Experts Say To Switch Browsers In Light of IE Vulnerability 455
It appears that the exploit in IE briefly mentioned a few days ago is causing a serious reaction: SteveAU writes "Microsoft has begun flooding media outlets with information advising users to switch to an alternate browser while a serious security flaw is being patched. The flaw, which affects all versions of Microsoft Internet Explorer, is manifested via malware and has infected over 6,000 sites thus far. Microsoft states: 'The vulnerability exists as an invalid pointer reference in the data-binding function of Internet Explorer. When data binding is enabled (which is the default state), it is possible under certain conditions for an object to be released without updating the array length, leaving the potential to access the deleted object's memory space. This can cause Internet Explorer to exit unexpectedly, in a state that is exploitable.'" According to the BBC report, though, Microsoft itself is only asking that users be "vigilant while it investigated and prepared an emergency patch"; it's outside experts who say to dump IE (at least for now).
Update: 12/16 21:11 GMT by KD : Microsoft will issue an emergency critical update for IE tomorrow.
Update: 12/16 21:11 GMT by KD : Microsoft will issue an emergency critical update for IE tomorrow.
Red header (Score:2, Funny)
Whoa what happened to Slashdot's main page...
This story's title header was red.. Is that like "woop woop warning warning" red? Or something else?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, never mind it's gone now.. I guess it's because the story was new.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Normally this is reserved for subscribers, so maybe it was a subliminal attempt to get you to subscribe ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, is this whole red thing some kind of mass troll, or is a new format change about to be hoist on us all? Screenshots, or it never happened.
Re:Red header (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess some good came out of it after all.
Re:Red header (Score:5, Insightful)
For all Slashdot's leanings toward open source and hatred of all things microsfot or proprietary, does anyone else find that Slashdot itself acts like a closed source company?
You mean like how they host the code that runs their site on a publicly available CVS server and FTP site? Open source means that you can modify the code however you want, not that other people will modify the code however you want.
Re:Red header (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but I think the more valid point (the one the parent was trying to make) is that ./ would do well to have some sort of Changelog page that also includes changes to come. This way, folks aren't "adjusting their television sets" when the feature de jour makes an appearance. They'll have a place to RTFM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A changelog would imply they're following some kind of "design" or "plan" when they're clearly not. They make changes to people using the "version 1 discussion system" obviously intended for users of the "version 2 discussion system", like the Users page. They randomly break things, then half-repair them. i.e. listing the wrong content (submitted articles), then 'fixing' it by showing the intended content (recently posted comments) wrongly (incorrect scores).
Oh, and they're owned by the company that runs So
Re:Red header (Score:5, Interesting)
I have nothing against "AJAX", I just have this thing against "ugly."
Slashdot had a huge competition to design a new look only a couple of years ago, and it actually looked pretty good for a long time. Then, relatively recently, they've decided they wanted to add dynamic features, and the look has gone into the crapper. The only recourse is to keep Slashdot set to "Classic" appearance, which is less vomit-inducing, but the "version 2" appearance keeps leaking in.
See, for example, these bugs:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2144813&group_id=4421&atid=104421 [sourceforge.net]
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2159787&group_id=4421&atid=104421 [sourceforge.net]
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=2348173&group_id=4421&atid=104421 [sourceforge.net]
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=1939546&group_id=4421&atid=104421 [sourceforge.net]
https://sourceforge.net/tracker2/?func=detail&aid=1939531&group_id=4421&atid=104421 [sourceforge.net]
and probably a dozen others I've noticed but not bothered to submit. (BTW, if anybody at Slashdot tells you to submit your issue as a bug report to get it looked at, they're lying. They never look at bug reports.)
Re:Red header (Score:5, Funny)
Obama performs stupid /. changelog tricks with Ubuntu!
Frontpage material
In other news ... (Score:5, Funny)
Water still wet.
Pope still Catholic.
Re:In other news ... (Score:5, Funny)
and chairs still fly
Re:In other news ... (Score:5, Funny)
and chairs still fly
Not this week, I heard the chair budget got cut on account of increased costs from the United Union of Broken Windows.(Look hard for the double meaning there)
Re:In other news ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news ... (Score:4, Funny)
happy flamebait!
Re:In other news ... (Score:5, Funny)
Otherwise known as "Leroy".
Re:In other news ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Church of England does not consider itself the only true Christian church in the world - they recognize the Old Catholics, for example.
And yes, Anglicans consider themselves to belong to the Catholic Church of all faithful Christians, just as any other Christian denomination that subscribes to the Nicene Creed (this includes all Protestants, too). It stems from the following line in the Creed:
"We believe ... In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church"
(note that this was written before the Great East-West Schism)
Here [wikipedia.org] are some, hopefully, more coherent explanations of this. I'm not a theologian, so I can only push the limits of sanity so far :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I have not. Every Christian church considers itself the (or a part of a) "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" from the Nicene creed [wikipedia.org]. Roman Catholics are simply the largest denomination, and the most dominant in areas in which the modern Western civilization arose, so they monopolized the word (at least in European languages). But you can ask any local Orthodox
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you actually read about the Nontrinitarians at your link, you'll see that no original Nontrini
another OS (Score:4, Interesting)
Next week's news: "Microsoft experts" advise users to switch to temporarily switch to a different OS, as they prepare to roll out Windows 7... ... jokes aside I haven't been THAT peeved with Vista. The interface is awkward, file transfers are dramatically slower than Ubuntu, and downloading a file over the internet invokes a 20 second freeze in Firefox. Other than that, it seems more stable than XP, and is responsive enough on my recently upgraded desktop.
It has been relegated to a game console status though, at least for me.
Re:another OS (Score:4, Insightful)
"PEBKAC - problem existing between keyboard and chair".
Ahhh okay. I don't see how Firefox freezing for twenty seconds is a problem caused by the user. Why do you blame the user and not the programmers?
Re:In other news ... (Score:5, Informative)
so it's not actually Microsoft that's suggesting that people switch browsers, Microsoft has only "urged people to be vigilant while it investigated and prepared an emergency patch to resolve it."
Re:In other news ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is what Microsoft always says: You're gonna get screwed if you use our crappy browser, but at least we warned you.
No software is perfect, and everything has security flaws, but it seems to me, even 8 years after Microsoft (claimed they) took a serious position on security, they still seem to have an order of magnitude more problems than everyone else. Yeah, I know, they're the biggest target, but for crying out loud, Google wrote chrome from scratch* in less time than IE7 was in beta (or if not, it wasn't too far off) and came up with a browser that blows away IE in every single way except the number of desktops that have it installed.
Microsoft is at the point where they can do little but admit that there's nothing constructive they can do any more. It's been obvious for years to people in the know, but they've reached a point of diminishing returns: It obviously takes more effort to keep their bloated corpse of an operating system (and its 10-years-out-of-date browser) just working and free of 0-day exploits (leave alone catching up with the competition) than it would be to start over like Apple did with OSX.
How much longer will it take for MS to wake up? When the amount of effort needed for them to keep Windows limping along exceeds to man-power of the entire planet? It probably won't begin until the chair-tosser-in-chief is gone, and then it take years for them to recover. It used to be that Microsoft put as much effort into maintaining their monopoly as they did in their software. Now it seems maintaining their monopoly receives all but the smallest fraction of attention. The rest goes to plugging holes in the about-to-collapse dyke.
* For certain values of "from scratch"
Cycle of Abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
so it's not actually Microsoft that's suggesting that people switch browsers
Au contraire. "I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw". Translation: We've given you countless reasons to switch already. Here's one more.
IE users (and Windows users in general) remind me of the plight of the abused spouse, caught in the endless cyle of abuse [heart-2-heart.ca]. This is phase 2. A fix has been promised for tomorrow. That's phase 3. How many times is the average victim victimized before they leave? Way too many.
db
Sorry (Score:3)
Never been Catholic.
Re:In other news ... (Score:5, Funny)
A: A physics-nazi that feels compelled to scrutinize the minutia of jokes.
Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Funny)
I won one of these a few days ago. Just to let you know, they don't actually give you an iPod directly. Instead, they ask for your bank account information and deposit $250 (they say it's for tax purposes). I should be getting my money any day now!
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Informative)
sounds like a stereotypical trojan/adware/malware infection. at least all you're getting are pop-ups. the last one i had to deal with at work also used DNS-hijacking to redirect any webpage request to their spam (porn) site, preventing any web surfing. to make things worse, it wouldn't even allow the user to run certain programs, like notepad, Hijack This!, Internet Explorer (this malware targeted Firefox).
a fresh install is probably the easiest/quickest way to fix it, but it's not the only solution. with a little sleuthing (Windows Task Manager & Hijack This!) you can usually identify the file & process name(s) of the malware. all the times i've had to deal with that sort of thing, i found the solution in forum discussions on tech support sites (found by googling the file/process name of the trojan). if you're lucky, someone will have made a cleaner program for that particular malware program.
one of the more frequently encountered malware/adware programs is SmitFraud [wikipedia.org]. that's one i've encountered several times. it cannot be removed by AV programs or spyware/malware removers (though it'll try to get you to purchase and install rogue AV/Anti-Spyware programs). if you do have SmitFraud, then your best shot is SmitFraudFix [urz.free.fr].
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was listening to BBC Radio 1, and they had a news item about it this morning. But I think GP is right - I can't imagine it will make many users switch. However, as more and more people within the technical community become jaded with the consistent poor quality in Microsoft's offerings, MS will inevitably loose mind-share, and hence their strangle hold on the industry will loosen.
It's this sort of thing that made me switch over to Linux a year ago. I haven't looked back.
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Funny)
Non technical users are getting the message. (Score:5, Interesting)
In BBC Radio 5 Live an MS representative was giving the suggested steps to protect Windows machines, the full 4 of them.
The newsreader and presenter, Anita Anand [bbc.co.uk] asked if it would not be easier just to switch to another browser.
The MS guy replied with the platitudes to be expected, the important point is that mainstream non technical media are getting the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Same thing with backups, they're never taken seriously until the company loses all its data and goes out of business.
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Corps won't change either, cause their most computer-illiterate users happens to be their CIO and his/her underlings.
If something huge happens, FF may actually get into corps even without a Mozilla-created, Corp-approved MSI package.
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, this mostly comes down to the fact that Windows doesn't have anything nearly as nice as real package management(WSUS for MS apps and drivers only is the closest they really come), so apps end up rolling their own with varying degrees of success, which sucks. If we were running *nix this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, that isn't really my option. If FF had a decently manageable MSI option, I'd probably install it on all user machines tomorrow; but until then I'll have to stick with using it on a more limited scale(You think I would use IE for anything beyond the broken intranet stuff?)
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/ [frontmotion.com]
Like this?
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really it's not that simple. I was a supporter of firefox in my organization, and to my surprise I pretty much won. We use Firefox for nearly everything. Nearly. I have content adviser turned on for each of the machines which for the most part cripples IE and makes it nearly impossible to actually browse the web. IE is still very necessary for many sites which are required for our operation. Not internal "we developed in house badly designed pages", but actual corporate sites to manage various account
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We're writing software that should be accessible via ssh and web, so the solution was simple: everyone will use Macs (honestly, it took me ONE day to get used
Re:Those that haven't already changed... (Score:4, Funny)
Really it's not that simple. I was a supporter of firefox in my organization, and to my surprise I pretty much won. We use Firefox for nearly everything. Nearly. I have content adviser turned on for each of the machines which for the most part cripples IE and makes it nearly impossible to actually browse the web. IE is still very necessary for many sites which are required for our operation. Not internal "we developed in house badly designed pages", but actual corporate sites to manage various accounts on the Internet. That's surprising in 2008 that companies could have their head stuck in the sand that badly, but they seem to be all over the place... and unfortunately in places required for essential function.
I'm fortunate that the medium sized company goes along with this, because in any other organization we'd just use IE and that would be the end of it. Just managing the work arounds has actually been a lot of work, although in my mind it comes out to a wash in being a bit more proactive in preventing the vulnerabilities that flood IE.
You can do much better than that. I duct tape huge boxing gloves to my users hands, that way they can't type malware in using a notepad and Alt key codes. I've also banned people carrying in USB peripherals (might have malware), laptops (might have malware), mobile phones (distracting and pointless) and A4 binders (might have malware written out as a long list of Alt key codes). I've also removed all the phones (someone might whistle malware down the phone to a 56K modem). Though I've covered all the ports, USB, network, modem and so on with epoxy resin. Still I believe in defense in depth.
Some of my users have found out how to remove the gloves with their teeth, even though my security guards will beat anyone they see trying to do that. I've asked the CEO if I can amputate their hands and leave them with bandaged stumps but he obviously was too 'non technical' to understand. He just shook his head and walked off. Maybe muzzling persistent rule breakers after the third beating would be a acceptable. Actually I want to muzzle and blindfold everyone all the time and cut off the power. Still, even though the solution I have is not perfect it is very secure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corps won't change either, cause their most computer-illiterate users happens to be their CIO and his/her underlings.
Many "corps" will not switch because they have internal applications that require IE for some reason (ActiveX...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Vulnerability (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to open iexplore.exe in my home computers is through the "run" tab. This is to prevent unfit users from not using one of the other browsae. I seldom format & install windows now, unlike before I took that measure.
Re:Vulnerability (Score:5, Funny)
This is to prevent unfit users from not using one of the other browsae.
for everyone's sake, I hope that's a fucking typo.
Re:Vulnerability (Score:5, Funny)
This is to prevent unfit users from not using one of the other browsae.
for everyone's sake, I hope that's a fucking typo.
No it's not a typo, there are many wordae like that.
Re:Vulnerability (Score:4, Informative)
I just tried at my work computer, it opens Firefox on WinXP. I guess that's because Firefox is my default browser.
Microsoft should just scrap IE (Score:4, Insightful)
Just start over. The thing's a chunk of crap that doesn't render stuff properly and must be a nightmare to maintain.
Pick another rendering engine - WebKit or Gecko - and build a browser around it. Maybe provide IE classic for those poor schmucks who are at jobs with crappily coded intranet apps full of client side VBScript, but don't make it the default.
Re:Microsoft should just scrap IE (Score:5, Insightful)
They won't, because there are only two things shoring up their critical desktop OS monopoly in the enterprise at this point: Office and IE.
User and developer dependencies on IE's peculiarities makes not having access to Windows inconvenient. Microsoft's own web software are designed to provide users of alternative browsers with inferior experience.
Keeping those "poor schmucks" dependent on IE is worth a great deal of money to MS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IE has tons of backwards-compatibility cruft. They can't just yank it; there'd be thousands of apps that literally couldn't run because they depended on some obscure IE feature.
That said, Microsoft *does* have an excellent (if slow) rendering engine named Orcas. As opposed to IE's engine, named Trident. It's used for their also-excellent Expression Web product. And, I think, Visual Studio, but I don't have that installed so don't quote me on that.
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly, making IE standards compliant is a big drive in IE8. But they still can't let go of the backwards compatibility that would allow people to keep from using their shitty intranet apps.
Seems like a waste of effort. Build new IE with something quick and easy to use, and maintain classic IE for corporate distribution.
And, yeah, it wasn't a suggestion I'd expect to be taken seriously in Redmond. Even if the programmers wanted to do it that way, it'd never fly with the executives.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people can get their intranet apps working on firefox. Plenty of places are just afraid to do it as it represents a releasing of control in the corporate workplace.
Re:Microsoft should just scrap IE (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, believe me, I've done a lot of corporate consulting, and there's plenty of places with stuff that they'd have to recode to move off IE. Stuff that uses client side VBScript and extensive ActiveX controls. Sometimes it's 3rd party apps from a timesheet system vendor or whatever.
It already works. So why recode just to make the computer geeks happy?
Re:Microsoft should just scrap IE (Score:4, Interesting)
So why recode just to make the computer geeks happy?
Who cares about the computer geeks?
Recode to make the Chief Security Officer happy.
bear. woods. pope. hat. (Score:2)
Now all we need is a certain percentage of people who try the fox being either to taken with it or too lazy to change it back.
Poor MS, what with Vista they have been having a bad time of it recently.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Poor Microsoft? You've gotta be kidding me. If your main products are crap, you get what you deserve. Anyone who thinks that Windows or IE are great obviously hasn't even tried anything else seriously.
At the Trenton Computer Fair earlier this year I was handed an Ubuntu disc. I've subsequently loaned this disc to others, made copies, etc., etc, and everyone that actually put it in their computer and tried it came back to me to te
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am pretty sure that some risks cannot be written off in a contract and you are always liable.
But, INAL and I am sure that most of the people who browse this will know more than I do - so whats the real angle here?
Can MS simply add #
Is any browser safe? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I don't use IE for most things, but I don't use FireFox for reasons of security at all; just because the extensions rock.
To my mind, all browsers have more or less the same number of security problems; name me a single mainstream browser that's not had a vulnerability this year for example.
So in other words, we should find ways to seal off browsers from the normal desktop; lock it down in some low-rights, sandboxed safe environment planning that when it is hacked, it at least will be very limited in scope.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why if I had to choose my browser on purely default security scope, I'd go for IE7/Vista or some customised FireFox setup that nailed it to the floor.
Just a thought.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is any browser safe? (Score:5, Informative)
Neither is Internet Explorer. There is nothing about IE that has anything to do with the kernel. You confusion lies in the fact that you confuse "operating system" specifically with "kernel" which is not completely correct. Absolutely no part or component of Internet Explorer resides in privileged memory.
Internet Explorer, however, is a part of the operating system in that a number of the libraries used in Internet Explorer the browser are modular and can be used through other applications, both first party and third party. Various components of the Explorer shell, such as Active Desktop, are accomplished through hosting the HTML renderer of Internet Explorer. Many applications also rely on those libraries are a variety of functions from rendering HTML to performing simple FTP commands. They could use other means to accomplish the same tasks, but the Internet Explorer API makes it exceedingly easy.
So, no component of Internet Explorer is hosted within the kernel at all. However, Internet Explorer is a part of the operating system in that it is a constituent component of the platform API expected to exist for applications. Removal of those components will break scores of applications.
Note that this vulnerability also does not impact Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows Vista running within Protected Mode. Yes, the vulnerability can still be exploited and the arbitrary code executed but that code will be contained within a fairly tight sandbox which lacks the privileges to write data to any location, including the user's own profile, even if the current user is running as Administrator. Google Chrome on Windows Vista is the only other browser to use this functionality. No browser can completely prevent buffer overruns in loaded native plug-ins, but browsers may mitigate the effects by sandboxing themselves. Other browsers should take note and follow suit.
Re:Is any browser safe? (Score:5, Informative)
IE never was "welded to the kernel."
IE exports a COM object, which lets developers add HTML rendering to an application with one line of code. So, that's one reason why they don't want you uninstalling it - HTML rendering is something a lot of Windows applications are expecting the OS to export.
The closest it came to "welded to the kernel" was Active Desktop where the Windows shell used it to render a web page on your desktop. I think it was also used if you had an HTML background for folders, too. Not sure what happened to it in XP or Vista.
About the only things that count as kernel-welded in Windows land are device drivers and services, of which IE is neither.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is any browser safe? (Score:5, Insightful)
So in other words, we should find ways to seal off browsers from the normal desktop; lock it down in some low-rights, sandboxed safe environment planning that when it is hacked, it at least will be very limited in scope.
Except the browser is an excellent application to hack, even if sandboxed, because it has network access and is used for nearly everything these days, including online banking. If you want to be safer you'll have to use separate sandboxed browsers for finance vs email vs ... vs random browsing.
Re:Is any browser safe? (Score:5, Funny)
...use separate sandboxed browsers for finance vs email vs ... vs porn browsing.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except the browser is an excellent application to hack, even if sandboxed, because it has network access and is used for nearly everything these days, including online banking. If you want to be safer you'll have to use separate sandboxed browsers for finance vs email vs ... vs random browsing.
Isn't Chrome meant to do this? Each tab in Chrome is an individual sandboxed process.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless the sandbox is created with a fresh copy of the executable every time it starts... Start Browser, OS copies a clean executable/settings into a sandbox and runs said executable. Upon exiting, sandbox is deleted along with any garbage that was injected by malicious sites.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well phishing doesn't depend on client side vulnerability anyway--it's a social hack.
Re:Is any browser safe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Few browsers enable privilege escalation like IE does on a regular basis.
Re:Is any browser safe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's sort of like wearing a web-condom: used to be that going bare-browser was mostly safe as long as you were careful who you interacted with, but nowadays even the pretty ones can burn you, so your best bet is to just wrap your tool ... with a sandbox. (I'm still working on the analogy)
Try adding a reference to "extensions". That'll help.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is any browser safe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox to me is more secure in a way because it usually has security patches released within 48 hours or so after a 0-day exploit, sometimes even within 24 hours. Microsoft on the other hand has been known to leave 0-day exploits unpatched for months.
Also, Microsoft patches have to wait for their nightly automatic install or when a user shuts down their PC. I believe Firefox checks every time it is launched for updates and installs them. The odds are, you are going to get patched quicker using Firefox then IE.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all - Firefox was designed with security in mind.
IE was not. That alone is enough to drive me off IE. Go to the Risks digest and read what Bob Atkinson wrote about Authenticode - he basically says that a broken screen saver has higher priority than security issues - and authenticode is the security technology behind ActiveX. And Atkinson is the fucking author of authenticode.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/php/risks/search.php?query=authenticode [ncl.ac.uk]
And what you want - that technology already exists. A com
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No sitation, I was only going by the historical background of both browsers. Firefox has its roots in Mozilla, which was...less than stellar back in the days. Of course, everything changed and that background is fairly irrelevent now.
And the vulnerability is an issue because not everyone is on Vista, not everyone has UAC on, and most people (including me until 2 days ago!) know about the memory protection feature (plus, while I didn't hit any, it supposingly can have some incompatibility issues with some IE
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No sitation, I was only going by the historical background of both browsers. Firefox has its roots in Mozilla, which was...less than stellar back in the days.
Netscape/Mozilla was never particularly bad with respect to security. Certainly it wasn't any worse than IE.
Of course, everything changed and that background is fairly irrelevent now.
Agreed.
And the vulnerability is an issue because not everyone is on Vista, not everyone has UAC on, and most people (including me until 2 days ago!) know about the memory protection feature (plus, while I didn't hit any, it supposingly can have some incompatibility issues with some IE plugins in 32 bit... Silverlight, Flash and Java work fine though).
So, people could upgrade to Vista, leave UAC on (with attendant annoyances), and learn about and turn on the memory protection feature (assuming it's not on by default), or... they could install Firefox. Time and expense for the first option: many hours and hundreds of dollars. Time and expense for the second option: 15 minutes and no cost.
I realize you were responding to claims that IE
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Choosing a browser with security as the only concern? Opera.
"Eeeeverybody's getting secure browsers!"
"You get a secure browser!"
"YOU get a secure browser!"
"You get a secure browser!"
Wrong summary (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see anywhere in TFA that Microsoft has advised people to use another browser. It's other experts. So this is a "dog bites man" story, not the other way around.
Now, if you don't mind, I'll go back to my nap.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm no fan of MS... (Score:4, Insightful)
.. in fact I'm a diehard linux fanman (too old to be a fanboi!)
But even I'm getting sick of the hysterical anti MS reaction every single time some exploit appears for some or other program. Some people particularly media commentators need to get a sense of perspective and understand that no complex piece of software can really ever be bug free and these sorts of errors will creep in occasionally. Who hear who codes in C or C++ hasn't had a similar bug in their own code from time to time even though you were sure you'd debugged everything and the code passed through testing fine? Probably all of us. So look around you to spot the glass before you start chucking any stones!
Re: (Score:2)
Who hear who codes in C or C++ hasn't had a similar bug in their own code from time to time even though you were sure you'd debugged everything and the code passed through testing fine?
That's why you should use Java. This would never happen!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh... You'd just have other exploitable issues, either within the Java JVM or in poorly written code- just not the same class of them. I don't place blind faith in a language to clean up after myself.
The shrieking is a bit tedious (Score:3, Funny)
Especially since it happens nearly every day. Oh noes!!!! Everybody panic!!! Another exploit in Windows/Office/Explorer. WOE is us!!!
Perhaps if we phrased it like a sponsored ad: "Todays exploit brought to you by yet another buffer overflow error!" "This morning's gaping security hole sponsored by Stormworm. Stormworm: The worm of choice for the discerning mailbot."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm no fan of MS... (Score:4, Insightful)
Usability is inversely proportional to security
This is a common myth.
I'll grant that there is often tension between security and usability, but to say that they're inversely proportional is flat wrong. It's very easy to build software that is neither usable nor secure and it's possible to build software that is both very usable and very secure.
Further, the usability/security tension that exists in some situations is irrelevant in the present context. This security flaw -- like many, many others -- has no relationship whatsoever to usability. IE would be equally usable (or not) if the flaw didn't exist, and the usability of IE will not decrease once the hole is repaired.
In short, your statement is both a red herring, and wrong.
Re:I'm no fan of MS... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have anything more recent than 10 years ago?
It's not unreasonable, after all the security improvements that have been put into Vista, that the prevailing attitude may have changed somewhat in a decade.
No, Microsoft did NOT say to use another browser (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA.
Said Mr Ferguson: "If users can find an alternative browser, then that's good mitigation against the threat."
But Microsoft counselled against taking such action.
"I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.
Uhhh, no... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft has begun flooding media outlets with information advising users to switch to an alternate browser while a serious security flaw is being patched.
FTA:
But Microsoft counselled against taking such action.
"I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.
Not trying to downplay the clear reasoning behind switching browsers, but the summary is just blatantly incorrect in this case.
Will this flaw affect "old" IE browsers? (Score:3, Funny)
My laptop has an older IE; version 5 I believe..... will this flaw affect that too, or is it just a flaw in the current version of IE?
Strange news (Score:3, Interesting)
People should go there and read it. (Score:4, Insightful)
And then read the fallout where the readers debunk what the article says, including posts to problems with IE that for some reason were completely ignored when doing the compilation.
I will just point out that Firefox is #1 because they *patched* the most vulnerabilities.
Only in Bizarro Planet this would define the most unsafe application.
Not MS, it's Trend (Score:3, Informative)
"In this case, hackers found the hole before Microsoft did," said Rick Ferguson, senior security advisor at Trend Micro. "This is never a good thing."
Then
Said Mr Ferguson: "If users can find an alternative browser, then that's good mitigation against the threat."
So NO, it's not Microsoft who recommends switching browsers, they even say
"I cannot recommend people switch due to this one flaw," said John Curran, head of Microsoft UK's Windows group.
I wanted to clarify it since the story wasn't that clear...
Only 0.02% ?? (Score:3, Interesting)
The internet is large. One out of every 5000 sites is a lot. Cut your losses and run while you can.
Unfortunately, not practical (Score:4, Informative)
As much as I'd like to push out firefox for my users, I have many users in a domain environment with mapped applications directory; firefox is simply unmanageable in this environment.
Of all the improvements they are making in firefox, they are ignoring a potentially very large audience by not including some way to manage the browser in a corporate environment.
It can be done... sort of. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been able to run Firefox to some extent in a corporate environment and keep it updated - I just create an MSI package whenever a new version of Firefox comes out (3.0.3, 3.0.4, etc) and then roll it out via group policy. Then I just let my users know they should use Firefox for all of their browsing, and use IE only for craptastic activex/VB intranet apps.
You're right though - they really need to make it easier. Keeping plugins, etc updated is impossible.
What a crock of bullshit title (Score:3, Informative)
"Microsoft has begun flooding media outlets with information advising users to switch to an alternate browser while a serious security flaw is being patched."
Then
According to the BBC report, though, Microsoft itself is only asking that users be "vigilant while it investigated and prepared an emergency patch"; it's outside experts who say to dump IE (at least for now).
So, which is it?
It's bullshit editing like this that keeps slashdot and other sites like it from being taken seriously by anyone other than the fervent geeks that perpetuate it. Seriously.
When a title and a summary both contain conflicting statements, the article shouldn't even run.
--Toll_Free
Summary wording flawed (Score:3, Informative)
The article linked in the text Microsoft has begun flooding media outlets with information advising users to switch to an alternate browser while quotes a Trend Micro spokesman advising users to switch and a Microsoft spokesman explicitly saying he can't advise users to switch over one flaw. This contradicts the summary text.
Re: (Score:2)
According to an earlier story I read on Slashdot Microsoft said it effects all versions of IE.