IE8 top browser for security now

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I loved FF for years, but since FF 3.x I havent been using it. Why? Many reasons, but this post is about security. Looks like MS has made a winner with IE8. I personally love it.

*CAVEAT: Although this test was done at NSS labs, per the article "The testing was sponsored by Microsoft's security team."....just being honest :)

Article here.

IE8 whips rivals in blocking malware sites
Microsoft's browser lengthens lead over No. 2 Firefox, blocks 81% of infected URLs

Computerworld - Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer 8 again trounced rival browsers in a test of their malware-blocking abilities, catching 81% of attack-code-infected sites, according to a testing company.

IE8's skills at sniffing out malware sites improved by 17% since March, said Rick Moy, president of NSS Labs, the firm that conducted the benchmarks. The testing was sponsored by Microsoft's security team.

IE8's improvement, and its dominance over competitors, could make some users reconsider decisions to abandon Microsoft's browser for one of its challengers. "Should people rethink that decision?" Moy asked. "By [this] data, absolutely."

While IE8 blocked eight of 10 of the malware-distributing sites that NSS included in its 12-day test, the nearest competitor, Mozilla's Firefox 3.0, caught just 27% of the same sites. Apple's Safari 4.0 and Google's Chrome 2.0, meanwhile, blocked only 21% and 7% of the sites, respectively. Opera Software's browser properly identified only 1%.

"I think it comes down to resources and the focus of these companies," Moy said in an interview, referring to Microsoft's ability to outspend rivals on such things as security research and malicious site investigations. "The more researchers you have, the better you'll do. Microsoft has a certain amount of paranoia [about security] because of its footprint of services that get attacked all the time, like Hotmail, and it has the money to hire really smart people."

Opera, which performed the poorest in the malware-blocking benchmarks, is an example on the other end of the spectrum, said Moy. "What resources do they really have to bring to the problem?" he asked. "There's a lot that can't be solved with software, but requires the human element."

NSS tested five Windows-based browsers -- IE8, Firefox 3.0.11, Safari 4.0.2, Chrome 2.0.0.172.33 and Opera 10 beta -- against more than 2,100 malware sites in 69 test runs over 12 days. Like the tests NSS Labs ran last March, the sites were so-called "socially engineered" malware sites, the type that trick users into downloading attack code. Typically, the download is disguised, often as an update to popular software such as Adobe's Flash Player.

The tests did not include sites that launch "drive-by" attacks that don't require user interaction, an increasingly common tactic by hackers who often infect legitimate sites with kits that try a number of different exploits in the hope of compromising an unpatched browser or PC.

To defend against the kind of sites that NSS tested, browser makers have added anti-malware features to their software. Microsoft, for instance, has aggressively touted its SmartScreen Filter, a new malware-detection feature in IE8.

All browsers that include such a tool -- or anti-phishing tools, which operate in a similar fashion -- rely on a blacklist of some sort. Those lists include known or suspected malware sites, and they enable the browsers to warn users when they type in the URL of one of the sites on the list.

"The foundation is an in-the-cloud reputation-based system that scours the Internet for malicious sites and then adds them to a blacklist or whitelist, or assigns them scores," Moy explained. The browser uses that information to block or allow access to a site.

IE8 significantly improved its lead over other browsers since March, Moy noted, with its browser's malware-blocking rate up 12 percentage points -- for a 17% improvement -- while rivals' scores declined across the board. Firefox dropped three percentage points, for example, as did Safari 4; Chrome fell eight percentage points and Opera fell four.

Even though Firefox, Safari and Chrome all rely on the same data source for their anti-malware blacklists -- Google's SafeBrowsing API -- their scores varied considerably. Moy said he thinks the differing results can be attributed to differences in the way each browser used the list. "Google produces the API, but that doesn't mean all the browsers consume the data in the same way at the same time," he said. "We don't have any visibility on how many people are looking at the [SafeBrowsing] data, but clearly Firefox must be adding other things to it."

Moy also said that IE8's anti-malware protection improved over time at a greater rate than did its rivals' systems. Because NSS Labs tested every four hours, it was able to measure how quickly each browser reacted to, and blocked, a new threat introduced into the test. While IE8's score jumped from 51% on Day Zero -- the day the infected site debuted on the Internet -- to 91% by Day Five (a 40-percentage-point jump), Firefox was only able to muster a 10-point increase, from 14% to 24%. Chrome improved the most over the course of the test, starting at just 3% on Day Zero and ending at 14% on Day Five.

"I was surprised when Microsoft got 69% in the first study," said Moy. "Then they went from 69% to 81%." NSS hopes to repeat the test before the end of the year.

According to the most recent data from Web metrics vendor Net Applications, IE8 accounted for 12.5% of all browsers used in July, representing 18% of all versions of IE in use.

The NSS report is available at the company's Web site
 

AnnonUSA

Senior member
Nov 18, 2007
468
0
0
I would still trust Firefox (with Addin's) to be easier to use, more pleasant experience and safer.

Microsoft's approach to security seems to be, lock all the doors and windows, or leave them wide open.
In addition I have never ever had Netscape or Firefox "Destroy" an Operating system, requiring a complete OS reload to repair, where IE has corrupted beyond repair several times.
I keep and use IE only when Absolutely required because of the coding of a website.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: AnnonUSA
I would still trust Firefox (with Addin's) to be easier to use, more pleasant experience and safer.

Microsoft's approach to security seems to be, lock all the doors and windows, or leave them wide open.
In addition I have never ever had Netscape or Firefox "Destroy" an Operating system, requiring a complete OS reload to repair, where IE has corrupted beyond repair several times.
I keep and use IE only when Absolutely required because of the coding of a website.

Thats whats great about competition :) I have a number of horror stories relating to FF, and will never use it again.
 

KeithP

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2000
5,664
202
106
From the article...

The testing was sponsored by Microsoft's security team.

The tests did not include sites that launch "drive-by" attacks that don't require user interaction,

Also, I am guessing FireFox wasn't running noscript or any other plugins.

Maybe IE8 is safer than FireFox which would be great for everyone but there is no question in my mind this test was done is such a way to focus on IE8's strengths, not weaknesses.

-KeithP
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: KeithP
From the article...

The testing was sponsored by Microsoft's security team.

The tests did not include sites that launch "drive-by" attacks that don't require user interaction,

Also, I am guessing FireFox wasn't running noscript or any other plugins.

Maybe IE8 is safer than FireFox which would be great for everyone but there is no question in my mind this test was done is such a way to focus on IE8's strengths, not weaknesses.

-KeithP

That may be. But as we all know, the majority of infections happen with not so security smart people. I read a similar study in March, and browsers were specifically tested "out of the box", and the article stated most people want to install and forget it. Thats FF biggest weakness, is too many add-ons have to be added to make it safe.
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: KeithP
From the article...

The testing was sponsored by Microsoft's security team.

The tests did not include sites that launch "drive-by" attacks that don't require user interaction,

Also, I am guessing FireFox wasn't running noscript or any other plugins.

And I'm guessing IE8 was tested without tweaking the Security Zones to accomplish the same thing as NoScript. THat capability has been there for about 10 years, since IE 5.01 iirc.

At this point, anyone who follows browser security should've noticed that all mainstream browsers have an endless parade of security vulnerabilities, and likewise for plug-ins (Flash, Adobe Reader, RealPlayer, etc) and realized the smart money's on mitigation: don't run a browser with an Admin account, and use other mitigations that are available (Protected Mode/UAC, for example).

As for the test, that's an impressive result. It's obvious they're throwing some serious resources at the problem :thumbsup:
 

tzdk

Member
May 30, 2009
152
0
0
blackangst1, may be you could tell me which sources they used? Result will depend 100% on those so kind of interesting. Also what does pre-screened and post-validation process means? They test before the real test I guess. And what does it mean?

Regardless of that, though it completely kills any output, have you tried WOT? Their sources are not secret, or can be dug up at least. Try that - and 81% become what? ;) Not really easy to test, takes me 1 minute to find 5 urls IE8 dont care about so I can conclude away. Time dont stand still but try make it a habit of doing random clicks. The more you test the more you will lose faith.

The idea of making such a test would not be to make people in tech world start to question the whole idea of Firefox/Google being safe would it? Also not what you are on about right? This is not a test of browser exploits but with any luck that will how those users you refer to understand it though. You have to be smart with security but also when reading tech-articles. Yes you did read a similar study because it was made by same company! I think it is great because it make competition tougher so all benefits but 81% is just a joke. Throws it all away unless reader is very naive. Definitely due to fantastic pre-screening or handpicked sources. Firefox numbers better show how much faith to have in browser-filters.

I dont think using Firefox 3.5 would change much but their reason for not using it is as weird as IE8 result so who knows. If you add 5-10% to Firefox and subtract 20% from IE8 report would be more believable bogus, heh. There is absolutely no reason not to declare how they obtained bad links and in details describe how they handpick them for real test you see presented as a nice graph. Im sure you can fix result easy, perhaps with the exception of Opera - dont do much with malware. Again try WOT - guarantee both MS and Google will both look stupid so ?

Im all for IE8, even more MSE, but most output companies have hands on are not neutral statements you are supposed to eat up or use as arguments for unrelated issues. Firefox is only safe with add-ons? How come Ive used it almost since day 1 and have no idea what you talk about? and where did that come from? :) How it goes and very unfortunate for MS and their lab... There is an agenda and many tech-sites who love to get hits! Mozilla is no better but up until recently they had IE6 as punching bag so how to avoid? Now they will have to sell products on other terms, like being a better browser! On forum of my AV Ive learned that browser-filters are of no importance since that program has its own. They generally dont see much use for other tools than their own. Well, look at the typical ad from security industry - you have been safe the last decade at least! Only a matter of spending money wizely. They dont care for security but market. Ads are ads. More interesting is that many people still regard MS/IE as insecure by nature, as in you are an idiot for not using Firefox - a certain grouping will add Linux but almost ok to use Windows (use "work" as excuse...) If report make that segment quiet that is a good side-effect. A lot better than misuse of numbers towards the not so interested - but they can read and see a graph, all that matters. Since also a paid report it is easy to take apart. Could hide the fact that MS have gotten finger out with IE, soon MSE.

mechBgon, I will only speak for Firefox but remember there are also very knowledgeable people who dont belive one bit in the great "need" for stuff like Noscripts - which I find a joke but cool for those with security on their brain. Just another add-on. There is a less hyped alternative called YesScript btw. But Ive been there with cookie control and what not myself :) understand where it is coming from, like a phase... Anyway, you dont have to read guides on how to lock down IE to compete. Logic of IE being crap since Firefox has all those add-ons is nonsense. If you have some sources with proof of concepts showing this is a big misunderstanding then let me know. Dont link me to Noscript blog though... may be you get lucky with a javascript "exploit" crashing browser. All Ive been able to find - is not having much luck. So Oh dear and ? In labs and behind the scenes there is a constant attempt to keep up with exploits hence the updates over and over. You can even get money if you find one, not like they dont care. All that is true, duck duck, but what is being done about it and what impact there is out in real world is more important. Mainstream browsers are more safe than insecure, Firefox is not new IE6 because of a questionable headline or become supersafe because of paranoid but well promoted add-on. This test has nothing to do with browser exploits! Practically any talk of browser exploits is not understood by readers, is not even meant to be read or used as basis for any evaluation. Think agenda, interests, market shares - bad journalism too. Conficker was about hackers, crackers and the sensation of it all - not so much about a month-old OS update not implemented or poor security policies ;)
 

tzdk

Member
May 30, 2009
152
0
0
Just 30 seconds a go I got a new follower on Twitter. She link me to this http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/bissyou98.go.3322.org WOT got it - Google/MS have no idea. Just so easy, but at least Firefox has the numbers to prove how bad it is ;) If this test is about "social" websites and the dangers which follows go WOT. Site is very explicit regarding certain body parts, actually most of them, but may be they put cloth on and stop jumping if you sign up? ;) Malware comes in many disguises. Google "registry fix". Find any good link in Google ads? Google who feed Firefox with filters. Some of those products are close to being scams, with little knowledge of Windows they are!, and yet Google allow them. WOT them away. There is thin line with arguments about taste and personal preferences, users can spend money as they wish - but still. Hard to exclude such sites by universally used browsers - impossible to reach 81% I think. WOT has an easier job, like Malwarebytes almost. Importance decided by definition of malware/"bad" sites. Browser must also be accepted by all, not intrusive.

Forgot. Remember the spam about orbasoft, also on these forums I think? A local company here paid Indian bloggers to spam internet with his fake registry scanner, now it is virus scanner - same crap. Still not blocked by MS or Firefox. Very hard to detect by AV unless they actively go for these legit yet not downloads. WOT can encourage blocking, also has a plugin letting users decide sensitivity them self. Browsers risk getting into arguments of being restrictive. There is a line somewhere so they must be careful since all is black or white.
 

mechBgon

Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
Oct 31, 1999
30,699
1
0
Originally posted by: tzdk

mechBgon, I will only speak for Firefox but remember there are also very knowledgeable people who dont belive one bit in the great "need" for stuff like Noscripts - which I find a joke but cool for those with security on their brain. Just another add-on. There is a less hyped alternative called YesScript btw. But Ive been there with cookie control and what not myself :) understand where it is coming from, like a phase... Anyway, you dont have to read guides on how to lock down IE to compete. Logic of IE being crap since Firefox has all those add-ons is nonsense. If you have some sources with proof of concepts showing this is a big misunderstanding then let me know. Dont link me to Noscript blog though... may be you get lucky with a javascript "exploit" crashing browser. All Ive been able to find - is not having much luck. So Oh dear and ?

I'm not sure if you were asking me a question or what :confused: but I'm not suggesting that anyone try to secure their system using NoScript or Zones alone. That would be foolhardy, considering that trusted sites are compromised sometimes. My strategy is to proactively make even a successful exploit useless to the attacker insofar as possible. NoScript or Zones could make a nice "cherry on top," but it would be better to have the whole banana split to go with it, wouldn't it ;) Assume your browser (or an add-on) has been successfully exploited, and ask yourself "what happens now?" Can a payload execute? If so, can it access your user account's files, or (heaven forbid) modify system files?

What this thread is about, is the filtration of malicious URLs by the browser. Naturally it's an imperfect layer of protection, and if I were still The I.T. Guy at the non-profit agency I used to work for, I'd certainly work on user education to suplement browser-based filtration. However, it looks like Microsoft is doing relatively well at the filtering, and hopefully their competitors respond with improved filtering as well.
 

tzdk

Member
May 30, 2009
152
0
0
I just question the claimed need for extra protection against browser exploits in the year 2009. I dont say leave them alone since they are secure but that there is a world between bug-report like on Secunia, bugzilla if they disclose it, and real life dangers a normal user should worry about. Those who are paranoid always draw a direct link between the 2, why Noscript - lots more, arsenal of protection. The more the better. Not only are you fighting malware but also Windows/MS, insecure apps. I just say cool it - though understand the position. People can do what they want but Im annoyed when whatever is promoted like NoScript is, has been for years. Compare with: you are an idiot for using Windows at all, without Linux you have no idea... more or less fan-boy talk and irelevant to real life. This type of testing is in same category. And is only about downloads or only a part of what you could say is socially engineered malware urls.

Nice with a IE8 win for more than one reason but need more info to understand - if not whole paid report is dismissed that is... Not enough to say "socially engineered malware" and then go on and on about how they deal with output from urls. This is basic blacklisting where hit-rate is completely ruled by MS/Googles sources and update frequency. Problem could be neither MS or Google want to reveal details but then they should mention this. You dont think they have found these urls by random browsing around do you? They come from a source, probably more than one. And I still would have loved to see WOT in here, should get around 197% or something ;) WOT is all about stopping these type of downloads and much more. Way better than both or you can slap me silly. Could be because there are more than one definition of what is malicious or not. Dont think it is possible to present meaningful fixed numbers. May be there are 1000000 bad urls racing around in Africa but collection of those urls is on hold? They cant be tested if not collected. Well, you only need 1 of WOTs sources to see why I wonder. Browser-filters are good little helpers, especially because build-in so no messing about with add-ons. Only a minority use those anyway but certainly not waste of time to improve on MS. Unless you read all lines in report you could get that impression, 81% speak for itself.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: tzdk
blackangst1, may be you could tell me which sources they used? Result will depend 100% on those so kind of interesting. Also what does pre-screened and post-validation process means? They test before the real test I guess. And what does it mean?

Regardless of that, though it completely kills any output, have you tried WOT? Their sources are not secret, or can be dug up at least. Try that - and 81% become what? ;) Not really easy to test, takes me 1 minute to find 5 urls IE8 dont care about so I can conclude away. Time dont stand still but try make it a habit of doing random clicks. The more you test the more you will lose faith.

The idea of making such a test would not be to make people in tech world start to question the whole idea of Firefox/Google being safe would it? Also not what you are on about right? This is not a test of browser exploits but with any luck that will how those users you refer to understand it though. You have to be smart with security but also when reading tech-articles. Yes you did read a similar study because it was made by same company! I think it is great because it make competition tougher so all benefits but 81% is just a joke. Throws it all away unless reader is very naive. Definitely due to fantastic pre-screening or handpicked sources. Firefox numbers better show how much faith to have in browser-filters.

I dont think using Firefox 3.5 would change much but their reason for not using it is as weird as IE8 result so who knows. If you add 5-10% to Firefox and subtract 20% from IE8 report would be more believable bogus, heh. There is absolutely no reason not to declare how they obtained bad links and in details describe how they handpick them for real test you see presented as a nice graph. Im sure you can fix result easy, perhaps with the exception of Opera - dont do much with malware. Again try WOT - guarantee both MS and Google will both look stupid so ?

Im all for IE8, even more MSE, but most output companies have hands on are not neutral statements you are supposed to eat up or use as arguments for unrelated issues. Firefox is only safe with add-ons? How come Ive used it almost since day 1 and have no idea what you talk about? and where did that come from? :) How it goes and very unfortunate for MS and their lab... There is an agenda and many tech-sites who love to get hits! Mozilla is no better but up until recently they had IE6 as punching bag so how to avoid? Now they will have to sell products on other terms, like being a better browser! On forum of my AV Ive learned that browser-filters are of no importance since that program has its own. They generally dont see much use for other tools than their own. Well, look at the typical ad from security industry - you have been safe the last decade at least! Only a matter of spending money wizely. They dont care for security but market. Ads are ads. More interesting is that many people still regard MS/IE as insecure by nature, as in you are an idiot for not using Firefox - a certain grouping will add Linux but almost ok to use Windows (use "work" as excuse...) If report make that segment quiet that is a good side-effect. A lot better than misuse of numbers towards the not so interested - but they can read and see a graph, all that matters. Since also a paid report it is easy to take apart. Could hide the fact that MS have gotten finger out with IE, soon MSE.

mechBgon, I will only speak for Firefox but remember there are also very knowledgeable people who dont belive one bit in the great "need" for stuff like Noscripts - which I find a joke but cool for those with security on their brain. Just another add-on. There is a less hyped alternative called YesScript btw. But Ive been there with cookie control and what not myself :) understand where it is coming from, like a phase... Anyway, you dont have to read guides on how to lock down IE to compete. Logic of IE being crap since Firefox has all those add-ons is nonsense. If you have some sources with proof of concepts showing this is a big misunderstanding then let me know. Dont link me to Noscript blog though... may be you get lucky with a javascript "exploit" crashing browser. All Ive been able to find - is not having much luck. So Oh dear and ? In labs and behind the scenes there is a constant attempt to keep up with exploits hence the updates over and over. You can even get money if you find one, not like they dont care. All that is true, duck duck, but what is being done about it and what impact there is out in real world is more important. Mainstream browsers are more safe than insecure, Firefox is not new IE6 because of a questionable headline or become supersafe because of paranoid but well promoted add-on. This test has nothing to do with browser exploits! Practically any talk of browser exploits is not understood by readers, is not even meant to be read or used as basis for any evaluation. Think agenda, interests, market shares - bad journalism too. Conficker was about hackers, crackers and the sensation of it all - not so much about a month-old OS update not implemented or poor security policies ;)

If youre interested the entire report can be found on NSS's website. Would you like for me to link it for you?
 

spikespiegal

Golden Member
Oct 10, 2005
1,219
9
76
It's so refreshing working in corporate climates where we can focus our discussions on increasing productivity and not fiddling around discussing browser exploits. If I hit a malicious site with an account that doesn't have local admin rights, good luck with this junk writing to any system files.

Nice to know about IE 8, but it's only a matter of time before vulnerabilities are discovered. Then again they will only affect mostly home users too lazy and stupid to operate their machine in a professional way.
 

tzdk

Member
May 30, 2009
152
0
0
Have read it blackangst1, found here http://arstechnica.com/microso...is-the-most-secure.ars notice update which leave more questions. If only MS wanted to "participate" why is it compared to other browsers. MS pay the bill? What does participation means? Same treatment? Im convinced IE8 is good and MS have gotten finger out but not because of this report. Article mention those extremely silly earlier IE promos for a reason - is seen as yet another along those lines and then useless. MS is not that good at marketing. If they had a tighter budget they would suffer.

IE8 was probably exploited before it reached Windows Update :) Same with Firefox but they are on their toes. An IE6 type of browser is not acceptable today but attempts are made of course. So they update, and update. Around Firefox 3.09 Mozilla rushed out a release because for the xxxxxth time headlines about "exploits" could be found on popular tech sites. In Bugzilla you could see they moved most regular planned bug-fixes to next version. Very short changelog. All good but shows how sensitive this area is, no way to get away with bad rep.

Anyway, I think both OS and browser are safer than ever. Most should forget about them and focus on other activities. If more guidance on social internet is needed install WOT ;) Even a "stupid" person should be able to understand what a download/installation is. Should be possible to avoid, kick off suspicion at least. All other scams can be more difficult to see through, dont have to compromise computer so you can laugh due to account setup - or so you hope. Is that IQ-test still a live? Some of them will charge phone bill quite a bit. Such things are just as important to be aware of. Many variants of bad urls. Perhaps difficult to block sometimes but then a notification to investigate before further action is useful, if not ignored that is - some will get into problems. 1 out 100? On a worldwide scale still big potential customer base. The other 99 get caught in the fire and have to witness disasters.
 

us3rnotfound

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2003
5,334
3
81
Pfft, I don't care it is still annoying in its sluggish compared to [Insert a Browser Name].

Opening a tab, highlighting text and seeing that annoying arrow, and scrolling all just seem buggy as hell to me.
 

tzdk

Member
May 30, 2009
152
0
0
You can turn off acc. arrow in options, advanced. If you would prefer IE engine but hate interface why not use Maxthon? Unless you know a lot about Firefox add-ons Maxthon is probably shortest way to most flexible features. Dont know much about Maxthon since Firefox 1.0 but used to be great. Would think it stil is. Endless options with add-on/skin site. Good forum. As with Firefox most is junk but you can personalize browser with what matters to you.

Not sure if Maxthon or other shells can make use of SmartScreen.
 

Scouzer

Lifer
Jun 3, 2001
10,358
5
0
Meh, whatever. IE8 is still slow as balls and crashes too often. I run Chrome personally. For my parents machines I run Firefox with NIS2009 Plugin + WOT filters which should block out the vast majority of threats.