Call this assuming things. But I am going to assume that many people, not all,or even most, but many, people in the information security business got started with childhood curiosity. Probably much like mine, even fewer but I guarantee they exist even go so far as to test site security on there own through illegal means, the only difference between them and me is I actually admitted it and got caught, although unless you are looking through school records in 1986 you wouldnt find it.You also would not find a history of similar behavior, no thievery nothing to the negative a simple childhood mistake that unless someone dug deep enough would not find
I cant go into exactly all of my job details in the military, but I will tell you this I had more than fair access to classified documents and programs and my actual first PMOS even put me in charge of data collection of certain aspects, of which I am still obliged not to release until they become public.
I have yet to question Mozillas security, yet you continue to think I have or say I have. Let's reflect, shall we? Post 13: Sorry but the fact remains that if Mozilla was the number one software we would all be bitching about security problems, popups and other annoyances. Not to mention since Mozilla is open source, its hard not to argue that since the coding is open that it is easier to crack and infect. So tell me again why its safer other than it has fewer users? Post 26: Firefox was the number one browser with 95% of the market would it or would it not have as many issues as IE when it comes to ceratain security problems ie; pop-ups, spy-ware,mal-ware,hijack-ware? You were saying?
You are assuming that I was implying that I was questioning Mozillas security. Other than bad spelling I am not guilty of implying that to which you are assuming. If you read and used comprehension of the totallity of the posts it all comes back to my original assumption that if it was reversed and FireFox was numero uno, we would be discussing its security problems, not whether or not its less secure than IE or more secure than IE, other than me questioning open source itself, which is the only instance I directly questioned the security of Firefox(and it was more of a question, and a side argument).
Here is a good argument from a pro-open source site
dwheeler
Here is another from big blue itself:
ibm
SO I personally believe there is a good argument on the ground s that open source is more secure or not, but the overall thrust of my argument really hasnt been that at all.
Both are incorrect. As Mozilla becomes more popular, it will have approximately the same number of issues. This is due to the open source model. It will never have as many issues as IE, nor will they be as serious. This is also due to the open source model.
I can state this because similiar projects in the open source world have demonstrated similiar patterns. The development environment that the Mozilla team operates under will sack the lead developers if they trend toward more buggy code. This is not true with closed source. Developers get sacked for missing deadlines, not for bugs.
Secondly, IE and Mozilla are entirely different products under the surface. Mozilla is a web browser. IE is part of Windows. When a flaw is found in Mozilla, it affects web browsing. When a flaw is found in IE, it affects web browsing, email, file browsing and more. Since Mozilla is less involved with the operating system, it will never have as many security issues as IE, simply because it doesn't have the ability to affect as much.