Jump to content


Photo

MS Anti-Spyware


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you think the new Anti-Spyware by MS would solve the problems its Browser has faced for a long time? Take your time........ (37 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think the new Anti-Spyware by MS would solve the problems its Browser has faced for a long time? Take your time........

  1. Yes...I am sure it will (15 votes [40.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.54%

  2. No...It would be a failure (2 votes [5.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.41%

  3. Cant say (10 votes [27.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.03%

  4. Too Late, we already have other good products (3 votes [8.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.11%

  5. Anti-Spyware by MS? Are you kidding me?? Just Business! (7 votes [18.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.92%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 helperatwork

helperatwork

    The SWI Penguin!

  • Retired Staff - Helper
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 06 January 2005 - 11:29 PM

Finally, our good old Microsoft Corporation has realized that they cant do without an Anti-Spyware Product..Since we have seen alot of people still getting infected even though they have filled up their hard disks with Service Packs and Critical updates, would this product also end in a failure :( .
Please help keep the forums free ===> More info Here

The wisest mind has something yet to learn

#2 wizkid

wizkid

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 07 January 2005 - 01:54 AM

I think it is pretty good, i have it already.


Not Bad!

Niels

#3 macaroo

macaroo

    Advanced Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts

Posted 07 January 2005 - 09:21 AM

I installed it on a customer's machine yesterday and it found 45 infected files that AdaWare and Spybot missed. Thumbs UPí

#4 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:09 AM

I didn't run MS Anti-Spyware, because I can wait for the final version.
Beta-tests are for professionals, not for typical users like me and the majority of users.

Of course it will work when everybody gives MS enough time to remove the bugs.
Programs are written by people and people make mistakes.
The beauty of mistakes is that they can be corrected.

Frankly, I sincerely hope that MS will remove any competition in the Malware World, because I'm tired of running all these little overlapping softwares with different signature databases and that's what each typical user wants.
Competition is a real disadvantage in the Malware World and we users are the victim, because we have to learn, run and update all these softwares.
I didn't buy a computer to do all that, I like to do some REAL work or having FUN with my computer without wasting my time on malware detection and removal.


I don't understand why most people are blaming MS for all the security problems.
MS never wrote malware programs. Only MANY malicious programmers all over the world wrote these malware programs.
Of course you can't blame these people, because they hide themselves like cowards, while famous MS is an EASY TARGET.

Any GOOD thing can be used in an EVIL way. That has been proven over and over again in life.
I can use a knife to cut my steak, but I can use the same knife to hurt or to kill somebody.
Who is guilty ? The inventor, the manufacturer, the knife or me ?
That's what happened to MS, the bad guys misused the good software of MS.
I never blamed MS for my troubles with malware. I blame the malware writers, because they are the real guilty ones.

Bill Gates is a visionary and that's why he is so successfull and of course the money follows.
MS didn't create Windows just because of the money. You can't sell an operating system to typical users,
when it isn't userfriendly enough and 90% of the computers have now Windows.
I understand why other companies are jealous with MS and take any opportunity to pester MS.

I hope that these beta-testers will report all these bugs to MS in stead of complaining about MS. :)

Edited by ErikAlbert, 07 January 2005 - 11:14 AM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#5 www

www

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:19 AM

Registered about 10 minutes ago and glad I did, finally found someone else who isn't in a rush to knock MS.

Only thing I might disagree on is not trying the MS Beta *in this case*. I hope they haven't changed too much and, as I was using the Giant trial product (phew, I was going to buy it as a Xmas present to myself - good timing, MS), I'm happy to use the MS version.

#6 helperatwork

helperatwork

    The SWI Penguin!

  • Retired Staff - Helper
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 07 January 2005 - 11:30 AM

I didnt vote yet, probably because I want to vote for every option but I can wait for the final release.

I may agree with you Erik on about 50% that MS cannot be taken as solely responsible for its product Hijacks.
You see, when you buy anything, you expect to have a good time with it, even with a gun, though it wont give good time to others.
Buying a Windows software for say about 300 $ and then having it infected the other day, I have seen this, alot of people here posting logs had their new systems infected within a week of buying them. Why was windows developed to be so vulnerable? Firefox sets an example here by tackling alot of crapware though its still early. Linux and Mcintosh, lesser in use, but I think they are less infected as well in comparison.
With so many new infections coming in everyday, it seems to be never ending.

The crapware designers are also to blame, but not much because thats their heck of a job.
Suppose you giv a test at school and you get less marks, you aint going to blame the teacher that she made a difficult test to pass.
Similarly, of the two boys, the stronger one is less likely to get a beat than the weaker one, in this case, IE and Windows itself.

Anyways, I still put a 50% blame on these crapware designers who have made life a hell for many Newbies an for the experts who spend their time looking for cures to these.
Please help keep the forums free ===> More info Here

The wisest mind has something yet to learn

#7 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 07 January 2005 - 12:29 PM

helperatwork,
Suppose malware writers didn't exist at all.
In that case nobody would complain about the vulnerability of Windows or IE, because there is no reason.
All the trouble started with the first malware writer and many after them.
That's why I blame the malware writers for 100%.

Firefox is safer at this moment, not because it's a better software,
but because it isn't an interesting target for malware writers.
(Only 25% of the users use Firefox).

I'm 100% sure when Firefox is used on 90% of the computers, that malware writers will write many malware programs to pest Firefox users.
Don't underestimate the malware writers, they are brilliant and probably the best programmers in the world.
NOTHING is safe with these people.
Malware is nothing but a war between the good brilliant guys and the bad brilliant guys and the smartest will always win.
ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#8 excolonial

excolonial

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 11:57 AM

Erik: If Beta's should be left only for "professionals" to try wouldn't MS issue a caution in this regard? If the s/w is buggy a huge number of people are going to get really mad at Billy Boy.
Isn't MS Spyware just "already proved effective" Giant with a new dress on?

#9 excolonial

excolonial

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 01:48 PM

Definiely a cross-dresser. The desktop icon is labelled Micsoft AntiSpyware, but when you put your cursor on it the popup reads GIANT AntiSpyware Main Application.
As already suggested the "beta" probably just refers to "lack of support" (as warned by MS at the download), rather than possibility of bugs.
This gal has been plying her trade for a while now, and must turn a pretty good trick, or Billy wouldn't have picked her up. With His wallet open she'll be able to afford a new pair of high heels soon.

#10 Trilobite

Trilobite

    Malware Hunter

  • Trusted Advisor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 711 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 05:12 PM

Tests of MS AntiSpyware vs Ad-Aware vs SpyBot (found on /.)

Edited by Trilobite, 08 January 2005 - 05:16 PM.


#11 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 09:39 PM

Well, I wouldn't be happy, when I still have to use Ad-Aware and Spybot along with MS Anti-Spyware.
I expect alot more from MS, than just another Anti-Spyware software.
In my opinion it's too soon to compare MS Anti-Spyware with other anti-spywares.
If MS is smart enough they will complete their signature database with the missing spywares, that are still only detected/removed by the competing anti-spywares in the future and I think MS is going to do that.
MS bought Giant, if MS finds it's necessary to buy one or more other anti-spyware companies to improve their product significantly MS will do it.
MS has lots of money and with money you can buy people, knowledge and companies.
That's what I expect from MS : remove the competition completely and become and stay the very best Anti-Spyware.
ONE anti-spyware software on my computer is more than enough and that's the fervid wish of the majority of the users.
ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#12 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 08 January 2005 - 10:10 PM

excolonial,

Erik: If Beta's should be left only for "professionals" to try wouldn't MS issue a caution in this regard? If the s/w is buggy a huge number of people are going to get really mad at Billy Boy.
Isn't MS Spyware just "already proved effective" Giant with a new dress on?


You could be right about that, but in the company, I'm working for, the concept "Beta version" doesn't exist.
When the programming of an application is finished, the application is tested by the computer department BEFORE the application is released to the users.
Our users expect that an application works fine from the start without troubles and we would NEVER give a beta version to users. We wouldn't be happy to get complaints from our users.
Users don't TEST an application, they USE an application.
Our computer departement TEST an application, but don't USE an application.
Testing or using/working an application is totally different.
When I test an application I try to crack it in every possible way, users don't do that.
That's why I said "beta version" is for professionals, not for users.
I guess "beta" is the American way to test an application. :)

This is off the record.
I'm a member of a Free Lotto Forum and I tested most popular american free lotto programs.
None of them were good, not even close to good, except ONE.
I reported all these errors to the lotto owners.
A few thanked me and corrected the errors.
Most of them thanked me, but didn't correct the errors.
A few sent me a very angry email (Signed with "Get a life") and didn't correct the errors of course.
I was very disappointed, because we act differently.

Edited by ErikAlbert, 09 January 2005 - 01:35 AM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#13 Paranoid

Paranoid

    Forum Deity

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 05:15 AM

helperatwork,

Firefox is safer at this moment, not because it's a better software,
but because it isn't an interesting target for malware writers.


A lot of people more qualified than you or me might disagree.

(Only 25% of the users use Firefox).



25% of users use firefox? Where do you get your figures? Most estimates give at most 10%, and that's a optmistic estimate.

I'm 100% sure when Firefox is used on 90% of the computers, that malware writers will write many malware programs to pest Firefox users.


They will try for sure, and they might even succueed in some cases. But the reason why many security experts have faith in firefox or Opera (or whatever) does not rest only from the fact that it is lesser used. In fact, to do so would be to commit a fundamental error in security, that of hoping for security in obscurity.

IE's deep intergretion into windows, MS's poor security trackrecord etc are all reasons that I need not repeat to someone has experienced and expert as you are in matters of computer security of course.
Please note that the software I recommend above is entirely based on only my own experience and testing. In no way should my comments,opinions and endorsements be construed as an endorsement by the forum, nor do they reflect the advise or recommendations by the experts or helpers at spywareinfo.


#14 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 06:54 AM

paranoid,
I use always this website for statistics, even when this statistics would be wrong,
they always use the same calculation method.
http://www.w3schools...wsers_stats.asp
I exaggerated a bit, it's 21.3% but more than your 10%, so the use of Firefox is even lesser.

About Firefox being safer, well time will prove. I'm not convinced.
Whatever the experts say, these malware writers are ALSO experts.
The malware writers become more and more sophisticated but on a much higher level, than the average programmer and there is always the challenge for them to be better, than the software companies and last but not least they love the attention of the media.

Upto now they did a pretty good job isn't it ? Malware problems all over the world and lots of people are wasting alot of time to keep their computer clean and surfing on the internet is like walking on eggs.
Compared with the old days internet became a nightmare and I don't see any improvement, on the contrary.
In my opinion the malware writers did a better job, than the good experts.

When I read all these security warnings, these guys try to undermine everything.
If they put their mind on Firefox they will do the same thing and most probably with total different malware programs, it's just a matter of time.
ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#15 Paranoid

Paranoid

    Forum Deity

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 09:11 AM

paranoid,
I use always this website for statistics, even when this statistics would be wrong,
they always use the same calculation method.
http://www.w3schools...wsers_stats.asp
I exaggerated a bit, it's 21.3% but more than your 10%, so the use of Firefox is even lesser.


Ah, I should have known you were using W3Schools stats. It's generally accepted that that site is atypical of the internet population at large. Webmasters and web developers (real ones that is) generally prefer Firefox because of it's better support of PNG and CSS. Most other sites which are less specialised generally put firefox below 10%.

Firefox's target has being stated to reach 10% by end 2005, which makes no sense if it's anything close to 25% already :)

About Firefox being safer, well time will prove. I'm not convinced.
Whatever the experts say, these malware writers are ALSO experts.


And i presume you interviewed them and they said firefox is not safer? Unless you have any evidence of that, I'll go with the experts, thank you very much rather than on whether you are "convinced" or not.

When I read all these security warnings, these guys try to undermine everything.
If they put their mind on Firefox they will do the same thing and most probably with total different malware programs, it's just a matter of time.

View Post


As i said, will firefox have weaknesses? Sure, they already exist. For example, I have a strong suspicion that phishing will be very difficult to stop.

But will they be anything on the scale of IE? Almost every expert thinks not, and they have sound reasons for believing so. Reasons I believe you are blissfully unaware of.

You can continue to be alarmist and believe in the godlike power of malware writers to break everything, which you then use to justify your premise that IE is as good as firefox. But everything is relative.

Of course, if you commit the mistake of thinking that any browser provides you with perfect 100% security, you will be disappointed. But no one is saying that.
Please note that the software I recommend above is entirely based on only my own experience and testing. In no way should my comments,opinions and endorsements be construed as an endorsement by the forum, nor do they reflect the advise or recommendations by the experts or helpers at spywareinfo.


#16 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 01:33 PM

Paranoid
You believe the experts, I don't.
I'm not a technical expert, but I can evaluate a situation based on facts.
My only problem is that I have to explain my thoughts in a foreign language (English)
I feel like a kid when I'm talking in English.

The bad experts already showed their skills on the internet and they were very "successfull" and they really changed the computer world in a bad sense of course.
- they damage computers every day world-wide
- they cause an enormous waste of time in the world
- they cracked the most used Operating System and Internet Browser in the world
- they became millionaires by sending spam-emails world-wide
- they turned internet into a nightmare
- they create new malwares every day.
- they hide themselves, but everybody is talking about them in the media how "good" they are.
- they are hardly punished
I would say they are extremely successfull in every possible way.

The good experts :
- they didn't succeed in stopping them
- they created a mess of softwares for the confused user
- they forced the user to use too many softwares (at least 15 or more)
- their softwares are all based on signature databases, which means that undiscovered malwares can still infect your computer
- their softwares have different and overlapping signature databases (very efficient !!!)
- in spite of all these softwares, users still need professional help, because they can't read the HijackThis Log (very userfriendly !!!)
- they can't keep up with the malware writers
- they can't find and punish the malware writers
I would say their success is very poor compared with the bad experts.

Who is running the internet ? The bad guys.
Who is winning the struggle ? The bad guys.

Let the good experts prove first how good they are and then I will believe them.
Maybe the good experts talk too much, in stead of working or they just can't handle the situation anymore.
Time will prove which one of us was right.

Edited by ErikAlbert, 09 January 2005 - 01:35 PM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#17 helperatwork

helperatwork

    The SWI Penguin!

  • Retired Staff - Helper
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 05:46 AM

There have been some reaasonable talks in this post, but I think we are not keeping up with the topic. Are we? We have moved more into the achievements of experts for and against the browsers rather than the software itself, but ofcourse, the browsers can be used to justify your opinion .

The main thing to be discussed here is how good the MS Anti-Spyware would prove to be.
Seeing the performance of IE compared to Forefox, I really believe that Firefox is a better software. Microsoft need not an Anti-Spyware, but a technologically advanced Browser. It surprises me that alot of sites that were able to set crapware through IE couldnt do with FF.
Microsoft could have amended the software within their Browser rather than releasing an AS. They felt the need to do this because they could not live up to the security of their browser.
I dont think the malware designers would wait for FF to get common among the 90% population of Internet users. Since it has already managed to attract 10-25% users, I think it is well been eyed by the crapware designers. The only thing I wonder here is have these guys failed in breaking the barriers of FF? Even if they succeed in this, it wont be on as larger scale as of IE, that is, FF wont be that effected by the Craps as did IE.
Please help keep the forums free ===> More info Here

The wisest mind has something yet to learn

#18 Paranoid

Paranoid

    Forum Deity

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 07:08 AM

I dont think the malware designers would wait for FF to get common among the 90% population of Internet users. Since it has already managed to attract 10-25% users, I think it is well been eyed by the crapware designers. The only thing I wonder here is have these guys failed in breaking the barriers of FF? Even if they succeed in this, it wont be on as larger scale as of IE, that is, FF wont be that effected by the Craps as did IE.

View Post


Yes

Don't forget the "fame" factor. The more people say firefox is unbreakable, the greater the incentive for someone to do it. So methinks firefox is not being completely ignored here...
Please note that the software I recommend above is entirely based on only my own experience and testing. In no way should my comments,opinions and endorsements be construed as an endorsement by the forum, nor do they reflect the advise or recommendations by the experts or helpers at spywareinfo.


#19 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 08:03 AM

helperatwork,
I agree the topic got out of hand, mainly by me. :D Blame it to associative thinking.
I learned at least something : Paranoid is a fervent fan of Firefox.
I'm glad I didn't call Firefox a rogue internet browser. Paranoid would have strangled me.

Concerning MS AntiSpyware, I already added my vote and my opinion.
ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#20 Togg

Togg

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 05:21 PM

"Experts" are everywhere and they are all reassuringly confident about the "rightness" of their viewpoint.

Personally, I believe that, if MS completely re-wrote IE AND made it available as a stand alone program (so that there would be a real choice available to end users) the question posed by the poll might get answered.

That obviously is not going to happen, so, I assume that the holes in IE will continue to be patched (for XP users) and the rest of us can continue happily, using the 'minority' browsers and the existing anti spyware programs.

As for the 'chicken and egg' question ie: who is most to blame, MS for selling buggy, insecure, software or the people who write the programs that take advantage of the bugs, I don't know. However, the initial responsibility was MS's, and we are all entitled to take a view as to how well they have carried out that responsibility (or not).

I have read that Windows is unique in having little or no real protection to prevent access to Root, while the Unix/Linux/IBM OS's are properly protected. Unfortunately, that is really 'expert' coding talk that I am not qualified to pass judgement on (but we've all heard about the 13 year old with the backdoor rootkit haven't we?)

#21 Paranoid

Paranoid

    Forum Deity

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 11 January 2005 - 08:58 AM

helperatwork,
I agree the topic got out of hand, mainly by me.  :D Blame it to associative thinking.
I learned at least something : Paranoid is a fervent fan of Firefox.


View Post


Less so these days. Espically since the adware incident in german versions of firefox.

I'm glad I didn't call Firefox a rogue internet browser. Paranoid would have strangled me.


Call it whatever you want, it's superior to IE. Most offerings are.


BTW Mr I use Outpost, anybody who wanted to attack someone else would use the search engine on forums, usenet etc to get a clue about what the target was using.

Good luck using that technique on me though lol...

Edited by Paranoid, 11 January 2005 - 09:05 AM.

Please note that the software I recommend above is entirely based on only my own experience and testing. In no way should my comments,opinions and endorsements be construed as an endorsement by the forum, nor do they reflect the advise or recommendations by the experts or helpers at spywareinfo.


#22 helperatwork

helperatwork

    The SWI Penguin!

  • Retired Staff - Helper
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 495 posts

Posted 12 January 2005 - 04:39 PM

UPDATE :

MS AntiSpyware is only free till it is beta...After that, it will have a price tag on it..Enjoy the Beta Everybody!! :p
Please help keep the forums free ===> More info Here

The wisest mind has something yet to learn

#23 excolonial

excolonial

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 13 January 2005 - 08:48 PM

Paranoid: "BTW Mr I use Outpost, anybody who wanted to attack someone else would use the search engine on forums, usenet etc to get a clue about what the target was using. "

Er. what are you saying here dude - one could be exposing oneself to attack by posting here?

#24 Paranoid

Paranoid

    Forum Deity

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 14 January 2005 - 04:01 PM

Paranoid: "BTW Mr I use Outpost, anybody who wanted to attack someone else would use the search engine on forums, usenet etc to get a clue about what the target was using. "

Er. what are you saying here dude - one could be exposing oneself to attack by posting here?

View Post


Sure. But of course for them to attack you, they would have to figure out your ip address, which is not possible unless they are an admin here, or hack into the server to gain access to the logs.

But very often, people tend to use the same alias everywhere, or even use their real name and other details, which allows the attacker to track you down all over the net, which will eventually if they are lucky reveal your ip address (either via usenet, or some forums lock the ips for all to see).

If all else fails and they only manage to get their email, they will try to get you to answer via email, for most cases this will reveal your ip address (assuming POP/SMTP) .

In the mean time, they learn all about the firewall you use, the browser you use, the AV you favour etc.. This gives them information to better craft their attack. Eg run their malware through your AV to make sure it's not detected, use search engines to learn about known weaknesses and exploits in your firewall etc...

I learnt this the hard way, 8 years ago....
Please note that the software I recommend above is entirely based on only my own experience and testing. In no way should my comments,opinions and endorsements be construed as an endorsement by the forum, nor do they reflect the advise or recommendations by the experts or helpers at spywareinfo.


#25 michaelbenson

michaelbenson

    Member

  • Full Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 15 January 2005 - 09:54 AM

Sure the program will prevent and remove alot more Spyware than before, but by running FireFox over IE, you are cutting your chances of infection drastically.

#26 ErikAlbert

ErikAlbert

    Typical User

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts

Posted 17 January 2005 - 11:57 PM

michaelbenson,

Sure the program will prevent and remove alot more Spyware than before, but by running FireFox over IE, you are cutting your chances of infection drastically.

View Post

That is correct.

After re-reading this topic.
Calling Firefox "unbreakable" sounds too arrogant for me. The Titanic was also "unsinkable".
Firefox is safe or safer at this moment. That's more prudent and realistic.

Let's hope that MS AntiSpyware will also remove the nasty malwares, that now require a restart in "Windows Safe Mode" to solve the problem.

Edited by ErikAlbert, 18 January 2005 - 01:00 AM.

ErikAlbert
Simplicity is always brilliant.

#27 Paranoid

Paranoid

    Forum Deity

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 533 posts

Posted 19 January 2005 - 07:23 AM

michaelbenson,

Sure the program will prevent and remove alot more Spyware than before, but by running FireFox over IE, you are cutting your chances of infection drastically.

View Post

That is correct.

After re-reading this topic.
Calling Firefox "unbreakable" sounds too arrogant for me. The Titanic was also "unsinkable".
Firefox is safe or safer at this moment. That's more prudent and realistic.

View Post


I recommend you reread the thread again, no one is calling firefox "unbreakable" except certain people (like yourself) who want a strawman to attack. Firefox is safer.

I was just pointing out that people like you, who foolishly believe that people are hyping firefox to such a level, makes attempts to break firefox even more likely.

Which is a *good* thing.


I even wrote about breaking firefox

They will try for sure, and they might even succueed in some cases. But the reason why many security experts have faith in firefox or Opera (or whatever) does not rest only from the fact that it is lesser used. In fact, to do so would be to commit a fundamental error in security, that of hoping for security in obscurity.

IE's deep intergretion into windows, MS's poor security trackrecord etc are all reasons that I need not repeat to someone has experienced and expert as you are in matters of computer security of course.


Care to challenge firefox's security on technical merits beyond some fear mongering about "bad guys" changing the world more than the "good guys" ? Thought so.
Please note that the software I recommend above is entirely based on only my own experience and testing. In no way should my comments,opinions and endorsements be construed as an endorsement by the forum, nor do they reflect the advise or recommendations by the experts or helpers at spywareinfo.





Member of UNITE
Support SpywareInfo Forum - click the button