Yep, and I liked Netscape a lot.
Apostle Claver tells the world how the real party of racism is the Democrats
Posted on 12/16/2010 6:25:31 AM PST by for-q-clinton
A new report from NSS Labs studies how various Web browsers perform when it comes to blocking socially-engineered attacks. The startling results show that Internet Explorer isn't just better than rival browsers like Chrome and Firefox--but leaves competitors completely in the dust. ... NSS Labs reviewed Internet Explorer 8 and 9, Firefox 3.6, Safari 5, Chrome 6, and Opera 10 to see how well each browser helps users recognize and avoid these attacks. Data was collected 24/7 for eleven days, with 39 discrete tests run every six hours. The testing included 636 URLs identified as potentially malicious. ... Meanwhile, Internet Explorer widened the gap. Internet Explorer 8 improved its results over the previous study--increasing from an 85 percent block rate to 90 percent. Internet Explorer 9, though--which wasn't available during the previous study--was nearly flawless.
The NSS Labs Results Summary explains, "Windows Internet Explorer 9 (still in beta) caught an exceptional 99 percent of the live threats, in part due to a new application reputation system, leading the non-IE pack by 80 percent. IE9's protection includes SmartScreen URL filtering, also included in IE8, and SmartScreen Application Reputation, which is new to IE9."
(Excerpt) Read more at pcworld.com ...
Are you that naive? This isn't the first time a software company funded a review that was favorable to itself. It certainly wouldn't be a first for Microsoft.
The security-products testing lab recently released a Web browser security test report which was an in-depth comparison of specific security capabilities in several browsers, including Microsoft Internet Explorer 8, Chrome and Safari, and did acknowledge that Microsoft, whose browser performed the best, funded the security evaluation.
I found myself unable to enjoy using a computer when using a system which spent most of its time trying to ward off threats, and demanding that I pay attention to security. When I found that I had fallen for a social-engineering attack which was predicated on conning me into taking action precisely to protect my computer, that was pretty much the last straw.The Apple-bots will all cringe and gnash their teeth when they hear it
and mostly, we'll laugh. Because we're free, and have been since we switched away from Windows.Apparently Win7 is actually pretty good, by the reports I've seen. I certainly HOPE so, after all the hassle you've been through until now! And by hassle, I mean the effort to run virus scan software - let alone responding to a successful attack . . .
Social engineering attack possibilities pretty much inhere in the flexibility which computers give users. Heck, a Nigerian e-mail scam is a social engineering attack. But virus attacks should be as difficult on all computers as history indicates that they are on Unix and Linux ones. Botnets affect everyone on the web . . .
So you're saying Microsoft paid for this review. I'm not saying they did or didn't, but without proof why would you assume they did. If that's the case we can just dismiss any news that we want to dismiss because we can just assume away the facts.
got it. Thanks for pointing that out.
Hey wait...that link is to an article from 2009! It’s not current and doesn’t not deal with the current article on PC World.
I’m asking if you know for a fact Microsoft paid for this review? They may have, but we can’t assume that. Who knows Google may have paid for it and was disappointed with the results. I know it’s unlikely but you know what happens when you assume.
From the report PDF:
“This private test was contracted by Microsoft’s SmartScreen product team as an internal benchmark, leveraging our Live Testing framework.”
http://www.nsslabs.com/assets/noreg-reports/NSS%20Labs_Q32010_Browser-SEM.pdf
My response to you was because you seemed kind of taken aback at the claim that Microsoft could have paid for this test, when in fact it is a common industry practice.
I know it’s common practice, but it’s just rumors until someone can prove that it was in fact paid for by Microsoft. Just trying to keep it clear on what the facts are and what the rumors are.
May I suggest a Firefox addon called Memory Fox. I have used it for nearly a year and it takes care of excess memory issues. The addon shows up in my event log every time it fires off but other than that I never know it’s doing it’s job. It’s in Task Manager as “afom” and you can watch the Firefox memory drop.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/53880/
You know what the facts are now. But then it’s admitted openly in the survey, and the methods are published, so there’s no conspiracy.
Imagine that, originally I speculated, but based on past benchmarks that made Microsoft press releases I figured that this was a good educated guess. Low and behold, you prove me right. Another “independent evaluation” funded by Microsoft. Gotta make you wonder.
As an aside, if Microsoft were such a good corporate citizen, they would make sure all these browser upgrades were compatible with their older OS’s, like XP, 2000, etc.
reminds me of the old graphic card bench mark tests when on maker was caught hard wiring the tests into the card to speed the card up. (see also intoxilizer breathalizer which had its calibration test hardwired to always give a “chamber empty” result)
Some of these breathalyzers and other such hardware are some of the worst examples of computing ever. A while back a guy finally won in court to have their code reviewed and it was apparently a horrible mess. I can’t believe we’re sending people to jail based on these.
Yep, and I liked Netscape a lot.
Apostle Claver tells the world how the real party of racism is the Democrats
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.