Mozilla Firefox

[Brian]

I recently started using Mozilla Firefox as my default browser. It appears
to be much more stable and faster than IE. Any other users?

 

[History Fan]

Firefox has been getting a lot of (favorable) publicity the past few
months. Better speed and far better security are the main benefits people
mention. I use Firefox on another computer in our house. My only gripe is
that its not as easy to customize as Internet Explorer. Resizing and moving
fields around on the toolbar is not as easy......for me at least.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

Firefox has been getting a lot of (favorable) publicity the past
few
months. Better speed and far better security are the main benefits
people mention. I use Firefox on another computer in our house. My
only gripe is that its not as easy to customize as Internet Explorer.
Resizing and moving fields around on the toolbar is not as easy......for
me at least.

I tried it but it just didn't do it for me. I am still using Avant as it has
the best of both worlds. It's fast and has pop-up blocking, flash blocking,
ad blocking, tabbed browsing and is highly customizable and uses the IE
rendering engine. Worth a look IMO <www.avantbrowser.com>

 

[Guest]

I use Mozilla (older version). Of course it's better because it was developed
by us the users rather than Gates the abuser.

 

[siljaline]

I recently started using Mozilla Firefox as my default browser. It appears
to be much more stable and faster than IE. Any other users?

Moz is a good alternate Browser, yes.

Silj

--
siljaline

MS - MVP Windows (IE/OE) 2003/04 AH-VSOP
________________________________________
Security Tools Updates
http://forum.aumha.org/viewforum.php?f=31

(Reply to group, as return address
is invalid - that we may all benefit)

 

[Vito DeCarlo]

From the developers standpoint, Firefox has many advantages over the aged IE
browser, including:

PNG alpha channel support,
transparancy in CSS,
favicon.ico's that don't disappear on their own,
much quicker javascript response,
to name a few...

 

[Anil Bhattacharji]

Its lack of Visual filters is my only complaint now.

Anil

 

[C. A. Upsdell]

Its lack of Visual filters is my only complaint now.

These are a MS invention, not in the standards.

 

[Vince C.]

"Fuzzy Logic" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de [email protected]...
[...]

... and uses the IE rendering engine.

Oh, my! Better consider a true browser - i.e. rendering engine - that actually
complies to the standards then. I'd try Mozilla-based rendering.

Vince C.

 

[Robert Dell]

also, if you don't like the way mozilla works, you can rewrite it to
work as you please because you can get the source code as well.

"Fuzzy Logic" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de [email protected]...
[...]

... and uses the IE rendering engine.

Oh, my! Better consider a true browser - i.e. rendering engine - that actually
complies to the standards then. I'd try Mozilla-based rendering.

Vince C.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

"Fuzzy Logic" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de [email protected]...
[...]

... and uses the IE rendering engine.

Oh, my! Better consider a true browser - i.e. rendering engine - that
actually complies to the standards then. I'd try Mozilla-based
rendering.

Why should I when I am quite content with what I have?

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

also, if you don't like the way mozilla works, you can rewrite it to
work as you please because you can get the source code as well.

I have better things to do then code my own browser.

"Fuzzy Logic" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
[email protected]...
[...]

... and uses the IE rendering engine.

Oh, my! Better consider a true browser - i.e. rendering engine - that
actually complies to the standards then. I'd try Mozilla-based
rendering.

Vince C.

 

[C. A. Upsdell]

"Fuzzy Logic" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de [email protected]...
[...]

... and uses the IE rendering engine.

Oh, my! Better consider a true browser - i.e. rendering engine - that
actually complies to the standards then. I'd try Mozilla-based
rendering.

Why should I when I am quite content with what I have?

Three Firefox features you might like are: (a) a great popup blocker (with
IE this is available only to those with XP SP2), (b) tabbed browsing (for
many who use it, it is a godsend); (c) better security (really).

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

"Fuzzy Logic" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
[email protected]...
[...]
... and uses the IE rendering engine.

Oh, my! Better consider a true browser - i.e. rendering engine - that
actually complies to the standards then. I'd try Mozilla-based
rendering.

Why should I when I am quite content with what I have?

Three Firefox features you might like are: (a) a great popup blocker
(with IE this is available only to those with XP SP2), (b) tabbed
browsing (for many who use it, it is a godsend); (c) better security
(really).

My original post stated that I use Avant which is a 1MB shell for IE that
includes tabbed browsing, popup blocker, ad blocker, flash blocker, RSS
Reader, support for Google Toolbar and a lot of other goodies. I have tried
Firefox and prefer Avant <www.avantbrowser.com>. As for better security I've
locked down IE pretty well with most features disabled except for trusted
sites.

 

[Bill Martin]

Three Firefox features you might like are: (a) a great popup blocker (with

IE this is available only to those with XP SP2), (b) tabbed browsing (for
many who use it, it is a godsend); (c) better security (really).

Ok, I'll bite. Better security how? Fundamentally more secure design
somehow, or just a question of who did the better coding?

Bill -- (Remove KILLSPAM from my address to use it)

 

[C. A. Upsdell]

Ok, I'll bite. Better security how? Fundamentally more secure design
somehow, or just a question of who did the better coding?

From a Firefox FAQ (text in parentheses is mine):


- It is not integrated with Windows, which helps prevent viruses and hackers
from causing damage if they somehow manage to compromise Firefox.

- There is no support for VBScript and ActiveX, two technologies which are
the reasons for many IE security holes. (IE users may be able to disable
them, but typical IE users are not techies, and just use IE as it is.)

- No spyware/adware software can automatically install in Firefox just by
visiting a web site. (A survey in 1Q 2004 found that, of about 1M PCs
scanned, there were 300,000 incidences of "serious System Monitors and
Trojans")

- Firefox doesn't use Microsoft's Java VM, which has a history of more flaws
than other Java VMs.

- You have complete control over cookies.


Techies might know enough to lock down IE: but, as pointed out above, most
IE users are not techies.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

From a Firefox FAQ (text in parentheses is mine):


- It is not integrated with Windows, which helps prevent viruses and
hackers from causing damage if they somehow manage to compromise
Firefox.

This is probably the only REAL reason Firefox MAY be more secure. I say
may because even though this is often cited as an issue in the real world
I am not aware of any real life exploits of this.

- There is no support for VBScript and ActiveX, two technologies which
are the reasons for many IE security holes. (IE users may be able to
disable them, but typical IE users are not techies, and just use IE as
it is.)

These same users don't know they need to get updates for Firefox when
vulnerabilities are found in it. XP SP2 does a much better job of locking
these settings down.

- No spyware/adware software can automatically install in Firefox just
by visiting a web site. (A survey in 1Q 2004 found that, of about 1M
PCs scanned, there were 300,000 incidences of "serious System Monitors
and Trojans")

If IE is properly configured this can be prevented as well. Most spyware
is installed by users hitting OK to some prompt they don't understand or
downloading some 'freeware' that comes with more than than had
anticipated. Firefox won't help them there.

- Firefox doesn't use Microsoft's Java VM, which has a history of more
flaws than other Java VMs.

We wont mention the recent security patch for Sun Java that allowed a Java
application read/write access to the users machine:

http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-26-57591-1

FWIW Since XP SP1 IE uses Sun Java.

- You have complete control over cookies.

IE has this as well. I disable all cookies except for sites that I need.

Techies might know enough to lock down IE: but, as pointed out above,
most IE users are not techies.

I would argue that the biggest factor in browser/computer security is not
the software you are running but the person at the keyboard and how
familiar they are with their software settings and what to do/not do while
online.

 

[C. A. Upsdell]

These same users don't know they need to get updates for Firefox when
vulnerabilities are found in it. XP SP2 does a much better job of locking
these settings down.

Actually, Firefox has an automatic update built in. As for IE in XP SP2,
yes it is more secure than IE without SP2, but don't forget all the
customers that Microsoft abandoned.

If IE is properly configured this can be prevented as well. Most spyware
is installed by users hitting OK to some prompt they don't understand or
downloading some 'freeware' that comes with more than than had
anticipated. Firefox won't help them there.

"If IE is properly configured" ... obviously a lot of people don't have it
'properly configured', and probably would not know how to do it. IE out of
the box is simply too insecure.

"Firefox won't help them there" ... Firefox can help them, because it
doesn't provide the hooks that IE does.

We wont mention the recent security patch for Sun Java that allowed a Java
application read/write access to the users machine:

http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-26-57591-1

One patch. (Though admittedly Sun did a very poor job of publicizing this,
and a worse job of helping people to update.)

FWIW Since XP SP1 IE uses Sun Java.

It was my impression -- possibly mistaken -- that it came with no Java, and
that customers had to find a JVM to install.

IE has this as well. I disable all cookies except for sites that I need.

FF has better control.

I would argue that the biggest factor in browser/computer security is not
the software you are running but the person at the keyboard and how
familiar they are with their software settings and what to do/not do while
online.

Arguably true. But most people are incredibly unaware, so for such people
at least a more secure browser is a plus ... if they can be educated as to
what a browser is (many who use IE don't know!), and what alternatives are
available.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

Actually, Firefox has an automatic update built in. As for IE in XP
SP2, yes it is more secure than IE without SP2, but don't forget all the
customers that Microsoft abandoned.

Automatic updates may cover Firefox but what about any plugins the user
has likely installed?

As I said at the end of my post it's ultimately up to the user to properly
configure and maintain their software:

http://www.computersecurityday.org/pstr2004.htm

I don't have a car that get's oil changes by itself...ultimately the user
has to take some responsibilty.

"If IE is properly configured" ... obviously a lot of people don't have
it 'properly configured', and probably would not know how to do it. IE
out of the box is simply too insecure.

"Firefox won't help them there" ... Firefox can help them, because it
doesn't provide the hooks that IE does.

How is Firefox going to stop a user from downloading some free screensaver
that comes with spyware?

One patch. (Though admittedly Sun did a very poor job of publicizing
this, and a worse job of helping people to update.)

So the uneducated user is somehow better served by this?

It was my impression -- possibly mistaken -- that it came with no Java,
and that customers had to find a JVM to install.

My mistake. We setup a lot of Dell boxes and Dell installs Sun's Java. IE
no longer comes with any Java.

FF has better control.

If IE does exactly what I want I'm not sure what would be better?

Arguably true. But most people are incredibly unaware, so for such
people at least a more secure browser is a plus ... if they can be
educated as to what a browser is (many who use IE don't know!), and what
alternatives are available.

I am aware of this as I do user support for our company as well as
computer security. We lock down IE for the user. I would argue that for
the uneducated user using Firefox is similar to the misconception that a
SUV is 'safer' in bad conditions. This results in the user assuming they
have nothing to fear and in fact it puts them in greater jeopardy as they
may do things they wouldn't normally do because it's touted as 'safer'.

I like this quote:

If you want to minimize your exposure to automated attacks, using less
popular software might be a good idea. This is true not only for the OS
but also for productivity software, browsers, and mail clients. Yet simply
switching is not an effective security solution. Only if you use the
proper security tools and remain vigilant about staying up to date and
cautious about what you do online should you start to feel some sense of
comfort.

Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1618781,00.asp

 

[C. A. Upsdell]

Automatic updates may cover Firefox but what about any plugins the user
has likely installed?

Automatic checks for updates of extensions and themes as well.

As I said at the end of my post it's ultimately up to the user to properly
configure and maintain their software:

Given, however, that most users are naive about these issues, it is
essential to ensure that the naive user is protected right out of the box.

I don't have a car that get's oil changes by itself...ultimately the user
has to take some responsibilty.

But if there are a lot of leaks because of manufacturer's defects, maybe its
time for people to consider alternatives.

How is Firefox going to stop a user from downloading some free screensaver
that comes with spyware?

Sigh. IE offers all sorts of hooks which makes it easier for malware to do
damage. (Think of how many people who are complaining because their home
pages have been hijacked by malware like Cool Web Search which are beyond
the capabilities of ordinary users to uninstall.) FF simply does not offer
such hooks.

So the uneducated user is somehow better served by this?

Sun has to be pushed to do a better job here. They fought hard in court to
stop Microsoft from keeping its own JVM, so in fairness Sun should offer
automatic updates as well. It does not help much to offer a more secure
JVM, and then not to ensure that users keep up-to-date.

I am aware of this as I do user support for our company as well as
computer security. We lock down IE for the user. I would argue that for
the uneducated user using Firefox is similar to the misconception that a
SUV is 'safer' in bad conditions. This results in the user assuming they
have nothing to fear and in fact it puts them in greater jeopardy as they
may do things they wouldn't normally do because it's touted as 'safer'.

So you argue that it is better to sell unsafe cars, because safer cars might
encourage users to drive more dangerously? An interesting viewpoint.