R
Rimmy
Oh but we all know how phantastic secure that browser is.John Jay Smith said:
D
Daniel Mandic
John said:
Can it be that the Internet have (a<merican=own) its own problems?
Best Regards,
Daniel Mandic
E
elaich
It's 10 times more secure than IE, just because of upgrades like these. IE
has holes over 2 years old that have never been patched.
R
Rimmy
elaich said:
and what do *you* know about how many holes are yet to patch in Firefoz?
A
Al Klein
IE has *KNOWN* holes that haven't been addressed.
R
Rimmy
Al Klein said:
So *DOES* firefoz
E
elaich
I KNOW of unpatched holes in IE, holes that can be exploited. When a
Firefox hole is found, it's fixed immediately.
Now run along, rimmy. Looks like the group picked up a new bozo.
K
Kram
I'm using Opera 9.01 right now, I keep going back and forth between Opera
and Firefox. It's a tough decision, wish I always had such tough
decisions. Both browsers are excellent.
and Firefox. It's a tough decision, wish I always had such tough
decisions. Both browsers are excellent.
R
Rimmy
elaich said:
Ehh, people believe in what they want to believe, it seems... What about
this (taken from ZDNet's gouru George Ou) http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=154
<quote>
It seems that Firefox users are having to update their browser almost as
often as Internet Explorer users. The new version of Firefox fixes eight
vulnerabilities , one that's particularly critical.
Something seems wrong about fixing a hole and not subsequently disclosing
the vulnerability. One can only speculate that there are more problems that
are unfixed or that the problem was a big, nasty, serious one that they don't
want us to know about.
</quote>
J
John Jay Smith
your logic is false..
since they patched these holes now, they existed for years!
since they patched these holes now, they existed for years!
J
John Jay Smith
It is a tough one.. yes... the only reason FF can keep up with opera is its
extensions
but those are made by others not mozilla....
extensions
but those are made by others not mozilla....
E
El Gee
RImmy:
You cannot fully rely on ZDNET. They are in bed with M$.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee Www.mistergeek.com <><
Know Christ, Know Peace -- No Christ, No Peace
Remove .yourhat to reply
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
R
Rimmy
El Gee said:
And who can I rely? Slashdot? Yeah, right
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
Sure, as you have in this case.
That page now says, "I have to retract any incorrect statements and
apologize to the Mozilla foundation [sic] for the misunderstanding
based on a bad source that seemed legitimate at the time." And he's
struck out the incorrect statements you had cut-and-pasted.
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
Could you post links to info about some of them, please?
B
bambam
He just about crossed out the whole article, bet that hurt.
C
Craig
bambam said:
He just about crossed out the whole article, bet that hurt.
Sure beats what his source (The Burning Edge) apparently did though...He
just hit the big <del> key as if it never happened.
mistake? where?
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
bambam said:
He just about crossed out the whole article, bet that hurt.
Sure beats what his source (The Burning Edge) apparently did
though...He just hit the big <del> key as if it never happened.
mistake? where?
I'm not what Ou was talking about, but I can take a guess. After a new
security fix is released, the Mozilla folks do wait a little while to
make all the technical details of the security issues available, to
give people enough time to update. Those details are in the bugzilla
entries. So for a while, the bugzilla entries aren't available to bad
guys or to "gourus" with weblogs.
During that time, the only info available about those bugs is in the
Mozilla Foundation Security Advisories. Ou says his editor gave him
the link to them after he had published his incorrect blog entry.
It's amazing that he didn't know about them before that; they're
easily found by anyone visiting mozilla.org looking for security info,
so I guess he didn't look for security info.
<http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/>
Jesse Ruderman of The Burning Edge doesn't link to MFSAs, but rather to
bugzilla entries. There'd be no point in linking to bugzilla entries
which weren't available, so I guess he listed them as "undisclosed",
and Ou misunderstood that to mean that the Mozilla folks had released
/no/ information about them. Once the bugzilla entries were viewable,
my guess is that Ruderman just replaced the "undisclosed" bit with
links to bugzilla; this wasn't correcting a mistake, just updating the
info.
Again, I'm just guessing based on the way Mozilla works and the way The
Burning Edge works, but ISTM Ou wrote an embarrassingly wrong blog
entry and didn't want to take full responsibility for his
misunderstanding and lack of research.
C
Craig
»Q« said:bambam wrote:
»
What about this (taken from ZDNet's gouru George Ou)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=154
That page now says, "I have to retract any incorrect statements
and apologize to the Mozilla foundation [sic] for the
misunderstanding based on a bad source that seemed legitimate at
the time." And he's struck out the incorrect statements you had
cut-and-pasted.
He just about crossed out the whole article, bet that hurt.
Sure beats what his source (The Burning Edge) apparently did
though...He just hit the big <del> key as if it never happened.
mistake? where?
I'm not what Ou was talking about, but I can take a guess...
It's not the first time Ou's opened his mouth w/o first checking the
facts. His hatchet-job on OpenOffice comes to mind. Sad thing is, we
need a voice to balance the FOSS evangelists' view...But Ou continues to
/bury/ his credibility.
-Craig