Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Submission + - Internet Explorer 9 safest Web browser? (

Pigskin-Referee writes: When it comes to blocking malware, Microsoft's Internet Explorer 9 seems to come out on top, by leaps and bounds, over other browsers.

Tests by NSS Labs to "examine the ability of five different web browsers to protect users from socially-engineered malware" showed that IE9 was able to block this kind of threat 99 percent of the time, beating out Apple Safari 5, Google Chrome 12, Mozilla Firefox 4 and Opera 11.

The closest another Web browser got to that blocking-the-bad stuff rate was Chrome, at a very distant 13.2 percent. At the low end of the blockers was Opera, with a 6.1 percent rate.

NSS also tested socially engineered malware targeted at users in Asia Pacific and in Europe and found IE9 again seemed to blow the others away, with a 95 percent mean block rate in Asia and 92 percent in Europe. Chrome was again second, with a 15.4 percent block rate in Asia being its highest score. Opera again finished last.


Submission + - Internet Explorer 10 Drops Vista Support (

Pigskin-Referee writes: This week at Microsoft's MIX11 Web developer conference, the company surprised many by making a pre-release version of Internet Explorer 10 available—less than a month after IE9 came out in its final form. But another surprise was uncovered by Computerworld's Gregg Keizer: the next IE won't run on any OS before Windows 7, including Vista.

Microsoft took some heat when it came out that Internet Explorer 9 would leave millions of Windows XP users in the lurch, as the new browser would only run on Windows 7 and Vista. But the company confirmed that IE10 won't even run on Vista. In a statement to Computerworld, the company said "Windows Vista customers have a great browsing experience with IE9, but in building IE10 we are focused on continuing to drive the kind of innovation that only happens when you take advantage of the ongoing improvements in modern operating systems and modern hardware."

The Internet

Submission + - Comcast, Level 3 Still Negotiating (

Pigskin-Referee writes: Comcast, Level 3 Still Negotiating, and still having a very public fight

Earlier this month Level3 proclaimed that Comcast was violating net neutrality by demanding they pay a new connection fee to deliver Internet video services to Comcast customers. Comcast responded by claiming the dispute was just another peering dispute. Level 3 has continued to argue that Comcast is misleading people, this wasn't a normal peering dispute, and Comcast was simply trying to cash in on Level's handling of Netflix traffic. Whatever it is (and it has been amusing to see "peering experts" disagree completely on an agreement nobody has actually seen), Comcast says they're still working with Level3 on business arrangements and "revisions" to Comcast's initial proposal:

While we continue to believe the peering dispute that Level 3 initiated with Comcast is best resolved through discussions between engineers and business people, we think it is important to give a status update to the Internet community. Level 3 and Comcast engineering teams held several in-person discussions over the past 48 hours to discuss potential significant revisions to parts of our peering and direct connect architecture. Together, we constructively developed a potential new and different architectural approach that we proposed to trial with Level 3 as soon as next month. We proposed a mutual and relatively modest investment that would allow us both to better understand the traffic, routing, and economic considerations.

Comcast says Level3 walked away from negotiations and claims the company "effectively demanded unlimited capacity at our cost." Level3 hasn't fired back yet, as they've apparently been busy demanding NBC/Comcast merger conditions. However, Level3's argument has consistently been that Comcast is using their massive customer base as leverage to impose additional last mile tolls, and that Level3 isn't "demanding unlimited capacity" for free. Paying Comcast customers are simply accessing the content of their choice, argues Level3, and the idea this last mile exchange must be "balanced" is a red herring.

I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.