BBC says "Avoid Explorer" 569
twitter writes "Citing security flaws that lead to ads and spys on Microsoft infested computers the BBC in this article recomends avoiding Internet Explorer." Ain't it the truth? Mostly its about adware & spyware and other wretched bits of software that make the internet suck a little
more each day.
I use (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I use (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty good, fast, some nice features and who knows I might even pony up some dollars to remove the ads. I've got a slow PC, so it really shows up renering speed. Mozilla really sucked. Might have to give Pheonix a go when I can be bothered with the d/load.
Statically Linked (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I use mozilla with the i.e. theme! (Score:5, Informative)
Mozilla is a better browser than i.e. in a lot of ways (tabs, standards compliance, etc.), but the big one for me is that i.e. is essentially an ad delivery systerm. So there's not much we can do to selectively block cookies, or graphics from specific servers, or pop-ups, etc. And I don't like the prospect of being at the mercy of unscrupulous companies who wish to make changes without my knowledge or consent. (Actually, what I'd really like is a way to get rid of i.e. entirely [litepc.com] on w2k/xp.)
That explains mozilla, but why the i.e. skin? Well, the default mozilla skins are not exactly beautiful. And my wife is highly resistant to change of any kind when it comes to her computer, and with the i.e. skin I was able to switch her w2k machine to mozilla without even a word of protest. Of course, at this point she's so used to tabbed browsing and the pop-up blocker that she wouldn't switch back anyway. And me, I don't have to worry about some exploit using i.e. to take her computer down.
Actually, I even use the i.e. skin on my linux box. Just for the perverse fun of it, I guess. I also have a nice wallpaper from w2k of a diver against a blue sky. It's very spiffy, though naturally I GIMPed out the little windows logo first
Re:I use mozilla with the i.e. theme! (Score:3, Informative)
Nice.
So you'll basically never be able to update that box then?
Update your machines, people! [microsoft..com]
Re:You are exposing your wife to great peril. (Score:5, Informative)
Explorer? (Score:4, Funny)
BTW, being Explorer unseparable from Windows, avoiding Explorer is avoiding Windows. Am I right, Bill?
Why? (Score:3, Funny)
And as far as IIS goes, Apache hasn't had a spotless security record.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The unknown issues.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
The unknown issues.''
While obviously true, it doesn't really help to talk about unknown issues when assessing the security of a system. It's a safe bet that there are unknown issues with any piece of software, especially a complex one. The argument that closed-source software isn't open to as much peer review as is open-source software doesn't really hold ground. It's perfectly possible for closed-source software to be more extensively audited than an open-source alternative.
What does make Windows insecure is it's single-user nature. Even the NT-based systems running on many desktops these days, while technically capable of using a good security model, are often run in single-user mode, meaning that if that user's account is broken into, there are virtually no restrictions on what harm (or good?) can be done.
Many software from the Big Satan of Redmond suffers from inherently insecure design. Windows (not NT)'s single-user nature, weak protection of address spaces (know those little programs that can be used to read other program's text fields, indeed even password fields?), a web browser that doubles as a full-access file manager with the ability to run programs, a mail client that can and will automagically open (or even run) attachments, a scripting language so powerful that a component as central the registry can be modified with it that can be used in officially non-executable things as office documents and webpages, the list goes on. This is something MicroSoft can be blamed for, should be blamed for, and should be ashamed of. This is what makes a system with pretty much any MicroSoft software on it insecure. And the best thing is that others are trying hard to copy some of these `features'.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The minor difference that you fail to mention is that for open source the possible ways to assess the security are two: 1) rely on the quality of the auditing and testing from the creator or other third party 2) test and audit the code yourself or by a contracted (by you) party. For closed source you only have 1 and so you have to trust the creator & his friends. Now, a lot of people is very good at producing secure software and as you say it's perfectly possible for closed-source to be more extensively tested and audited, but what Microsoft has shown up to now is a complete disregard of the problem. So, the "unknown issues" cannot be dismissed that easily. If we talk about Swiss cheese, you'll agree with me that there are lots of holes, even without looking at the piece I have in my mouth
(for the single-user thing: Apple has done a better job in much less time with OSX)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Another one: Windows Messenging Service (not MSN Messenger, but the alerter) lets anyone put a popup on your computer if they have the IP address or DN. Just lovely. This is a security issue because the popup can be used as part of a social engineering attack.
The list goes on and on.
not true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're really only relatively safe and secure as long as you're in the minority. Security through obscurity.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
In actual use, Microsoft has a long history of sitting on serious security bugs, or using their PR department to deal with them, or attacking the people who report bugs. When you have a long tradition of being the least secure operating system in wide use, then imho yes you can reliably extrapolate as to the likely security of their future products. Which is to say, very poor.
But yes, I do agree with you that the pervasive use of single user mode in Windows is very bad, especially considering the deep integration of i.e. Deep integration is an effective strategy from an anti-trust fighting perspective, but auto-executing all these activex controls and mime attachments is a disaster for ordinary computer users. I do not think windows will ever be secure until they completely redesign it with a more unix-like philosophy of least privelege.
But single user mode can be avoided if you are aware of the dangers. More serious are design decisions that we can't change. Sticking the graphics layer in ring 0 is another fatal flaw, since now buggy video drivers can now crash the os. Not what you want in a supposedly stable and secure server.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Like Konqueror and Eazel's Nautilus?
a mail client that can and will automagically open (or even run) attachments
This was true in, like, 1999. Outlook doesn't do this anymore.
a scripting language so powerful that a component as central the registry can be modified with it that can be used in officially non-executable things as office documents and webpages
So you're saying you can't modify something in
This is what makes a system with pretty much any MicroSoft software on it insecure.
What falls prey to all these worms, et al that are going around are the people that are still running Windows 98 first edition with Outlook Express 4 that never bother to upgrade anything. All it takes is something as simple as going to Windows Update to fix all this. Then Microsoft comes along and tries to remedy this problem with the Automatic Updates feature to try and remove the middleman (read: uninformed/apathetic user) and what response does that receive from the Slashdot community? "No! Kill the bastards! They're spies! Seize them!"
There's no winning.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's all very true, except when presented to the real world of Windows software.
Although what I'm about to say is slowly changing, it's still true today. Trying to run Windows as a non-admin user is extremely difficult to setup. Many applications are designed with the notion that it can write to anywhere on the drive or registry. For each of these an admin must take into account what holes to punch through the security model so apps can actually run.
On a Unix based machine even the simplest of applications understands that it lives in a sort of sandbox. Running the system as a normal user is trivial to set up and actually have it run all the available software.
This concept really hit home with me when I attempted to setup a friend's PC so that he could use his Win2k system as just a normal user. There were so many exceptions due to the software that he just runs as admin. Even if I could manage to work through punching the security holes, he sure couldn't.
This is where the notion of patching security on top of an insecure system really starts to expose the flaw in the logic. Probably also why Mundie is now threatening to break older apps through patches. So much for building a castle in a swamp.
That's not the problem with Windows (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with Windows isn't single-user mode, it's the fact that it's vastly over-spec'd and everything is on by default.
If e-mail readers just read text messages and let you write them back, and web browsers just displayed HTML instead of automagically downloading and installing stuff, and you didn't default to running with any TCP/IP port you like available, and so on, then any single-user OS could still be secure.
The problem is the way power has spread without adequate control. They invented ActiveX, based it around a non-secure model, and then let web browsers use it, instead of just rendering HTML. Then they made the e-mail client accept HTML mails, using the same rendering engine, so now someone just has to send you a mail, rather than you actively visiting a site. They gave the e-mail client a preview pane, and switched it on by default, so now the software has a chance to do its damage not only if I actively do something like visit a particular web site, but even if I fail to actively switch it off.
The same story happens all over the place in Windows, and is behind nearly major security cock-up out of Redmond in the last several years. You'd think they'd have learned, but then they'd have had to unbundle IE.
unix and windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows have firewalls to prevent programs getting out of the system.
Ciryon
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Apart from the known issues with IE, outlook, and IIS, what is insecure in Windows?
The "known issues" are numerous and quite serious, and just thinking about what might be lurking in the depths of Windows & Co. makes me feel queasy. The Microsoft empire was built on stacking new features on existing code, with little or no regard to security issues, and it shows. Judging from their mid- to long-term solution (Palladium), they have all but given up on ever delivering an acceptably secure implementation based on their current designs (not that I think for a second that Palladium will be significantly more secure, mind you).
> And as far as IIS goes, Apache hasn't had a spotless security record.
This is true, but unfortunately doesn't make your argument valid. It's a well known logical fallacy ("Ad Hominem / Tu Quoque" [nizkor.org]). Basically it's like saying "OK, I stole the cookies from the kitchen jar, but so did my brother last week!" - true, but irrelevant, and it won't deter your mother from giving you a good whack.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
When I first read this, I assumed it was a joke, along the lines of "What did the Romans ever do for us?" in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian". But looks like everyone is taking it seriously so I must be wrong.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Reg; People are always complaining about the security in windows, but come on, Windows is great. All my friends use it!
Loretta; Yes, and my friends friends.
Reg: Yeah.
Loretta: And my friends friends friends.
Reg: Yeah, all right. Don't labor the point. And tell me, what is insecure in Windows?
Rebel2: Outlook?
Reg: What?
Rebel2: Microsoft Outlook.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah. That's insecure. That's true, yeah.
Rebel3: And Internet Explorer.
Loretta: Oh yeah, Internet Explorer, Reg. Remember all the security holes that's had?
Reg: Yeah, all right, I'll grant you Outlook and Internet Explorer are two things are insecure...
Mathias: And IIS.
Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously IIS, I mean IIS goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from the Outlook, Internet Explorer, and IIS...
Rebel4: Word Macros.
Rebel2: Passport.
Rebel5: Hotmail.
Reg: Yeah, yeah, all right. Fair enough...
Rebel1: And Active-X.
Rebels: Oh, yeah
Francis: Yeah. Yeah, That's a really bad one isn't it? Active-X.
Rebel6: The Windows kernel itself.
Loretta: Yes, remember when they found that NSA key Reg?
Francis: Yeah, well, that's certainly a bit worrying, isn't it?
Everyone: Huhuhuh. Huhuhuhuhuh.
Reg: All right. But apart from the Outlook, Internet Explorer, IIS, Word Macros, Passport, Hotmail, Active-X and the Windows kernel itself, what is insecure in Windows?
Rebel2: SQL server?
Reg: Oh, fuck off.
Re:Explorer? (Score:2, Funny)
Absolutely! Stay tuned to see. Video at 11! [snicker]
Love,
Bill
Re:Explorer? (Score:2)
I know we're really talking about desktops here, but in the past the BBC have certainly run their news site on Linux. Check Netcraft [netcraft.com]
The only fly in the ointment is that they persist in using Real Audio for any audio content they serve (and I've mailed them more than once when they ask for comments about this). They trialled OGG last year, I don't know what became of that.
Matt
Re:Explorer? (Score:5, Informative)
The internal copyright to do so expired, ending the trial.
Then in September, they sorted this out. Ogg streaming is due to re-start, Real Soon Now(tm). As it has been since September... See Here [bbc.co.uk] for more details....
Re:Explorer? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Explorer? (Score:5, Informative)
OK, I'll bite.
Several hours? I don't know what distribution you run, but remind me to avoid it! I've run both Debian and RedHat - neither require several hours of daily patching.
With Debian, you only install the services you intend to use, then keep an eye out for security issues with those services (which isn't hard, and takes 15 minutes at most per day, usually less). When there is a vulnerability found that affects you, all that's generally required is an 'apt-get update && apt-get -u dist-upgrade', which may take a bit of time if you're on a slow link, or have a lot to update, but generally is pretty darn quick (again, for me it's generally less than 15 minutes). If they haven't managed to roll an "official" patch in yet, you can either wait for it (generally less than 24 hours for most), or compile it yourself. Turnaround time for security patching on Debian is excellent, though, and you generally won't find yourself needing to compile things yourself if you don't want to.
RedHat is a little different in that (at least prior to 7.3 - the last one I installed was 7.2, and things may have changed with 7.3 or 8.0) it installs everything but the kitchen sink by default - and you have to go around turning off what you don't need. Once you've got the "undesirables" turned off, security updates really aren't much different from Debian (especially if you're using apt for RPM). Again, for major vulnerabilities, patch turnaround time is excellent (generally 24 hours or less) and you won't have to recompile things you don't want to. Because RedHat is a bit more widespread than Debian, there are a few more exploits to watch out for, but hitting a few security sites during your daily web browsing should alert you to anything you might need to know. Definitely not "several hours every day".
Mr Kettle, Meet Mr Pot. (Score:2, Interesting)
Isnt unauthorised uninstalling just as bad as unauthorised installation of spyware?!
Re:Mr Kettle, Meet Mr Pot. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but now the webdesigners will have to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Still too many webdesigners want to make sites that look flashy and work only in Explorer...
They never figured out they can make the same stuff work in many browsers if they would only try and learn something about web design itself instead of designer tools...
So till that's solved a lot of people will use Explorer because their favorite site is badly designed.
Re:Yes, but now the webdesigners will have to foll (Score:3, Interesting)
I forget how many times I've complained about that.
Re:Yes, but now the webdesigners will have to foll (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're using NS4 then personally I believe you should expect problems. I'm all for cross-browser compliance, but there really is no reason to be using a 5-6 year old browser with substandard (to put it mildly) CSS support.
I design for standards compliant browsers, NS4 is not, therefore visitors who insist upon using this take their chances. Even Redhat have removed it now, which is a good thing - if only Netscape would remove the download link...
Re:Allowing for NS4 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, but now the webdesigners will have to foll (Score:5, Informative)
I know a lot of people say this, but is it actually true. I use both Mozilla and IE and very rarely notice any differences.
Re:Agreed (Score:4, Informative)
Better yet, Mozilla ought to use the text in the ALT attribute. At least in the context of an IMG element, the TITLE attribute is redundant. Since ALT is required for IMG elements anyway, why would you use <img width=80 height=60 src="foo.png" alt="foo" title="foo"> when <img width=80 height=60 src="foo.png" alt="foo"> conveys the same information?
(I was wondering where the tooltips for the icons at the top of every /. page had gone. Mozilla must be the only browser that doesn't render ALT attributes as tooltips.)
There *is* a difference between ALT and TITLE (Score:4, Insightful)
There *is* a difference. ALT tags are a boon to making websites ready for Lynx and text-only browsers for the disabled. So if you have a graphic button that says "Home", consider these two variants:
<img src="home.png" width="100" height="20" border="0" alt="This button takes you to the homepage">
and
<img src="home.png" width="100" height="20" border="0" alt="Home">
and
<img src="home.png" width="100" height="20" border="0" alt="Home" title="This button takes you to the homepage">
The first tag (which is what you suggest) would be a little awkward in a text browser, since "This button takes you to the homepage" would show up (when "Home" would do).
The second would look idiotic in Mozilla, since the tooltip would just say "Home" (well, duh), but it would work in Lynx and other text browsers.
The third is ideal, because everyone gets what they need -- Mozilla's tooltip would say "This button takes you to the homepage", but the text browsers see just "Home".
Cheers,
Ethelred [grantham.de]
ok, I pick (Score:3, Insightful)
To code for other browsers as well would take at least 2-3 times as long.
What a load of crap! I can only hope that making such an idiotic claim leads you to a job more suited to your talents, such as one that involves asking your clients, "would you like fries with that?"
Great idea but still an unrealistic solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately I doubt the problem as a whole can be solved by switching browsers. Rather I'd see stricter legislation tackle privacy issues.
Re:Great idea but still an unrealistic solution (Score:5, Insightful)
A pet peeve of mine is when a site says you need to be in a certain resolution to use their site.
What happened to designing your site for the widest possible group of users?
Re:Great idea but still an unrealistic solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if the page looks good in a "current" browser, it's a plus. If it doesn't render *quite* right under something old, like IE3/NS3/NS4, it's not generally a big deal, unless the content can't be accessed, or the navigation can't be used. Sticking to standards will (generally) ensure that the content and navigation will be accessible to everyone, regardless of platform or browser.
That having been said, I don't keep NS4 around to check my pages. I probably *should*, but, if they will render legibly in w3m and/or lynx/links, then I figure NS4 can't mangle them too bad
its a known fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:its a known fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Joe Sixpack's belief that Microsoft are the only company on Earth that makes good software, and informing them that open source even exists.
------
hey joe give it a go [wallpaperscoverings.com]
Ain't it the truth? (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh.
Re:Ain't it the truth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes it is true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, that's an expert opinion and it was strong. The author, Mark Ward, quoted Mr. Clover as a computer expert, someone who knows what they are talking about. The overall opinion was that Windoze was an easy to take over piece of junk and IE should be avoided. Note the lack of comforting words from M$ shills and other whores who would simply blame the user. The article concludes:
Fears about adware and spyware are not just for privacy fetishists and cyber-libertarians. Much of this surreptitious software is badly written and can crash your computer, others simply slow down your machine and make web use a chore. But the real danger is the fact that many of the loopholes in Windows that these programs exploit are being increasingly used by virus writers. If you do nothing to close these holes then one day you may lose much more than information about your online habits.
Can there be a stronger general denunciation than that? It ammounts to, "keep using this slow painful junk with and you will lose your work." That's an amazing article to see in the mainstream press.
How about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Because downloading Phoenix takes all of five minute, and you've then got happy pop-up free browsing for as long as you want? Rather than, as you say, being 'careful about where you browse'. Shouldn't a browser be your friend, not your adversary?
Re:NTLM (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How about (Score:2)
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:4, Interesting)
Since hackers tend to go after the biggest fish, perhaps a better strategy (applied with other common sense measures), is to protect yourself by going heterogeneous. Pick a perfectly fine alternative browser such as Mozilla, run on a Mac or Linux and throw in a couple of other variables that automated exploits won't work for. It doesn't make you immune from attack but it certainly saves you from the latest exploit du jour. If you think you're safe sticking with IE, you should try taking the Anonymizer.com Snoop Test [anonymizer.com].
The same strategy applies for email. I reckon I get a macro / mime exploit virus in my inbox once a week, but thanks to the simple fact that I don't even run Outlook, I get a level of built-in protection reaching which so far has been 100%. Moz Mail still has vulnerabilities (every software does), but since it takes security seriously to begin with and is a much smaller target, it is considerably safer (and dare I say better and more usable) than Outlook. Using Outlook or IE is like waving a red flag to a bull.
I wonder how many people Santa will turn into unwitting victims this Christmas when they get a brand new PC with Outlook and IE installed on it.
IE tested (Score:4, Interesting)
I did. With IE. Here is what happened:
1. Your IP address
It picked up my IP address. Fair enough. I'm not running through an anonymous proxy.
2. Hidden tracking files (cookies)
It couldn't list any of my cookies.
3. Exposed Clipboard
This was a little scary. It picked up what was in my clipboard and displayed it.
4. Hack and Exploit Vulnerability
Sophos immediately popped up a message telling me it had detected 'Troj/Codebase-A' in my temporary internet files. A window appeared with some HTML telling me that file:///c:/winnt/win.ini had moved. But nothing else.
I couldn't open the click here links, the links below that didn't work and MSN wasn't giving out my contacts.
5. Browser and Operating System
Big deal. It got them from the HTTP_USERAGENT. I'm not totally paranoid - I don't mind people knowing what browser I use.
6. Geographical location
Middlesex, England, GBR. Well, 2 out of 3 isn't bad but not exactly something to get worried about. Wonder why it thought Middlesex though?
7. Your network
This took the piss. It's just a traceroute from them to the IP address that they determined in the first test. It's not much of a big deal.
I run Internet Explorer 5.50.4919.2200. Sure, I don't doubt that IE has it's problems [greymagic.com] - but the stuff that Anonymiser is shreaking about is generally not that big a deal and flagged only so they can sell their products.
(mind you the clipboard one was a little spooky)
It is? (Score:3, Informative)
Aside from that, IE is chock full of rendering errors on even simple elements, has very poor JavaScript, comes bundled with 8-year-old Java technology, is loaded with security holes, has nothing by the way of tabbed browsing, no built-in pop-up blocking, a horrid caching mechanism, slow as hell and hogs memory,
Remove spy software with the free AdAware (Score:4, Informative)
didnt i see... (Score:2, Funny)
epicstruggle
Microsoft's Patch (Score:5, Funny)
"Avoid the BBC"
Re:Microsoft's Patch (Score:2, Funny)
"avoid internet explorer" bug is fixed and now shows "avoid mozilla"
"avoid ms-office" fixed to "avoid Open Office.org"
"avoid windows" fixed to "avoid linux"
Re:Microsoft's Patch (Score:5, Funny)
I would have laughed myself out of my chair if you had said "do not trust content from the BBC"
Re:Microsoft's Patch (Score:3, Funny)
Did it work?
The Internet sucks more? (Score:3, Insightful)
Rubbish. The Internet is getting better everyday. Pop-ups are becoming less common (especially using Moz), businesses are using better business models and delivering things on time, email filters are working more effectively, and the world is speeding towards most home users having broadband (and therefore more sites providing more content).
Life is good as a netizen.
--------
where is the beef? its mouldy at the bottom of the fridge. mmmmmmmmm beef mould [wallpaperscoverings.com]
Re:The Internet sucks more? (Score:2)
I come across top quality stuff on the Net every day. Innovation is not dead. I mean have a look at this [blinkenlights.nl]. That is just scary/funny/amazing.
The main reason people come out with this 'Internet sucks' stuff is simply because the novelty is wears off. Looks like it's taken Taco longer than most, though ; )
Opera! (Score:2)
And although you can't really remove Explorer from windows, as long as you don't use it and have another browser as default, it can't be opened without user intervention or having certain software installed (like spyware).
And yes, with all the security flaws that are known (or unknown) in Explorer, I can't recommend it to anyone who values privacy and stability.
IE (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never ran accross a site that "forced" its software on me. I've ran accross "gator" a few times which tries to install without my permission, but I still have to hit OK. This article has a hint of FUD.
As with anything, if people used common sense probably 95% of problems could be avoided. By common sense I mean NOT going to suspicious sites (you can usually tell by the URL.. something that has "geocities" or ends with ".cz" is probably going to be more dangerous than amazon.com for instance). Let's face it, there is always going to be some security holes in the most popular and widely used browser. Even if that browser ever becomes Mozilla (which I doubt will happen any time soon- I run Mozilla but speed wise it just doesn't compare with IE).
Unfortunately, we can't rely on common sense because it really isn't all that common. It would be nice to have a "sandbox browser setting" for people who don't trust themselves to practice safe browsing. Here's an idea- they could click on a little icon of ralph wiggam playing in his sandbox (remember, he doesn't go into the deep end). This automatically forces the most stringent security settings (disabling activeX, scripting, etc.) and double prompts each time you go to download something "Are you sure? Are you really sure?". This probably wouldn't be too hard to add to IE.
Re:IE (Score:2, Interesting)
Which is the problem. People are surfing the net, and will click away all boxes they didn't ask for. Most of the messages you get are total nonsense if you are a user and just want to look for that apple-pie recipe. For one reason or another people must have a clue when using computers/the internet but not when using other (evenly complex) devices such as CD players, DVD players, etc. To me that means that the product (IE in this case) is not designed correctly.
Re:IE (Score:5, Interesting)
As an aside, my mom also doesn't know what IE is. To get on "the internet" she click on that "little lizard thing" I set up for her.
Re:Screw security entitlement. (Score:5, Insightful)
The computer is a tool. My mom (and millions of others) knows how to drive a car and she knows how to drive a computer. They don't know how it operates, and they shouldn't have to. They aren't experts in computers, and they aren't experts in cars.
The idea that somebody has to have advanced knowledge of computers to use them is absurd. The fact that somebody thinks they should have to treat their use of the computer like navigating a minefield is even more absurd.
Nobody is entitled to security. But what they are entitled to is reasonably secure software, not a gaping sieve of a security nightmare, such as IE.
Re:IE (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been there since IE4, but it takes about four more clicks than the average user can muster:
Tools | Internet Options | Security | Internet zone | High
If the market share for non-IE browsers and non-Windows platforms was higher, the scumware makers would take the trouble to build software for them. Programs like Gator and SaveNow are about social engineering, and human gullibility is platform-independent.
Slight addition... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Never, ever click 'Yes' to a 'Do you want to download and install?' prompt unless you 100% sure the people who made it are trustworthy," he warns.
More importantly: unless you are 100% sure who made it. This is at least as much of a problem as whether the person you think made it is trustworthy...
Very perceptive of them... (Score:4, Interesting)
About the worst choice you can make is to choose Windows as your platform if security is even a small concern.
Chimera [mozilla.org] rules, and IE for Mac is pretty safe anyways..
Oh well, hopefully this trend of Microsoft's underhanded tactics being brought to light continues..
*why* he says to change from IE (Score:5, Interesting)
Before we all get too excited about non-IE browsers taking over the world, what the guy interviewed actually says is
Which you could read as saying that other browsers are so obscure and/or have such a minute user base that they are not worth anyone's while hacking. Possibly true, but not the kind of endorsement I expect to see /.ers rushing to print onto their t-shirts.
The biggest IE security hole yet: (Score:5, Insightful)
And then view the security certificate... and read the EULA which generally clearly states what nasty stuff it is going to do, eg: xupiter.com
Still there are a lot of stupid users out there... and more so on windows... I mean how many of you are running your mail client as root and running every "really_funny_picture.jpg.sh" that people send you. Believe me, if using an 'alternative OS' didnt imply that you had a clue, then there would be a lot more malicious shell scripts... "browsing enhancements" etc floating around
But yes, then there is the security flaws in IE to make it even worse... no denying this... its like a minefield
heh, actually I like that "funny.jpg.sh" idea... might be feasible if something like lindows takes off and brings slightly skill-deprived persons to *nix.
IE the STD. (Score:5, Funny)
Some people decide they'll be on the safe side by "Condoming Up" and turning security all the way up.
But when they get rashes of popup ads, and sore security holes, they realize that IE is a tired lay that not only lacks the finesse and technique of younger variants, but leaves you wanting your money back.
Even though you didn't pay anything... Bastards. You just wanted to surf the net with IE, and BANG!!! Next thing you know you have a Windows infection.
Somewhat misleading title (Score:4, Informative)
Important Security Patch (Score:5, Funny)
text based browsing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, so.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we then avoid opera?
The problem is that there are morons out there developing spy / ad / malware, not which browser someone happens to use.
Is this really about IE or silly users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which means you caused the problem not IE or windows.
And sometimes they don't even need your permission to download, but just hop on your hard drive, totally unannounced, because you are browsing the wrong webpage.
Too bad they don't go into more detail here about whether this is a general issue with malicious websites for most browsers, or actually expoloiting some hole in IE.
A few companies are now exploiting holes in Windows messenger to sneak adverts on to the screens of unsuspecting users.
Windows messenger _IS NOT_ part of IE. It is a seperate component that is unfortunatly automatically turned on. I do wish MS was better about what services were on by default, though I usually go in and turn off most services when I install windows, which I recommend. This is not a "hole" in the sense of a bug though, you _CAN_ turn it off.
While this article may have some basis, it really seems to be pointing at user stupidity. Don't browse some site, Read the EULA's and don't just click OK on a popup.
The internet sucking more each day (Score:2, Interesting)
Then I remember reading an article about some BBSes that were offering internet access via some sort of gateway technology. At first I thought this was a grand idea, and wanted in on it, mainly because I was no longer at school, and wanted to be able to email friends still in school and use usenet and gopher.
Mosaic had just hit the emerged as a fledgling proof of concept, and as I read more about the internet in even the trade press, I started to get that quezzy feeling that you get everytime something good comes to an end.
I knew it was all over for the internet when my roommate came home and told me all about this great new technology called the internet, and how it was the latest craze.
I wasn't around for the dawn of the internet, but I wonder when it started to suck, the first real indication it was going to become some commercialized, overused, underutilized resource for the masses.
I also, coincidently, remember the first person to show me mosaic, that barely stayed running (early, early version). He was sitting in my dorm room, so excited, telling me how he was going to make money designing these sites. "How is this any better than Gopher?" was my foolish question.
BBC says no such thing (Score:5, Informative)
Cheers,
Ian
In Other News... (Score:2)
Whole article: -1 (Common Sense)
However... (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides, if you apply all appropriate patches from Windows Update, configure Outlook Express' Security functions NOT to allow downloading of attachments and install McAfee VirusScan 7.x, you can surf the Internet pretty securely with Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1.
Re:However... (Score:4, Informative)
Your browser still accepts them. When you close the session, they all go away.
Oh wait, you're doing Windows? Does it still have attrib? What was the command again... "attrib +r cookies.txt" or somesuch?
Internet Explorer problem? (Score:3, Informative)
I blame Active X (Score:3, Insightful)
Active X was pegged from the start as the dangerious hole that it is, and now IE is so tied in with the base OS that people like my mother are screwed over time and time again by these people and programs[1].
MS in make our lives so much easier has forgotten that not everyone is altruistic as they are. Or maybe everyone is....
[1]Don't say give her Linux. Trust me, if I could I would have already, just not practial for her or me.
Re:I blame Active X (Score:3, Informative)
It's a quotation from me, in fact.
I also went on to add that the 'Avoid IE' quote was a glib answer, and was accurate only in part due to IE's propensity for security holes. The other parts are, of course, the fact that IE's popularity causes malware writers to target it specifically, and finally - as you mention - the design decisions behind ActiveX.
Of course, technically difficult issues such as why ActiveX is flawed by design are unlikely to make it into a mass-media article, but I am glad they got the bit about not clicking 'Yes' in.
I've been increasingly worried about the DHTML feature creep of Mozilla, and the fact that it has its own automatic-install system (XPInstall). I can't say I expect using Mozilla to stay safe either. But still, it can't be much worse than IE.
Anyway. My site's already been hit by a denial-of-service attack by an adware author this month, let's see if Slashdot can help bring it down...
--
Andrew Clover
mailto:and@doxdesk.com
http://www.doxdes
confusing cause and effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:confusing cause and effect (Score:3, Informative)
What did you try to prove? IE comes preinstalled on all new Macs. of course it's because it comes with the machine, 99% of people are more lazy than ignorant.
unfortunately.. (Score:5, Interesting)
---
Thank you for your e-mail. In reply to your queries both Mygo and go mobile's website are designed for IE5 and upwards and this is Company policy.
We are aware that not everyone uses IE. However, IE offers certain features which other browsers do not. Using these, we are able to use a greater array of features which allow us to design better interfaces. 84.3 per cent of the internet population uses Internet Explorer. More than 98 percent of the hits on go mobile's website originate from IE.
---
I mailed them again telling them it's nonsense (browsers reporting themselves as being IE etc) and that there are alternatives to make it work for both but surprise surprise! no reply. Bugzilla contains a number of other websites suffering from this condition (inc. Microsoft, no surprises here).
Therefore Mozilla follow standards so page X won't work and page X authors follow market so they won't fix it. What does BBC recommend I do in this case?
What about the companies behind spyware? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is it's often not done properly. There are spyware apps like aureate [cexx.org] that operate in stealth mode by passing themselves off as Windows system processes and making sure that they don't even show up the task list or binding themselves to winsock so that you delete or uninstall them your Internet connection stops working. Microsoft should be made to fix these holes in IE but I think some pressure should also be applied to the people that write these programs.
I've said it over and over again now (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a case of "if it aint broke, don't fix it". From Joe's point of view, it isn't broke - so he won't do anything about it. He's not experienced all this stuff that people talk about, so why change?
Until something nasty comes along, wipes his "My Documents" folder and then totals his operating system - he'll happily use Internet Explorer.
People don't protect their home until they've been burgled, the don't protect their car until it's been stolen. It's all reactive - not proactive.
Until these 1001 security issues stop becoming potential exploits and become actual exploits hitting hundreds and thousands of users a day - then no-one is going to change.
(disclaimer: I know Code Red could be put into this category, but then again, it didn't wipe anyones personal files did it?)
(another disclaimer: This is a combination of mine and other comments from my original thread here [slashdot.org] ... ignoring the AC who obviously didn't get my point)
Worthless recommendations (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as Internet Exploder is the ONLY browser to come with that shiney new PC everyones getting, then recommending that people DON'T use it is a total waste of time. People look at the prospect of tying up their modem for a 8-10MB file, and they basically think 'It won't effect me'.
I have enough trouble convincing my Mom and sister to update their AV software weekly, and that's only a few hundred kbytes.
here's a thought (Score:4, Insightful)
"Why doesn't the back button on my intellimouse work with it? It works with explorer."
And just like that, 20 or 30 people have turned off mozilla for just THAT reason. To them, it's just some browser that takes longer to load, puts an icon in the taskbar, and in which the back and forward buttons don't work. And it's no use trying to convince them of all the benefits.
That won't solve the problem, merely move it (Score:4, Insightful)
The other question is this: is IE inherently insecure? More than Lynx, yes. But users want features (yes, it's true...not all the bells and whistles in a "modern" browser are forced upon us) and features add complexity which increases the potential for holes.
For true security, just telnet to port 80 [dgate.org].
Re:That won't solve the problem, merely move it (Score:3, Redundant)
Besides, IE would got a less scandalous life if it didn't have the "Feature". And the "Feature" is embedding. a more modular and independent architecture would avoid many of the problems users face with this crap. IE could be, on the whole, as buggy as it is today. However the deadly effects of many exploits and cracks would be less noted as it would be easier to manage the thing. However, apart of bloatness and bugness, M$ opted to put everything in one bed. Well, what happens when one gets everyone and everything into one bed and close the door tight? Right - Vacchannalia. It's this permanent sex with the user's brain that gives IE and many other M$ products its bad name.
Beep beep beep (Score:3, Funny)
Why did this get posted (Score:3, Insightful)
They recommended that you don't use IE because that's what most of this nasty software is targeting, not because it's a buggy piece of MS shit. It stands to reason that the most popular browser is going to attract the most amount of attacks. Again. No shit. This isn't news.
Enough of the anti-MS propaganda, it's truly getting ridiculous.
IE's Security on Mac OS X (Score:4, Informative)
Many Windows technologies that cause the vulnerabilities in IE/Windows are very limited or don't exist with IE/Mac. In particular, ActiveX control support is there, but appears mostly broken. Java support is strongest in this browser (it seems), but many Java pages don't render things properly since MS doesn't appear to tie their browser properly in OS X's strong Java implementation (1.3.1).
IE/Mac is just as annoying with pop-ups, but that's why I use OmniWeb, where I can disable JavaScript that generates pop-ups with one preference settings.
IE is still the most compatible browser, but only because many webmasters are drones to Microsoft's web tools--and shouldn't be. The pages they create work best--and in some cases, ONLY--with IE.
Re:X10 Popup Rant (Score:2)
Re:Try this: (Score:3, Funny)
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (Score:3, Informative)