blind pointer at some random other product, even the Linux Security guys know that).
  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:41AM (#14624986)
    Look at the bright side, now we know what Ferris does on his days off.
  • Not surprised by the bugs... (Score:3, Informative)

    by ripbruger (312644) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:41AM (#14624988)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday March 29 2004, @10:15PM)
    ...but I downloaded and installed and uninstalled this thing last night. Still seems there are loads of CSS problems in it (couldn't get a navigation menu to work but using :hover pseudo-class). It'll be interesting to see what MS comes up with on this one. It'll be nice to actually have a capable version of IE to test pages against.
  • Fried System by mr. mulder (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:41AM
  • It's.. Beta? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:41AM (#14624992)
    (http://www.int64.org/)
    How is this news? Betas are there for finding bugs. If you don't want to risk more than the usual, how about just not using it?

    The past builds were also riddled with bugs, and the IE developers are very involved with testers to fix them. It's not like they're just sitting with their hands over their ears yelling "LA LA LA LA I can't hear you!"
    • Re:It's.. Beta? by RangerRick98 (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:48AM
      • Re:It's.. Beta? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @12:26PM
        • Re:It's.. Beta? by RangerRick98 (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @02:26PM
  • Is there a quota? by nrc (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:43AM
  • More annoying than the bugs.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chou oishii (781237) <mar297&nyu,edu> on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:46AM (#14625017)
    ..are the way it: a) Requires you to validate windows to install, b) Requires a reboot, and c) Actually attempts to pass off things like tabbed browsing and a search bar as innovative (really, take a look at the "demo" they bring you to when you first install it).

    I'm not asking them to spend money advertising the fact that they're way behind the curve on browsers, just to stop lying to me.
  • So let me get this straight .... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Brian McCoy (942227) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:47AM (#14625029)
    (http://mysite.verizon.net/blmccoy/)
    people are claiming that a Preview Release ,not even a full beta yet, has bugs? Just wondering what these industry leading geniuses thought they were getting with a preview release? I have been using IE7 for a couple months now, my work provides me with a Technet Plus subscription, and I have had some issues. In most, if not all cases, I have been able to work around them and still rely heavily on Firefox. I will say that Microsoft has finally added some much needed functionality to their browser such as tabbed browsing and keyboard shortcuts which are exactly the same as Firefox's (coincidence, I think not). I guess my point is it's a preview release, it's not perfect and it has bugs, by using beta software you are agreeing to help solve some of the problems before final release, and there will be problems. Just my two cents worth.
  • Treat IE 7 as IE 6? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pascal Sartoretti (454385) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:48AM (#14625031)
    The problem for Microsoft is that many web applications use the following logic:

    if (browser is Internet Explorer) then

    emit HTML code that works around the numerous rendering bugs of IE

    else (Mozilla, Netscape, Opera)

    emit standards-compliant HTML code

    With this kind of (flawed) logic, IE 7 will often be identified as IE, and hence be provided with IE 6-specific HTML code, whereas it should have been sent "correct" HTML code. The result may be, well, interesting :-)

    I really don't see what Microsoft can do against this. They can't expect millions of web sites to be updated overnight just to support IE 7.
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by cyclomedia (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:57AM
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by meringuoid (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:05AM
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by mlock (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:30AM
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by imroy (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:39AM
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by wilsone8 (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:12AM
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kawika (87069) on Thursday February 02 2006, @10:35AM (#14626093)
      Don't let Microsoft off the hook that easily. Most of the problems I've seen with this IE7 beta aren't the "we messed up the implementation" variety. They are the "we still don't support all of CSS" variety.

      Microsoft has eliminated several bugs that made it easy to identify IE6 and apply hacks to the CSS. For example, the "* html" selector let you apply CSS rules just for IE because it's ignored by standards-compliant browsers. Now IE7 ignores that too. However, the need for hacks is still there. IE7 still does not implement several important CSS features that necessitated the hacks in the first place, such as min-height.

      If Microsoft were to decide that this beta was "close enough" or even if it fixes just the minimum number of things to keep major sites from breaking, that's not going to help. Designers will end up needing an entirely different set of hacks to make up for the fact that IE7 is *still* not a complete CSS2 implementation.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by m50d (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:59AM
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Bob ArdKor (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @12:15PM
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Godkar (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @01:05PM
    • Capabilities and Conditional Comments by Kelson (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @03:46PM
    • Re:Treat IE 7 as IE 6? by Vo0k (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:42AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • More Vulnerabilities == More Fun by putko (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:52AM
  • So what if it's a beta? by SpiritGod21 (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:56AM
  • by OwlWhacker (758974) on Thursday February 02 2006, @08:59AM (#14625108)
    (http://www.drydeadfish.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 02 2005, @09:09AM)
    I was about to post something about bugs being natrual in almost all beta software, then I read the article...

    An attacker could exploit the flaw by crafting a special Web page that could be used to crash the browser or gain complete control of a vulnerable system

    So, this is actually a relevant article, despite its initial appearance.

    We've got some new additions and enhancements to IE, and here we have a flaw that can give an attacker complete control over the user's computer!

    I guess this is a taste of things to come in Vista? Evidence that Microsoft's secure code development practices are mostly just verbal pacification?
    • Re:Nasty security flaw that Microsoft missed by blowdart (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:06AM
    • Re:Nasty security flaw that Microsoft missed by Ventriloquate (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @11:01AM
    • by zootm (850416) on Thursday February 02 2006, @11:49AM (#14626940)

      Fairly official response [msdn.com] (taken from another comment).

      We received reports this morning that a security researcher had found a bug in the IE7 Beta 2 Preview release. This issue reportedly crashes IE and is exploitable to execute arbitrary code on the user's computer. Naturally, we take the security of IE and our users' safety very seriously, so we investigated immediately. We did confirm that the bug crashes IE. However, we did not find that the bug was exploitable by default to elevate privilege and run arbitrary code.

      This bug had already been found during our code review and analysis that is a mandatory part of our development process; it was scheduled to be fixed before our next public release. We do not believe this bug is easily exploitable, and as an extra defense, the /GS flag also catches the overrun. This is a compiler flag that tells Windows to watch for some classes of buffer overflows. If Windows sees a problem, it kills the application, in this case IE, instead of running the exploit code. While this is certainly not our primary line of protection, it does offer defense-in-depth to help keep our customers secure.

      So it appears that Microsoft's new development practices caught this bug internally before it was caught in the public beta, to find bugs like this. It also seems that the overrun is caught and dealt with (causing a crash as overruns should, but not allowing any degree of "control") by the system they are using for development anyway. Apparently the original article has not proven that the bug could be exploited at all yet anyway, so a response from his end will be required before this can really be seen as anything other than the sort of thing that's to be expected from a beta release.

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Nasty security flaw that Microsoft missed by OwlWhacker (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @12:09PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Hmm Same ole Story by PacketScan (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:00AM
  • Error in article... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Linker3000 (626634) on Thursday February 02 2006, @09:08AM (#14625204)
    Microsoft had no immediate comment on Ferris' alert.

    Not so - they tried to post a reply on his site but their browser kept crashing.
  • Using beta for banking (Score:3, Informative)

    by ben_1432 (871549) on Thursday February 02 2006, @09:14AM (#14625266)
    What kind of dumb-ass uses a beta browser for their banking anyway? It's not going to kill them to flick back to whatever their regular (non-beta) browser is.

    I don't just mean IE either. Firefox in it's pre 1.0 days had a bug where tabs could read form data from other tabs. Like credit card numbers. All the way up to 1.0.

    Why aren't beta's being released with some sort of self-setting desktop wallpaper that says "Look dipshit this is a beta product, and not like Google Beta TM, like buggy beta, so spare a seconds thought before you go doing your finances".

    In next weeks news: some stupid fuck loses his identity and $20000 minutes after using IE7 Beta to pay his bills, therefore IE7 is bad.
  • It's actually quite good.... by trickmcsneak (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:19AM
  • MSIE 7 in the wild (Score:4, Interesting)

    by harmonica (29841) on Thursday February 02 2006, @09:22AM (#14625352)
    Just looked at my logs for the last two days and MSIE 7 has already caused more requests than Opera/8, making it the #4 after MSIE 6, Mozilla and MSIE 5 (yes, grouping could be better for the Mozilla/Firefox family). It's a tech site, so the early adopters can be expected to show up here. Still, that was fast.
  • No Linux support! by erroneus (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:24AM
  • The obligatory... by emptycorp (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:27AM
  • The UI is ugly by Zerbey (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:29AM
  • The Acid 2 CSS Test (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dshannon (704783) on Thursday February 02 2006, @09:33AM (#14625484)
    The famed acid2 test renders truly badly: http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#to p
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • What were these people thinking? by Chabil Ha' (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:38AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Safest Browser ever by stevea1210 (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:45AM
  • What did you expect? by BigCheese (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:54AM
  • MSDN by smallguy78 (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:57AM
  • Can we sue? by gmerideth (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:58AM
  • MS Mantra: "Make the customer pay." (Repeat.) by zenwarrior (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:02AM
  • From the IE Team Blog (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pedrito (94783) on Thursday February 02 2006, @10:03AM (#14625797)
    (http://www.petedavis.net/)
    Finally, I'd like to reiterate the importance of the responsible disclosure of security issues. We firmly believe that privately disclosing security issues to software vendors is the best way to keep the users of the world secure.

    I'm sorry, but I take issue with this, particularly with a product being beta-tested, but really, with any product. Users need to know what exploits are known. If there are serious, known, security flaws in IE, that may very well affect my decision of whether or not I want to install it on my system. THe idea of keeping it hush-hush doesn't really help anyone.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Gee, its BETA SOFTWARE! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) on Thursday February 02 2006, @10:11AM (#14625867)
    I know many people will just jump down Microsoft's throat for anything they do, they aren't my favourite company either. But I can't be sympathetic to people that complain about beta software.

    1) NOBODY is forcing you to install a beta product. If you are curious or impulsive, and feel compelled to install beta software, your doing so at great risk to your security and data. Whether it's Microsoft beta's, Google beta's, or Linux Beta's, you are accepting that risk by the nature of installing beta software (its in the disclaimer)

    2) THE REASON for beta software is to open it up to wider testing to CATCH AND FIX Bugs. This is a good thing, that bugs are flowing back to Microsoft. It will force them to fix the bugs and strengthen the product.

    3) No, you CAN'T Sue, see 1)

    4) Get a life. I mean, if IE 7 was in full release and these bugs were being reported, I would jump on the bandwagon myself and fire a few shots at MS, but this is still beta software, it isn't even a release candidate yet. Its intended for people with a brain to install it at their own risk and test the product, to REPORT bugs is the definition of what Beta software is. Obviously lots of stupid people are installing IE 7!

    This is NOT NEWS, this is sad. To report and complain that Microsoft's beta software is full of bugs suggest a complete bias, prejudice, and ignorance towards them without merit or provocation. This is not microsoft screwing up, this is microsoft doing what countless other software companies do, release a beta in order to get feedback and bug reporting in order to fix and strengthen the product.

    When FireFox 1.5 beta was released, it was full of bugs, but people praised Mozilla for their innovation and success. I can't stand double standards.
  • Does the number of bugs really matter in Beta? by MacGene (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:17AM
  • XHTML support (Score:4, Informative)

    by Xugumad (39311) on Thursday February 02 2006, @10:32AM (#14626065)
    IE still lacks XHTML support of any kind - I don't want to seem picky here, but it has been 6 years. Sure, I can have applications I work on spit out XHTML that's mostly like HTML 4, and send the appropriate MIME type based on the Accept header, but I'd really quite like to see IE support vaguely recent standards, y'know...
  • EULA by cg0def (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:36AM
  • IE7 not using .NET?? by toptech1021 (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:41AM
  • Acid2 test by marklark (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:49AM
  • Bugs in beta - not surprising, but... by kadathseeker (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @11:09AM
  • Let's explain something. by Vo0k (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @11:18AM
  • It's a trap! by kentyman (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @11:19AM
  • Why would it ever be perfect? by ajs318 (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @11:31AM
  • Excellent! by Gogo0 (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @12:01PM
  • Without question, this must be... by C-Diddy (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @12:11PM
  • Hm... by Godkar (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @12:27PM
  • There was an immediate comment by ClubStew (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @12:37PM
  • Wait until it's released! by caluml (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @12:41PM
  • Preliminary IE7 test results here (no joke) by Orrin Bloquy (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @01:18PM
  • Firrrr-Dah! by webzombie (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @03:41PM
  • Patched iecustom.dll fixed my only "bug" by HazE_nMe (Score:1) Friday February 03 2006, @12:06AM
  • Re:no way by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:37AM
    • Re:no way by glens (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:26AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not so fast.... by Savage-Rabbit (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:38AM
  • Re:Microsoft Beta Crap by polaughlin (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @08:58AM
  • Re:Microsoft Beta Crap by masklinn (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:01AM
  • Re:Note: Its BETA by xtracto (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:10AM
  • Re:Betas For Bugs BUT -- Also uninstalls IE 6? by elwin_windleaf (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:29AM
  • Re:Microsoft Beta Crap by plague3106 (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:35AM
  • Re:Mozilla developer considered "suspicious" by virg_mattes (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @09:35AM
  • Re:Ahh... what a relief... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kirsha (201264) on Thursday February 02 2006, @10:29AM (#14626042)
    Yes, specially since Firefox never had any bugs!

    Right?
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:If this were Google.... by Vo0k (Score:2) Thursday February 02 2006, @10:32AM
  • Re:Betas For Bugs BUT -- Also uninstalls IE 6? by Merle Darling (Score:1) Thursday February 02 2006, @01:23PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 26 replies beneath your current threshold.