Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Agreed 100%. I'm just listening to a webcast about Flash vulnerabilities. Pretty interesting stuff.

http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/mike-bailey-adobe-flash-vulnerabilities-111709

Firefox has been subject to an increasing number of severe security issues over the last couple of years which is why I dont recommend it to people who are not likely to keep it up to date anymore. If somenoe must use firefox, I use flashblock (disables risk from bad flash adverts) or in extreme cases noscript (disables all javascript unless manually approved). I also disable java to rule out the various exploits that come and go for that too.

IE8 on win7 has been subject to non-flash vulnerabilities already (eg this DOM corruption error.)

The golden rule is nothing is safe unless you keep it up to date with the latest security patches, anything less is just hubris.

Firefox auto-updates so keeping it up to date isn't really a problem.

legoburner wrote:I use firefox for the range of features (flashblock, password export, custom extensions I've written, etc) and to not put all my eggs in the google basket.

I recommend Chrome to less technical users as it updates very quickly and has the backing of google, who take security more seriously than pretty much any other major tech company.

This is basically the entire question of Chrome or Firefox. If you want a quick browser that's very user-friendly and doesn't require technical knowledge to use effectively, go Chrome.

If you want a browser that will run lots of custom add-ons, go Firefox.

Personally, I really don't use addons - even when I did use Firefox, I really didn't use it for anything other than browsing and keeping track of a few RSS feeds. Honestly, I feel that Chrome is much sleeker, more secure (As lego pointed out, it's a Google product), and noticeably faster than the other browsers. For someone like me who doesn't use addons to a great extent (I have a Clock addon, that's about it) then go for Chrome; you won't be disappointed.

L0rdF1end - you have basically spent 2 pages of this thread now trying to argue that IE is the fastest and most secure browser, firstly against me, Shuma and then against an IT professional (legoburner). You keep referring back to this same MSDN link like it is some sort of holy grail. Let me repeat again for the benefit of latecomers:

It was a Microsoft sponsored survey / test and was reported on MSDN, a developer network owned by Microsoft.

At the very least, that brings it's impartiality into doubt, no? I don't care who conducted the test, whether they are reputed or not - if it isn't impartial, then it isn't valid.

I just noticed your location is set to Reading - you aren't a Microsoft employee by any chance? For those outside the UK, Reading has a large Microsoft 'campus'.

Whether you like it or not, IE has traditionally had huge and gaping security flaws. MS are quick to patch usually; but that is beside the point - they exist and are exploited. Win 7 / IE 8 has tightened the screw but IE still has flaws. This is in part due to the fact it is the most popular and therefore most likely to suffer attack but also in part due to lazy development, something MS have a habit of.

lol, I'm not arguing, just sharing what I consider to be legitimate information found through various searches on this topic. As I stated, people will use what ever they like and generally what ever they are used to using.

"It was a Microsoft sponsored survey / test and was reported on MSDN, a developer network owned by Microsoft".
"At the very least, that brings it's impartiality into doubt, no? I don't care who conducted the test, whether they are reputed or not - if it isn't impartial, then it isn't valid".

I already stated that other companies had the option to get involved and respond to the results and they didnt. It was sponsored by MS because someone had to pay for the tests to be completed.
Also I stated it would be fair to hold this information as true unless proven otherwise. Who cares who payed for the testing. Results are results, whats the point in shooting yourself in the foot and reporting incorrect results. I guess though would you share these results if they weren't in your favour, probably not. It was reported on MSDN yes, which is owned by Microsoft, because where else are you going to publish the results of a test you payed for. Your point here is completely invalid.

"I just noticed your location is set to Reading - you aren't a Microsoft employee by any chance? For those outside the UK, Reading has a large Microsoft 'campus".

Whether I worked for Microsoft or not, what's that got to do with sharing information and your thoughts on a paticular subject. Lets say for arguments sake I did, just because I worked for MS doesn't mean that I would use their product just because it was that companies product. Especially true when it's a free product anyway. If we were discussing Windows or Office for instance I would understand the point you were trying to make because I would imagine MS employees probably get this stuff free or at a lower cost to the retail price. I think this entire debate and why someone would switch away from the based installed browser is very interesting and I wanted to understand why some people do. This is considering that most features people mention are included in IE8 and the speed difference is so minimal and unnoticeable I just didnt understand the need to switch. It seems to me that people actually believe that the speed thing would be a noticeable improvement and IE is less secure which it isnt at all. Shown by the information I've shared in this thread.

"Whether you like it or not, IE has traditionally had huge and gaping security flaws. MS are quick to patch usually; but that is beside the point - they exist and are exploited. Win 7 / IE 8 has tightened the screw but IE still has flaws. This is in part due to the fact it is the most popular and therefore most likely to suffer attack but also in part due to lazy development, something MS have a habit of".

There are vulnerabilities in every browser, nothing is 100% secure. Its just a case of finding them. Some browsers on some O.S's with out specific addons installed are more secure than others. For instance, Win7 + IE8 or Chrome is said to be the most secure. " they exist and are exploited" - Not true, some are, some aren't, there are not always reports or findings that every or even half the vulnerabilities reported are actually exploited, generally these are found and no indications that its being taken advantage of in the wild are found.

"Win 7 / IE 8 has tightened the screw but IE still has flaws" - Of course, but less than I bet anything else out there, chances are using IE8 on Win7 or Chrome (as already mentioned) would be the most secure choice. Why? Because it makes sense that any newer browser or O.S would be less prone to attack or vulnerabilities because the product is newer therefore people have had less time to identify vulnerabilities.

"This is in part due to the fact it is the most popular and therefore most likely to suffer attack but also in part due to lazy development, something MS have a habit of".
If MS has a greater market share than anyone else then it makes sense to target the majority. MS is a huge huge company that spends a lot of money on ensuring security and patching any flaws as quick as possible.

L0rdF1end - I really can't be bothered to critique your response, mainly since you seem to be defending the indefensible and arguing from a position of shifting sand.

I would like you to clarify one thing though. Are you seriously saying that you do not find in the least bit concerning the fact that MS pays for a test on browser security and then surprisingly finds that its own product is the best? And to claim that it is OK to not be impartial because IE is free software is a laughable stance, given that market share generates a lot more wealth than MS could hope to accrue by charging for a browser.

Filbert, I appreciate your thoughts and response. It really has been an interesting debate and I thank you for sharing your thoughts and putting up your side of the discussion. Its given me a good insight into what people believe to be true which I'm not sure if im suprised about it or not.

"I would like you to clarify one thing though. Are you seriously saying that you do not find in the least bit concerning the fact that MS pays for a test on browser security and then surprisingly finds that its own product is the best? And to claim that it is OK to not be impartial because IE is free software is a laughable stance, given that market share generates a lot more wealth than MS could hope to accrue by charging for a browser".

The way I see it, Is ok, MS payed for a test. Say for instance my company payed for these tests and I didnt come out on top, would I publish the results? No, more than likely not. Would I share incorrect results to shoot myself in the foot, definetly not.

Browsers are a very big key in selling additional products and services. This is why Market share in browsers is so important. This is why I would predict IE to outshine any of its competitors in the future. This makes perfect clear sense to me.

So in the same manner of speaking, it would be OK for a tobacco company to sponsor 'scientific' tests that play down or negate the harmful effects of carcinogens? And that bias would be OK because by your logic, the results must be true because they wouldn't release bad results because of the adverse affect?

Did it not occur to you that the results may have been cooked to skew MS favourably?

I don't think its fair to link in a well known fact that tobacco is harmful and causes lung diseases. If the company however had scientific evidence to show that in fact its not as harmful as some other scientific results have shown then fair enough i guess. That doesnt then mean people will start up smoking because they would say for instance, only loose 7 years of their life rather than 10.

I understand how you could see the results to be skewed in MS's favour. But I see no real point in reporting incorrect results to then be beaten down and shamed. That's not going to improve market share long term. Any savvy person would realise that the goals to increase market share would need to be both short term and long term.

L0rdF1end - you are aware that tobacco companies have spent decades and countless millions of dollars in order to firstly promote and defend themselves from lawsuits that allege that smoking kills people? And presumably, you are also aware that tobacco companies spent millions funding research and skewing results and suppressing others in order to bolster their viewpoint? Now can you see why in terms or research and testing, impartiality is not just beneficial, it is critical.

Of course MS will not release results that make them look bad - what they will do is cook up tests that show them in favourable light. I linked you to a thread discussing these tests earlier in this thread - did you read it?

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/08/microsoft-sponsors-two-nss-reports-ie8-is-the-most-secure.ars

You will note that they say:

"Microsoft has tried before to market IE8 as a superior browser to its predecessors and to the competition. In June 2008, the company launched a "Windows Internet Explorer 8: Get the facts" website that received much criticism because it was obviously biased. In March 2009, the company released its own tests that showed IE8 loading many websites faster than two open source browsers, Firefox and Chrome. With these NSS Labs reports, the company is trying to show that third-parties also find IE8 to be a solid competitor, but the fact that the software giant sponsored the reports blunts their impact (the way that one designs the test has a huge impact on the results). "

Now can you see why MS sponsoring these tests affects the outcome?

Yeah I understand completly the point you are making and I do understand why people would possibly consider these results to be biased. The additional point is that the results are the results.

If these results were deemd unfair or biased why hasn't any of the other companies come back with their own conclusion or comments confirming this test to be biased...

From the same page...

Update
Rick Moy, president of NSS Labs, sent us a follow-up e-mail to tell us that it was Microsoft's online security engineering team (not marketing) that hired NSS Labs to do recurring benchmark testing so they could improve their services. Only once Microsoft's security engineering team saw the results did it send the details over to the marketing department.

In terms of sponsorship of the reports, "this stuff is expensive to do right, and we need to monetize it somehow," Moy told Ars. "We invited Google, Mozilla, Apple, Opera to participate, but they didn’t even bother to respond, except for Opera, which stated they “don’t really focus on malware."

You're either a really really bad marketing intern of Microsoft or the biggest zombie I have ever seen. My money right now is on intern who really really needs to work on his viral marketing skills. I mean really work on them, because right now you just suck at it.

Going back to the initial posters point and the reason he shared his wish to move away from IE, I'm just curious, why do you think it is that people move away or feel the need to install a broswer that's mostly always installed by default? Personally I'm used to using IE because I have all my life and I really can't be bothered to download another browser which isnt going to offer me any additional functionality I would make use of.

I know it's heresy but I have actually committed the blasphemy of changing my default homepage. The reason that people install other browsers is pretty simple, IE is a security mess and slow. Additionally it doesn't do things a lot of people want it to.

Personally I've tried Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. Well, I guess I should amend that slightly. I've tried Opera, for the five minutes it worked before crashing. Looked pretty, never got a chance to do anything with it though. Chrome, I couldn't even get to start up not that I would have left it on my computer anyways. Firefox is still king for me.

Tyyr wrote:You're either a really really bad marketing intern of Microsoft or the biggest zombie I have ever seen. My money right now is on intern who really really needs to work on his viral marketing skills. I mean really work on them, because right now you just suck at it.

Thanks for your guess but I'm neither a Zombie, last time I checked or a Marketing Intern. I'm sharing my thoughts here, nothing more. which is debating the fact which I believe (others argue otherwise and will continue to do so with their own fair points). there's total missconception when it comes to peoples views on IE. Ok, a lot of this stuff may have been true in the past but I don't think it's the case anymore. Thats was my point raised, disccussed and debated.

Tell you what, find a non-Microsoft sponsored test, an actual independent one, that says that IE8 is the most secure and fastest browser. That's all you have to do. If it is the most secure and fastest you should find such a test fairly quickly. You do that and an honest debate occurs. Right now you've got nothing.

Tyyr wrote:Tell you what, find a non-Microsoft sponsored test, an actual independent one, that says that IE8 is the most secure and fastest browser. That's all you have to do. If it is the most secure and fastest you should find such a test fairly quickly.

Firstly you miss understand my points partially.

I never said IE8 was the fastest browser. I said it was found to be faster at loading some pages than others. I also noted how the speed difference was so minimal that it shouldnt be a deciding factor on what broweser you decide to use. I stated "It was one of the fastest".

For security again after much debate I'm happy that this is enough evidence for me concerning secuirty of browsers.
http://www.hirdyman.co.uk/2010/03/03/most-secure-combination-windows-7-ie8-or-chrome/
"Every year for the last few years a contest has been held in British Columbia, Canada. The purpose of this contest is to allow the best hackers to take a crack at browsers, mobile devices, gaming consoles and operating systems and see which they can hack the fastest.

In the operating systems category, a security expert, Charlie Miller has taken the prize for the last two years. OneITsecurity decided to interview him leading up to the march 24th event.

When asked what would be the most secure combination for a browser/OS he said, “That’s a good question. Chrome or IE8 on Windows 7 with no Flash installed. There probably isn’t enough difference between the browsers to get worked up about. The main thing is not to install Flash!” While I agree about the vulnerabilities in flash, the internet minus flash would be horrible, kind of like surfing the internet on an iPhone or iPad (magical). It’s one of those things that you just need to realize the risks going into the situation".

So, anyways, this has been debated to death and the point i also made was that people are more likely to just use what the are used to using unless they experience and bad experience with that product. It's their decision. It's also interesting to see the diversity in understanding and thoughts that a paticular browser is better, more secure, faster than others.

Given that internet explorer has a vastly larger security footprint on the internet (aka it's used by about 50% of the market) even if it's on par with other products (which its not) its still at risk more heavily than others by virtue of increased attempts at cracking it.

So, anyways, this has been debated to death and the point i also made was that people are more likely to just use what the are used to using unless they experience and bad experience with that product. It's their decision. It's also interesting to see the diversity in understanding and thoughts that a paticular browser is better, more secure, faster than others.

If it makes you feel any worse IE8 is also one of the least feature filled browsers available and sucks with html5.

"While Microsoft is technically correct when it keeps saying that HTML5 isn’t finished, its failure to offer broad support for the new markup language has held IE back from the web’s cutting edge. The company has traditionally been reticent to support emerging standards, viewing them as a moving target and choosing only to concentrate on standards that have been ratified by the W3C, the web’s governing body".

"At PDC09, Microsoft’s last big developer event, president of the Windows division Steven Sinofsky promised that Internet Explorer 9 was going to offer a “more modern” (there’s that word again) browsing experience and emphasized coming improvements in performance, JavaScript rendering, support for existing web standards and support for HTML5 and CSS 3."

Lets see what happens in the future concerning unwritten standards or the fact that HTML 5 isn't classed as finished.

http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/03/microsoft-to-double-down-on-html5-with-internet-explorer-9/

I use Chrome. Im basically the slowed original gameboy cousin of the computer, to put my know how into perspective. Anywho, I can figure out chrome in no time, and it responds rather quickly to my demands. I used to use firefox, but I prefer Chrome to it now. Hope that helps

The ideas behind HTML5 were pioneered in 2004 by the WHATWG; HTML5 incorporates Web Forms 2.0, another WHATWG specification. The HTML5 specification was adopted as the starting point of the work of the new HTML working group of the W3C in 2007. This working group published the First Public Working Draft of the specification on January 22, 2008.[3] The specification is an ongoing work, and is expected to remain so for many years, although parts of HTML5 are going to be finished and implemented in browsers before the whole specification reaches final Recommendation status.

Ian Hickson, editor of the HTML5 specification, expects the specification to reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012, and W3C Recommendation in the year 2022 or later.[10] However, many parts of the specification are stable and may be implemented in products:

You should probably learn what the hell you're talking about before copy pasting the first link in google. The w3c has always worked off of rolling standards, the internet is constructed entirely of them. And Microsoft has never given a damn about the w3c or its standards. They spent the decade after netscape died basically ignoring them and fething it up for everyone else.

Also it's by far the least feature filled browser.

Anyway you've clearly drawn a line in the sand on your decision and now you're just defending it out of reticence or laziness. I'm done here.

Google is spying on you. Stick with Firefox.

In all matters computer, stick with open source when you can. Firefox has an excellent updating system. If you are that worried about it, have one computer for the web and one computer for whatever it is you do on your computer. Keep your bank records etc. I just got what I call my Web 2.0 computer for $229 at a local store.

And don't forget that Internet Explorer 6.0 (which half the Internet is still using, including my present employer) is crap software. Firefox and even IE 8.0 are much better. The fact that Firefox is SO popular at all is mostly because of the failure that was IE 6.0.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
^^ The reason why IE is non-compliant is to make it work with crappy written websites. Basically people were writting gakky HTML so IE kept up with that. You can even try it out yourself. That sort of thing is not as important anymore, or at least it SHOULDNT.

I was on Youtube w/ my employer's IE 6.0 and I actually got a message they were going to stop supporting it on I believe it was March 15th, five days ago.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/07/14/youtube-will-be-next-to-kiss-ie6-support-goodbye/

IE 6.0 was fine, it helped move the web forward but it is time to kiss it goodbye.

The reason why IE is non-compliant is to make it work with crappy written websites. Basically people were writting gakky HTML so IE kept up with that. You can even try it out yourself. That sort of thing is not as important anymore, or at least it SHOULDNT.

Actually the reason why IE is non compliant is because there is no body of enforcement for compliance and once netscape died internet explorer essentially existed alone in the business. I'm in a field that does a lot of web design and the horror stories of having to program "Around" internet explorer is so commonplace it's liking talking about a war.

I was on Youtube w/ my employer's IE 6.0 and I actually got a message they were going to stop supporting it on I believe it was March 15th, five days ago.

Google is stopping support of IE6 post chinese web attack. Google owns youtube. It's not a huge thing, they're just going to stop writing around it. It'll still work for a while.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Actually the reason why IE is non compliant is because there is no body of enforcement for compliance and once netscape died internet explorer essentially existed alone in the business. I'm in a field that does a lot of web design and the horror stories of having to program "Around" internet explorer is so commonplace it's liking talking about a war.

Same here; I work for an IT company who, amongst other things, deliver bespoke web mapping apps - IE6 is still hanging around in most companies, stinking up the place. Having to wrangle stuff to work with it is an ongoing struggle. I pointed this out to LordF1end on Page 1 of this thread.

http://operawatch.com/news/2007/09/opera-vs-firefox-vs-internet-explorer-picture.html

I think these pictures say it all.

Just kidding,

Out of the three I've used, I like Firefox, and Chrome. I think after a while, chrome will be the best, but for now, I'm just going to stick with Firefox.

This pic is made of win.