• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Firefox Myths

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The integration itself could be a problem, that's why MS had to add the security zones crap and there have been several exploits that work around the security zones already. But a bigger problem is that MS seems to mark all/most of their ActiveX controls safe for scripting, meaning that they can be controlled by webpages with just a little bit of VBScript and there have been scarier tihngs done with those since some of the controls have filesystem functions and such.
 
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
 
Originally posted by: GeneralAres
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?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

Manually do what?? You disable ActiveX and active scripting you still have holes.
 
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:
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
The Download manager is nifty for one, the search bar thing built in w/o me having to install one is good, and I never believed it was any better than IE. I use both.

What I love about it is when someone is on my system and sees both IE and FF on it, chances are he/she'll look through my FF links and history instead of IE. That's where I can keep the more personal stuff in. 🙂
 
Updates:

v1.0.1

Performance Myths - Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser
Performance Myths - Firefox is Faster than Mozilla
Security Myths - Firefox is the Most Secure Web Browser
Feature Myths - Firefox Blocks all Popups
Feature Myths - Firefox is the Most Standards Compliant Web Browser
 
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
Click to expand...

A long time ago this same guy posted a topic here at Anandtech regarding his "Optimize XP" section. He kept arguing with us and believed he was right no matter how much proof we gave him.

His "XP Myths" section actually has some good material, but I haven't seen him post that yet.
 
KoolDrew,

Anything useful to add? Or does the Firefox Myths information scare you so much you feel compelled to attempt to personally attack me?
 
heh one of my biggest complaints about FF was the initial load time and sluggishness of the browser once you got into it.

 
Schneier's blog
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.
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
After running FF for a year and then switching to Opera after it went free, I find Opera more stable and faster. I'd still use FF over IE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top