Firefox's 'retreat' ensures Microsoft excels

Firefox's 'retreat' ensures Microsoft excels

Open source web browser Firefox has lost the momentum it has steadily gained since it was unleashed last year, according to Web analysts at Net Applications.

The online portal’s unique Hit List service reveals a slump in the Mozilla browser’s market share, falling from 8.7% to 8.1 % in July.

Coinciding with its demise, was the advance of Microsoft's IE that has gained some of the ground surrendered in June, climbing back from 86.6 % to 87.2% last month.

The revival for the dominant browser comes on the back of average monthly losses of between .5 to 1% for Redmond, as Firefox started to gain acceptance among a wider audience than just tech-savvy users.

When asked by Contractor UK whether Microsoft’s sudden gains were from the unveiling of a new IE, Net Applications said a re-launch tends revive industry interest, and could have bolstered Microsoft’s market share of the browser market.

When a company launches a new product, there is always renewed interest in what the company has produced and it would also be fair to say that this may have had an effect, said a member of the Hit List team.

Although, there have been browser issues with Windows 2000 in the news, so it is possible that again you may see a dip [in Microsoft’s market share]. Right now, people are looking for security and whenever there are issues with the security of one's system, they will use what they feel will be the most secure.”

Besides Net Applications, web developer site W3 Schools, confirms that adoption of Firefox is falling, just as IE is reaching its highest share of the market in 2005.

According to W3's data on specialist users, Microsoft IE (6) enjoyed a 67.9% share in July, improving to 68.1% in August matched against Firefox’s top share of 21% in May, which has now dropped to 19.8% for the last two months.

Observers noted that both sets of analysis concur that Microsoft’s loss, up until now, has been Firefox’s gain, but over the last month roles have reversed.

Security fears concerning Mozilla and its browser product have recently emerged, coinciding with Microsoft’s high-profile trumpeting of its new safer browser product (IE 7), complete with glossy logo.

Experts at Net Applications said they were surprised at Firefox’s sudden retreat, saying they expected a slow down before any decline.

Yet they told CUK: “Whenever there may be problems with security, there always is a decline with users changing browsers.”

Data from the Web analytics company is based on 40,000 users, gleaned from their global internet operations, prompting some commentators to question the so-called ‘global decline’ in the Firefox market share.

The Counter.com reportedly finds that between June and July, Firefox actually increased its share by two points, and overtook IE5 for the first time ever.

The Web Standard Project suggests webmasters should treat data from web analysis providers with caution, before rushing to make service changes.

So what can we conclude?” asks the WSP, a grass roots project fighting for open access to web technologies.

“Not much: Mozilla-based browsers are probably used by just under 10% of the web audience and their share is growing slowly. IE5.x is probably used by somewhat less than that and its share is declining slowly. IE6 is roughly holding steady.”

Meanwhile, Spread Firefox, which measures actual download rates of the browser, reports that it took just one month for the Mozilla Foundation’s showpiece to reach 80 million downloads in August – from its July total of 70 million.

At the time of writing, Firefox had been downloaded 80701444 times, meaning adoption rates of over 10m occurred one month after Net Applications says Firefox bolted in light of the dominant IE.

Yes, in both the Windows and Linux cases you need access to the machine. Now that we've gained access to both systems, I am stumped by the Linux box and can get all of the passwords off the Windows box in a few minutes. Now I can access all of those users' files (even encrypted) on that machine and throughout the network, wherever those users have permission.

This is the kind of nonsensical post that I've come to expect from you. Ask any security expert about this issue. If you have physical access to a machine, it doesn't matter which OS is installed: It can be compromised. Complaining that it's easier to get passwords from Windows than Linux is a waste of bandwidth because BOTH CAN BE COMPROMISED. So give it a rest. This isn't a meaningful or honest debate.

Congratulations, you found one. I wonder why the earlier proponent of this hadn't been able to produce it. In any case, it shows that security can be increased (definitely a good thing), but as you know we usually stick to what's in the box, not something I've never seen used, not even in a Top Secret environment.

Sigh. I don't know why I have to keep explaining this for you. You use whatever security is appropriate for your needs. Smart admins don't just use whatever comes in the box. Higher security environments require more stringent protections: smart cards, locked labs, etc. Security requires a tiered approach that encompasses far more than a choice of which OS to use. You should know that by now. Sadly, you're so preoccupied with proving that one or the other is "inferior" that you completely miss the point.

Complaining that it's easier to get passwords from Windows than Linux is a waste of bandwidth because BOTH CAN BE COMPROMISED.

Really, how do you propose to crack a decent Linux password in a short enough amount of time? Owning the computer is one thing, but owning the passwords of possibly several people has implications far beyond that one computer and onto the network.

Sadly, you're so preoccupied with proving that one or the other is "inferior" that you completely miss the point.

Yet it is inferior. Period. You bring other sensible precautions into the mix, but that is outside of the subject that Windows passwords can be easily cracked. It is a tiered approach, and this one tier is inferior unless you use third-party add-ons to make up for Microsoft's lax security.

Who says that it's even necessary to crack passwords? The intent of the intruder could be simply to get information from the machine. Which is obviously an easy thing to do, given physical access to the machine.
Still, how would you propose cracking Windows passwords if the drive is encrypted with EFS and you don't have the public/private keys?
Cracking passwords on a local machine doesn't mean that those same passwords are being used on a network authentication server. For example, I use a completely different password to access my local account than I use on my network.
How do you propose to crack network passwords when cached credentials don't exist?

Yet it is inferior. Period. You bring other sensible precautions into the mix, but that is outside of the subject that Windows passwords can be easily cracked.

No, it's not inferior. As I pointed out, physical access to a machine GUARANTEES that it will be compromised. The term "inferior" isn't even relevant.

The fact of the matter is that IBM didn't know who to get an 8088 operating system from.

But could have easily found out. Come on, NO ONE negotiated with IBM from a position of power back then. NO ONE. It's like saying a small software vendor these days could negotiate with Microsoft from a position of power. It's just not going to happen. If they get too obstinate, Microsoft will just buy them, or destroy them first and then buy up the remnants. And IBM in its heyday was even meaner than Microsoft has ever been.

Just wake up and realize that IBM thought the money was in hardware and services and didn't really care too much about the OS. That is why Gates could request non-exclusive licensing and get it. I'm not saying he wasn't smart for requesting it. Bill was and is an amazing businessman. Unfortunately for us, he puts the business of selling software above the quality of that software.

Of course you can't -- because it's a fantasy.

Fantasy? After reading how it's accomplished, if you knew anything about computers, you could see why the Classic environment can be faster. It ran as native code on the hardware, just like any application would, but without the hindrance of its horrible virtual memory system.

A great number of those guys (like their counterparts in the private sector) are mind-numbed bureaucrats with absolutely zero clue about what they're buying

And that's where you get the Microsoft/Dell duopoly in Army IT purchasing. Most don't know any better. The few intelligent ones actually go out and look for the best system -- enter the Mac systems I know about.

As I pointed out, physical access to a machine GUARANTEES that it will be compromised.

But it doesn't guarantee that passwords will be compromised, unless it's on a Windows machine. Yes, certain things can be done to mitigate the damage -- if they're done. Until then, you're relying on a level of password security that UNIX deprecated years ago because it wasn't considered secure enough anymore.

As you supposedly know, security is the sum total of everything you do to secure a system or a network. Any one thing might sound insignificant, but it all adds up. Having passwords that are not easily cracked is one of them, and Microsoft with its lax approach to security did not see fit to implement this one simple thing that everybody else knew about long ago.

It's a simple fact. Admit it.

Now you're just arguing for argument sake as I clearly stated that the Linux salting is better for the user experience because it allows the user to have a shorter password with the same level of security that a longer Windows password provides.

Really I think you just argue in circles from one point to the next never admitting your wrong and when you are proven wrong you just go to a new topic, but this time you got "busted". You jumped to a topic that was never an issue.

Nice try. I believe this thread is over now. BTW: what does any of this have to do with the subject of this article?

Thank you for the link. I forgot that they could change the Gina as well. Is that the same thing as replacing the crypto provider?

Also don't let him sucker you into the inferior debate. The simple truth is linux allows users to have a shorter password (with a little modification). With windows you need to increase the password length to include the linux salt + password length to have the same or better protection. However, if that isn't good enough they can simply replace either the Gina or the crypto provider.

But to say Windows is inferior in allowing the password to be shorter...whoopdie do. When linux catches up on the user experience then they can talk about having something better for the user. A shorter password isn't worth changing platforms.

But it doesn't guarantee that passwords will be compromised, unless it's on a Windows machine.

Wow guarantee. Sounds like I'm going to owe you your yearly salary. Should be an easy bet for you to take. Where would you like me to mail the hard drive to. Better yet, I'll even take the hashes off for you and email you the hash.

So the rules of the bet.

I send you a hash table of Windows passwords from my system. You get 15 days to crack every single password on the system (it won't be more than 100 hashes). If you fail I win--you pay me one year of your salarly. If you succeed you win--I pay you one year of your salary. If you can't crack any passwords I win double your salary. You provide me a linux hash table of equal # of hashes. If I crack any of the passwords I win double your salary.

Your salary is determined based you last years income tax statements.

Chassis: Lian Li V-2000
Power: 480W
Motherboard: Tyan Thunder KBWE (S2895)
CPU: Dual Opteron 275's
CPU Cooling: Zalman CNPS700B's
Memory: Corsair Standards 3-3-3-8 (2X1GB)
Storage: Dual Toshiba 60GB Raid-2 (mirrored)
Video: NVidia Quadro FX-4400

(Just Kidding) - What makes you think hardware has anything to do with it? I'm running a P3 at 650 Mhrz w/ 500MB of memory and 40 Gigs of Storage. That above it what I am building, thought I hope to go with the lower latency Corsairs 2-3-2-5 (I think), if I can afford them.

But could have easily found out.

You're trying to reinvent history. Show me even the smallest amount of evidence that IBM knew that SCP existed.

Fantasy? After reading how it's accomplished, if you knew anything about computers, you could see why the Classic environment can be faster. It ran as native code on the hardware, just like any application would, but without the hindrance of its horrible virtual memory system.

You don't have even the slightest form of objective proof; therefore, what you're saying here is nothing more than a poorly formed opinion.

And that's where you get the Microsoft/Dell duopoly in Army IT purchasing. Most don't know any better. The few intelligent ones actually go out and look for the best system -- enter the Mac systems I know about.

LMFAO! Yeah, and because they're the "best", Steve Jobs decided to ditch the entire hardware platform and start from scratch on x86. Not long ago, you and other Mac zealots were criticizing x86 hardware. Now that Stevie's annointed it, we can expect yet more proclamations of his "insanely great" vision. /SARCASM

Thank you for the link. I forgot that they could change the Gina as well. Is that the same thing as replacing the crypto provider?

No, it's not the same. Gina applies to authentication.

But to say Windows is inferior in allowing the password to be shorter...whoopdie do. When linux catches up on the user experience then they can talk about having something better for the user. A shorter password isn't worth changing platforms.

I agree. He's being ridiculous.

Show me even the smallest amount of evidence that IBM knew that SCP existed.

Show me the smallest amount of evidence that IBM, the world's largest multinational computer corporation, wasn't capable of finding what it wanted. Bill offered something, and they were happy with the terms, period. Bill would not have gotten his non-exclusive deal if IBM didn't want to allow it.

You don't have even the slightest form of objective proof; therefore, what you're saying here is nothing more than a poorly formed opinion.

here. Neck and neck in most places, behind in some, ahead on others. And this was on a 768 MB machine, pretty generous for that day. Machines with less RAM do better since native OS 9 would be using its outdated virtual memory more. Application launch times are also generally much faster in Classic than native.

Steve Jobs decided to ditch the entire hardware platform and start from scratch on x86. Not long ago, you and other Mac zealots were criticizing x86 hardware.

Jobs ditched because IBM wasn't supporting the platform. The PPC had a great architecture with great capabilities and lots of room to grow, but that doesn't mean anything if the vendor won't continue R&D and constantly has supply problems.

I still stand by my criticism of Intel's P4-based architecture, as well as Intel's design for dual-core (Intel recently admitted it was badly slapped together). Both the PPC and AMD are far superior in every way. But Jobs knew something we didn't at the time of the switch decision -- details of Intel's roadmap. This roadmap includes much more efficient processors that no longer subscribe to the P4's "clock is everything" philosophy, continuing where Intel is with the Pentium M (which I've had praise for in this forum).

My only guess as to why Apple chose Intel over AMD is the massive discounts that only Intel is capable of giving its prominent customers.

I send you a hash table of Windows passwords from my system. You get 15 days to crack every single password on the system (it won't be more than 100 hashes).

I don't have the table so I can't take your bet. But I can tell you absolutely that if your passwords are 1-14 characters in length, created by the standard Windows password system, and consists of any mix of the characters "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789!@#$%^&*()-_+=~`[]{}|\:;"'<>,.?/ " every password on the system WILL BE CRACKED with a probability of 99.9%. Simple fact. And it covers the passwords used by almost all Windows users.

How about I buy the list, you give me remote access to your machine, have a thousand passwords conforming to the above and if I can't crack them with a 99.9% success rate, you win.

You provide me a linux hash table of equal # of hashes. If I crack any of the passwords I win double your salary.

That is a bet with a vast probability of loss. There is no way you can physically compute that number of hashes, even with a mainframe, and no lookup table big enough exists, even for a 14-character password. You would simply have to make the one in a billion (or less) odds that you get it in time. John the Ripper only works against weak Linux passwords.

I also love how you one-side your proposals, with you getting double in several cases.

It still amazes me that you aren't capable of admitting Windows is inferior in something. Your loyalty and devotion to Microsoft must be supreme. I'll show you how you can admit things because the platform isn't a religion to you. OS X Server has performance problems in some applications. Linux is not ready for the general desktop. See, it's easy. Now you try it: "The Windows password system is weak."

There, doesn't just admitting the truth feel better?

And if the Windows box has an EFS filesystem installed? What then? Still think it's easy to crack the passwords?

Mitigation, mitigation, mitigation. That's what Windows security is all about. Got something unsecure? Turn it off or hide it. ActiveX a gaping security hole? Turn it off. Cached passwords a gaping security hole? Turn it off too. If we're turning every feature off because it's a security risk, then why would security-conscious company include them in the first place?

Also don't let him sucker you into the inferior debate. The simple truth is linux allows users to have a shorter password (with a little modification).

And you completely miss the point. In the industry is the concept of an acceptable password. It varies, but it's usually between 8-12 characters, no dictionary, varying amount of numbers and symbols required. Passwords outside this wherever there is a password policy are rare, if not non-existant (I've never seen them). Windows and Linux have very easy methods to enforce this, even network-wide.

So the point is that the decent passwords are breakable on Windows, but not on Linux. Pretty severe passwords (stronger than any password policy I've seen, even in a classified environment) are breakable on Windows. A Rainbow Crack for Linux would say "only breaks up to six-character passwords" and most of us would consider that to be mostly useless. We can maybe hope to grab a few passwords on home machines with no known probability of success. Meanwhile, Rainbow Crack can crack 99.9%+ of Windows passwords in use today.

These are simple facts, not that difficult really.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.