(11-26-2008, 03:06 AM)ainmosni link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=Blues link=topic=1322.msg51357#msg51357 date=1227645706]
[quote author=ainmosni link=topic=1322.msg51339#msg51339 date=1227637962]
[quote author=Blues link=topic=1322.msg51336#msg51336 date=1227637608]
[quote author=ainmosni link=topic=1322.msg51326#msg51326 date=1227636341]
[quote author=Blues link=topic=1322.msg51131#msg51131 date=1227567063]
Still full of holes and vulnerabilities. D:
I'll probably be sticking with Crazy Browser regardless.
You're complaining about Chrome's security while using an IE based browser? Oh the irony...
About Chrome: it has indeed a lot of privacy/security issues and I miss my firefox add-ons too much... TBH I'm waiting for firefox 3.1 which will also have a jscript VM (the source of chrome's speed) and a lot of other improvements....
[/quote]
You're complaining about IE's security while using a browser that has had more vulnerabilities than IE since late 2005/ early 2006? I lol'd.
[/quote]
You _do_ know the difference between open source and closed source right?
[/quote]
You_do_know the difference between more popular programs being the target of the exploit happy subculture and less popular programs being almost completely ignored right? Regardless, I don't really care about the opinions of the Mac Kid of the browser world, I just like returning sarcasm.
Also, staying on the topic of Chrome, I can already see the hundreds of forced install/package toolbars to become the standard for it. =\
[/quote]
And I just don't like people blindly believing PR... The reason more exploits are found in firefox (or many other open source programs for that matter) is that its dirty laundry (its source) is out in the open so it's much easier to find vulnerabilities and other bugs in it. The main difference is that these get fixed in open source a lot quicker than they get fixed in closed source... If you look 0-day exploits (exploits only known to crackers and not by the public) you'll see many more IE exploits than are known to microsoft (that or publicly acknowledged) and will not get patched for quite a long time...
Further more the 'IE is more popular' argument is flawed because if being popular was the deciding factor of how often some piece of software is compromised then apache (the most popular web server around) would be compromised a lot more often than IIS (Microsoft's web server)... This is not the case by a long shot...
Not attacking you personally of course, I just dislike people blindly believing PR. Truth is there are many factors to security and the most important being that microsoft hasn't had a sane security model for a long time. Now they're trying to force Vista in a sane security model and everybody turns it off because application developers aren't used to it and pop up the UAC window way too often. That and users have gotten used to the previous lack of security...
[/quote]
First off, I couldn't care less about PR, what the net says, etc. etc., I just get sick of hearing every Firefox user going on and on about security being why Firefox is better. Most IE based browsers/shells are faster and more lightweight, at the cost of a huge extension of plugins which I'll never use anyways. I use what I want because I want to, if I'm too stupid to use something and get viruses, attacked, whatever, that's my problem, not theirs. Second, security is completely negligible with browsers anyways because nothing any of them offer as a default is going to stop someone who REALLY knows what they're doing from fucking with you unless you know not to do stupid shit. Also, I was referring to Firefox being the more popular browser, which is why it's currently a bigger target for hackers/scripters/exploiters/whatever. There's all sorts of shit IE won't ever catch, but half of it is so outdated that the simple update from IE6 to IE7 nullified them.
