Losing Firefox at my Firm :(

[Stark]

if people were able to install ff on their computers they have local admin rights. surfing with web on IE with local admin rights is a risky proposition (at least pre xp-sp2).

the person setting your policies is stupid.

 

[magomago]

Yeah not that I'm dissing on Microsoft, but they said FF isn't supported because "it isn't patched in a timely fasion"

Geeze when was the last IE update??? I have no idea because I've been using firefox since last summer 😀

 

[Cal166]

We recommend FF in our company. 🙂

 

[batmang]

i bet M$'s IE 7 will have tabs and features that FF has.

either or, im sticking with FF.

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel

Originally posted by: Doggiedog

Originally posted by: vshah
google for firefox usb drive

just bring it with you 🙂

tell me more 🙂

All you ever need

hmm if I use this can I get around my company's websense??

 

[Hyperblaze]

I hope to God you guys aren't being forced back to IE.

vulnerabilities in IE >>>>>>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities in FF

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: batmang
i bet M$'s IE 7 will have tabs and features that FF has.

either or, im sticking with FF.

Well, now that Microsoft has seen how useful the tabs and other features are in FF, of course they'll copy the software ideas just like everything else that they have copied.

However, unless Microsft seperates IE from the OS, it will NEVER become close to being as secure as FF

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: audiotherapy
hmm... firefox 9 exploits vs >9 IE exploits

That's not how it works. For a company any exploit is potentially damaging so if they have no way of managing Firefox and ensuring it is only used when fully patched then they don't have much of an alternative.

if they can automatically remove FF, then they can automatically update FF.

 

[tami]

what web browser are they considering to replace FF? IE?!

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: audiotherapy
hmm... firefox 9 exploits vs >9 IE exploits

That's not how it works. For a company any exploit is potentially damaging so if they have no way of managing Firefox and ensuring it is only used when fully patched then they don't have much of an alternative.

if they can automatically remove FF, then they can automatically update FF.

yes but to them it just a lot of hassle and manual work.

I think they prefer being more vulerable but easier to manage.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: audiotherapy
hmm... firefox 9 exploits vs >9 IE exploits

That's not how it works. For a company any exploit is potentially damaging so if they have no way of managing Firefox and ensuring it is only used when fully patched then they don't have much of an alternative.

if they can automatically remove FF, then they can automatically update FF.

yes but to them it just a lot of hassle and manual work.

I think they prefer being more vulerable but easier to manage.

It is time and effort to set up systems to automatically patch Firefox - but the main reason is that our main application used throughout the company and supplied by an external vendor will only work on IE. It's therefore pointless for us to put any resources into supporting Firefox. I'm sure someone will ask - we don't allow anyone to run local admin rights on our Network and all patches are applied through SMS

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: audiotherapy
hmm... firefox 9 exploits vs >9 IE exploits

That's not how it works. For a company any exploit is potentially damaging so if they have no way of managing Firefox and ensuring it is only used when fully patched then they don't have much of an alternative.

if they can automatically remove FF, then they can automatically update FF.

yes but to them it just a lot of hassle and manual work.

I think they prefer being more vulerable but easier to manage.

It is time and effort to set up systems to automatically patch Firefox - but the main reason is that our main application used throughout the company and supplied by an external vendor will only work on IE. It's therefore pointless for us to put any resources into supporting Firefox. I'm sure someone will ask - we don't allow anyone to run local admin rights on our Network and all patches are applied through SMS

Creating web pages which only work for ONE web browser is really not that well thought out.

 

[spherrod]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: audiotherapy
hmm... firefox 9 exploits vs >9 IE exploits

That's not how it works. For a company any exploit is potentially damaging so if they have no way of managing Firefox and ensuring it is only used when fully patched then they don't have much of an alternative.

if they can automatically remove FF, then they can automatically update FF.

yes but to them it just a lot of hassle and manual work.

I think they prefer being more vulerable but easier to manage.

It is time and effort to set up systems to automatically patch Firefox - but the main reason is that our main application used throughout the company and supplied by an external vendor will only work on IE. It's therefore pointless for us to put any resources into supporting Firefox. I'm sure someone will ask - we don't allow anyone to run local admin rights on our Network and all patches are applied through SMS

Creating web pages which only work for ONE web browser is really not that well thought out.

True - but then that is for the external vendor to decide. As a consequence we will concentrate solely on IE and will be very interested to see what IE7 brings to the table as tabbed browsing would be a big advantage for this particular application (essentially a database managed over the web).

 

[FlyLice]

better than company deleting all MP3s on the HD everytime you hook up to the network

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: audiotherapy
hmm... firefox 9 exploits vs >9 IE exploits

That's not how it works. For a company any exploit is potentially damaging so if they have no way of managing Firefox and ensuring it is only used when fully patched then they don't have much of an alternative.

if they can automatically remove FF, then they can automatically update FF.

yes but to them it just a lot of hassle and manual work.

I think they prefer being more vulerable but easier to manage.

That just sounds... asinine. Especially if you think about it in context to other businesses or institutions.

"Here at First National Bank, we're number one when it comes to managing your money. Provided it doesn't get stolen within ten minutes of you depositing it, anyway."

 

[Baked]

If you're actually doing work instead of surfing for pr0n doing your paid work hours, IE and Netscape is perfectly fine and secured.

 

[slycat]

IE rulez all!