Originally posted by: GeneralAres
No one can, the point is it doesn't happen with SP2 unless you manually do it. As for Flash exploits, what makes FF any different to these?Yes, because you somehow being psychic can detect possible future holes or buffer overflow (execute via shell code) exploits then use telekinesis to prevent it from happening? Since you mentioned MSJVM, what about all the exploits in a hidden Flash/HTML Help/Media Player object?
Originally posted by: Megatomic
Oh noes! Someone said something bad about Firefox and something good about IE!
Really people, it is possible to use either browser safely while visiting whichever sites you wish. :roll:
Originally posted by: Nextman916
*SHOCK* i had no idea, i might switch to opera now. question, are there any cons coming from firefox to opera?
Forum members may like to be aware that GeneralAres may have in fact posted the same article in numerous forums under the name 'Mastertech'.
Compare GeneralAres/Mastertech's replies- they are almost word for word the same:
http://205.177.13.145/forums/viewtopic....0&sid=69429bc27a4d79f6cad6ad16552b38f9
http://www.digg.com/software/Firefox_Myths
The intention of Mastertech's postings have been called into question many times: he is in fact the author of the commercial site linked to, and seems to love creating rather heated threads on various subjects.
On this particular subject, forum members may like to see these page:
http://robert.accettura.com/archives/2005/12/19/firefox-myths/
This from one of the sources quoted in the article:
http://nanobox.chipx86.com/blog/2005/12/re-firefox-myths.php
As to GeneralAres/Mastertech's history, this may prove interesting:
http://205.177.13.145/forums/viewtopic....0&sid=3e56c67c75cfc8b502b7f20e463f863a
Note that suspicions have been aroused that the same guy who wrote the Firefox Myths page is also the author of a blog page where a strong anti-Firefox bias has been expressed.
Addendum: GeneralAres's other posts on this forum are also identical to Mastertech's. The Windows Prefetch posting is a direct quote from the above blog, of which Mastertech is supected od being the author:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=843
This study is from August, but I missed it. The researchers tracked three browsers (MSIE, Firefox, Opera) in 2004 and counted which days they were "known unsafe." Their definition of "known unsafe": a remotely exploitable security vulnerability had been publicly announced and no patch was yet available.
MSIE was 98% unsafe. There were only 7 days in 2004 without an unpatched publicly disclosed security hole.
Firefox was 15% unsafe. There were 56 days with an unpatched publicly disclosed security hole. 30 of those days were a Mac hole that only affected Mac users. Windows Firefox was 7% unsafe.
Opera was 17% unsafe: 65 days. That number is accidentally a little better than it should be, as two of the upatched periods happened to overlap.
This underestimates the risk, because it doesn't count vulnerabilities known to the bad guys but not publicly disclosed (and it's foolish to think that such things don't exist). So the "98% unsafe" figure for MSIE is generous, and the situation might be even worse.
Wow.