[KwasiOwusu]

"I guess that makes the ratio about 1000-to-1 Microsoft IE flaws to Firefox flaws..."

Nope.
It makes it 1000:1 ratio of malignant virus writers attacking Microsoft IE ( the by far market leader), as against the very few virus writers who have only just started malignant code against Firefox.

Firefox looked good because few people bothered to attack it before when it had no market share.

Read my post 21 above.

[davetex]

So, what is your beef?

[CyberCowboy777]

This is a "flaw" not found in the wild and requiring a EBKC.

"To fall victim to such a scam, a Firefox user would have to click on a link in an e-mail that pointed to a spoofed Web site and then download malicious software from the site, which would appear to be downloaded from a legitimate site."

While I am sure that exploits will be made of Firefox, it is inherently more secure than IE (and limited in functionality for it).

[frog_jerk_2004]

Open source is the key to solving the problem. Without peer review of IE code, Microsoft will just keep doing what they always do, deny, stall and then admit there is a problem. Then they will "fix" the problem and open another can of worms.

Firefox does not share this problem as it is not "married" to the operating system. Peer review of the open source code remedies security fixes and product enhancement faster and more efficiently.