Replies

Perhaps you don't know how secunia rates vulnerabilities. There is high and extreme, Firefox has its first Extreme yesterday after I posted this. It is already patched in 1.07

Secunia Definition of Extreme: "Typically used for remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, which can lead to system compromise. Successful exploitation does not normally require any interaction and exploits are in the wild." MS has 14% of their bugs in this category and as of today FF has 4%

Secunia definition of high: "Typically used for remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, which can lead to system compromise. Successful exploitation does not normally require any interaction but there are no known exploits available at the time of disclosure"

LOL, I see I goaded you out from under the crib.

Read the parent article dood. You not only had more overall holes in Firefox, there were more classified as "high severity". Add the one from today now too, LOL. Maybe you should go back into hiding:

According to the report, 25 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for the Mozilla browsers during the first half of 2005, "the most of any browser studied," the report's authors stated. Eighteen of these flaws were classified as high severity.

"During the same period, 13 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for IE, eight of which were high severity," the report noted.

Secunia Definition of Extreme: "Typically used for remotely exploitable vulnerabilities, which can lead to system compromise. Successful exploitation does not normally require any interaction and exploits are in the wild." MS has 14% of their bugs in this category and as of today FF has 4%

But what's your point? I've been use extremes to point out that all software is at risk. To claim it only has 4% is a weak argument, because as LinuxWorld states it is/will be getting exploited more and more (if it continues to gain in popularity).

I'm not really saying IE or windows is the best platform on the earth, but I'm saying it's getting a bad wrap because of zealots. This goes back to the very first "discussion" you and I had. OSS zealots keep changing the target everytime Microsoft hits a bulls-eye or whenever their arguments are proven wrong.

Like OSS is more secure because it has more eyes on the code. I believe that argument has been pretty much debunked by now.

Or when OSS fanboys claim cell phones with only 100K users are hacked, so that's proof Linux/Mac/FF/etc... get hacked at the same rate as windows. Once again this just doesn't stand up to logic and reason.

When all these bogus points are dropped then we can concentrate on what really matters and that's improving security.