Mozilla (Firefox) bug rears its head

[Sanaz]

In case anyone missed it:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/09/mozilla_bug/

Patch is already available:

http://www.mozillazine.org/

 

[MarineCorps]

Gee how long did M$ say it would to fix the newest hole they found?

 

[shadowdude]

It was nice of Mozilla to come out with a patch so quickly. If M$ made a patch for every hole in IE It would take forever!

 

[Nixnutz]

Just when you thought there was something that's safe.....

Here's another link.....http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/section/security/

 

[Sanaz]

Here's an interesting read on the shift from IE to Firefox. It's a very small jump, and Microsoft is under no threat, but it's still good to see:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116848,00.asp

This new threat may even help Firefox and Mozilla, because it's a little free advertising. Any publicity is good publicity, sometimes. And because they patched it so quickly, when MS still hasn't patched a month after the vulnerability was discovered, should put things in perspective.

 

[stormbind]

This was a serious security flaw. It allows arbitrary files to be launched on your computer.

Mozilla.org claimed their product was inherently secure because it was completely independent of the OS. I always thought they were spouting brown smelly stuff.

 

[shadowdude]

This was a serious security flaw. It allows arbitrary files to be launched on your computer.

Mozilla.org claimed their product was inherently secure because it was completely independent of the OS. I always thought they were spouting brown smelly stuff.

Yeah, but no more serious then the 100s of IE flaws and the patch was out quickly so you could get protected.

 

[Ankka]

Nice... my 98SE isn't in danger, seems. The bug only was for XP/2000...

 

[Sanaz]

Mozilla.org claimed their product was inherently secure because it was completely independent of the OS. I always thought they were spouting brown smelly stuff.

Any computer networking product which claims that it is 100% secure is naive. There is no such thing, short of not being connected. I hadn't read that they claimed inherent security, just that they are much more secure than IE or Opera, which they are. They have a simple page with known vulnerabilities:

http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html

This is just life on the internet. There are a lot of resources devoted to breaking down security systems, and the IP protocol is inherently insecure. I think Mozilla does as good a job as anyone, and much better than most.

 

[Tripwire]

Mozilla.org claimed their product was inherently secure because it was completely independent of the OS. I always thought they were spouting brown smelly stuff.

Didn't Mozilla claim the underlying problem was in Windows, not with their browser? Given MS's track record, would you be surprised if that was true? (I wouldn't.)

 

[Sanaz]

Didn't Mozilla claim the underlying problem was in Windows, not with their browser? Given MS's track record, would you be surprised if that was true? (I wouldn't.)

Yes, it exposes a known flaw in the OS, that has been known but uncorrected by Microsoft for over a year. I guess they have other priorities.

 

[anarchywrksbest]

Exactly, if windows wasn't so crap then we wouldn't have a problem. And Firefox IS a Linux browser afterall.

 

[shadowdude]

Exactly, if windows wasn't so crap then we wouldn't have a problem. And Firefox IS a Linux browser afterall.

Yep if M$ would just fix "broken windows" we'd all be fine.

 

[Ankka]

It has so many flaws it would take years. And by then the OS would be ancient.

 

[shadowdude]

It has so many flaws it would take years. And by then the OS would be ancient.

Bill Gates has something else to say.Readthis article
Here is a little preview.

Still, speaking at a press conference here Monday, Gates told journalists that Microsoft's patching process compares well with competitors'. "You know, the time -- the average time -- to fix on an operating system other than Windows is typically ninety to a hundred days," said Gates. "Today we have that down to less than forty-eight hours.

I don't believe it! how can this be? What a load of barnacles!

 

[anarchywrksbest]

I don't think Mac and the Linux geeks have the resources to do it that fast.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

I think Mozilla has to patch so quickly given their current share of the browser market.

When you are used by over 90% of online users you can take a year to patch without too much worry that you'll wake up as the underdog.

Mozilla simply can't afford to let things like this take away ANY users, they don't have enough as it is.

 

[Ankka]

I don't think Mac and the Linux geeks have the resources to do it that fast.

Neither do they really have the need to.