MSIE8 and 9 found to be superior in security compared to other browsers

[Skybird]

http://www.nsslabs.com/assets/noreg-reports/NSS%20Labs_Q32010_Browser-SEM.pdf

This report supports what I am thinking and feeling since long, that MSIE is much better on security issues than it's bad reputation. I have used several versions of Firefox over the years, and not only were some of them extremely hardware-stressing, but even after tuning the options and using some widgets still many unwanted spam and security breaches took place every week - that IE7 and IE8 reliably block. That's why I always thoight and still think that Firefox is overestimated and IE8 is underestimated. Too much campers sniping with their almost religious browser-convictions out there.

Too bad that the upcoming IE9 is not running under my WinXP.

The worst browser, due to spying on privacy and data logging, is Chrome. That it is made by data-kraken Google already should be a warning to everybody.

Some mo nths ago, there was a browser comparison in a German print PC media that I read at the doctors. They too said IE8 did a superior job in security issues, compared to Firefox. I seem to remember that they found IE to be almost three times as tight than Firefox, and some security settings in Firefox not doing reliably what they are supposed to do.

It is en vogue to slam Microsoft, and much of the criticism often is deserved. However, I wonder how other OS would score if they would be object of the same attention by hackers and would be hackjed as intensive than Windows is being attacked. Much of the security advantage of Linux may come fromt he simple fact that it is not as massievly attacked, than Windows is.

[Gerald]

It is possible to secure a browser in many ways, such as the various add-on which increases the safety level considerably, while your virus protection has a hand in the game, myself, I use Firefox "always" if not applicable updates for W7.But thanks Sky for an interesting comparison, :yep:

[Takeda Shingen]

I agree completely, Sky. As a long-time IE user, I have always felt that the programs are undervalued in terms of security.

[the_tyrant]

For the paranoid:
http://se.360.cn/ (sorry it only comes in Chinese)

pretty much thats a virtual machine that runs IE in it.

[VipertheSniper]

You know as long as my browser doesn't install stuff without asking, it's secure enough for me.


For clarity, the following definition is used for a socially-engineered malware URL: a web page link that directly leads to a download that delivers a malicious payload whose content type would lead to execution, or more generally a website known to host malware links. These downloads appear to be safe, like those for a screen saver application, video codec upgrade, etc., and are designed to fool the user into taking action. Security professionals also refer to these threats as "consensual" or "dangerous" downloads.


People still fall for this stuff?

[Weiss Pinguin]

It's too bad IE fails miserably when it comes to speed and being awesome compared to everyone else :smug:

I swear, trying to navigate pages with IE is like watching snails race in molasses.

[Skybird]

It's too bad IE fails miserably when it comes to speed and being awesome compared to everyone else :smug:

I swear, trying to navigate pages with IE is like watching snails race in molasses.
At 3076 mbits, a new page is build up within 2-3 seconds over here. Fast enough for every purpose.

[VipertheSniper]

3076 mbits? I'm guessing it's a typo, because that would be 384,5 MB/s

[Dowly]

Too much campers sniping with their almost religious browser-convictions out there.

Snipers don't camp, they wait. :88)

[Wolfehunter]

Neal.. firefox alone doesn't really stop security.. It just more attack MSIE. You need reliable plugins in Firefox. I use WOT, Nosript. I don't have any issues I can't handle. When using IE there is always something creeping up in my rig. Thankfully Spybot, Malwarebyte and Avast have protected my rig. Sure the odd ad-ware slips through but its very rare.. In firefox with the help of the plugin's I can control which scripts are allowed to run...

I still find IE not as reliable as Firefox. Chrome I won't even touch... :03:

[Skybird]

Öh - kbit/s, I meant. :timeout:

[krashkart]

IE does have its strengths, but on my computer it runs quite a bit slower than FF. If Microsoft would optimize its browser to run as fast as FF I'd probably use it more often.

[Sailor Steve]

I tried Firefox and had problems with my homepage, mainly with links not showing up. But that was a long time ago, and I'm sure it's long since been fixed.

I'm used to IE8, and it seems to run plenty fast for me, especially with my new cable connection that got hooked up about an hour ago, so I currently see no reason to change again.

[MaddogK]

Ahh more MS propaganda. Wont touch IE anymore, had too many 'issues' with security and still wish I could separate IE from the OS but I think the OS IS a browser.
Hmmm

Firefox hasn't let me down since ver 2 came out, especially with some awesome addins like noscript, ad_block plus, perspectives, and fireFTP running.

MS couldn't pay me to go back to IE.

[Sailor Steve]

So rather than discuss the realities, you turn it into another "mine's better than yours" argument.

[MaddogK]

Sorry SS, it's hard to compare the two when one doesn't get opened unless the OS does what it feels like instead of what I want it to do.

Perhaps the testers didn't install any of the security addons I did, Spybot S&D resident included.

4.4 ABOUT THIS TEST
This private test was contracted by Microsoft’s SmartScreen product team as an internal benchmark, leveraging our Live Testing framework. It has subsequently been approved for public release.

THAT says it all.

[Sailor Steve]

Posting your opinion is fine. It was the "they couldn't pay me" part that I found annoying. I have exactly the same feeling about Firefox after the problems I mentioned. I didn't use that phrase because I don't know that I'm right.

And I disagree that "THAT" says it all, because the fact they did it themselves doesn't necessarily make it untrue. And I also use Spybot.

[MaddogK]

Sorry if that annoyed you, but like you I don't know if I'm right. I only know what works for me. The 'That says it all' comment is meant to mean (to me) that MS paid for the eval, so if the MS product did poorly then the report wouldn't have seen the light of day. And how do I know the report isn't biased in any way, and hasn't been tampered with ? Like I said (to me) the report is propaganda.

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry if that annoyed you, but like you I don't know if I'm right. I only know what works for me.
I apologize. We think more alike than I realized. :sunny:


Like I said (to me) the report is propaganda.
And you could well be right on the money. I don't know. I just got caught up in "not what you say but how..." blah blah blah... :oops:

[Arclight]

Never understood the argument, but then I never used anything but IE. :hmmm:

At least on security it seems hogwash; never had an issue with anything sneaking in, malware free for the last 3 years and counting. :)

It ain't slow either, but I disabled it keeping track of browsing history and temporary files is emptied everytime the browser is closed.

[VipertheSniper]

You know, I've used Opera for quite some time now, and I never had something sneak in, despite the latest incarnation at the time of the test scored 0%...

The most security you'll ever get is by being cautious instead of relying on some neat tricks a browser has got up his sleeve.

[DarkFish]

When I still used IE I didn't have any noteworthy security problems, now I switched over to FF I haven't got any either. So when it's purely about security, I can't say much useful.

I do know though that my FF starts up about 10x as fast, and loads pages 2x as fast as IE. That alone (especially the start up time) is enough for me to keep FF.

[Ducimus]

As long as IE uses active X (does it?), it's a really bad idea that completely needs to be rethought.

[DarkFish]

4.4 ABOUT THIS TEST
This private test was contracted by Microsoft’s SmartScreen product team as an internal benchmark, leveraging our Live Testing framework. It has subsequently been approved for public release.LOL:DL
Benchmarks... Even *I* could make a processor faster than your average one, if I just devised the right benchmark:DL

[Castout]

Android is also from google if you think Chrome is bad because it came from Google. :D

Google bastardization works like charm on anything they touch including youtube. :shifty:

[Skybird]

IE needs to have active X limited, and Java switched off, and like with all MS products certain automatic features and auto updates need to be deactivated, then it is pretty safe, me thinks, as long as you are not targetted individually by a hacker who launches a manual attack on your system. But in that case you probably are in troubles anyway, no matter your standard browser.

I have come to use only an antivirus and a firewall over the past year. Spybot and A-squared and whatever scanners I additionally used, simply did not cause any alarms anymore since long. Spybot and Avira also do not like each other, it seems.

All I can say is that a security-tailored Firefox always gave me more problems than a security-tailored IE. Not to mention that it sometimes ate up to 40% of my system ressources, in spikes even more and right down to system freezes. That is hilarious, even for an old but not slow system like mine (P4 3 GHz, 2 GB RAM, WinXP). Firefox also needs much more time being invested in a period of time, in order to stay with the updates and changes with the applets, at least with the versions I tried until last year. I am not the thing's constant servant - the thing has to serve me. The way MS handles updates is far more comfortable. Switch off auto-update, but manually run Windows Update every second Tuesday, and you're done.

The best safety mechanism to be used - is right between your ears.

[DarkFish]

All I can say is that a security-tailored Firefox always gave me more problems than a security-tailored IE. Not to mention that it sometimes ate up to 40% of my system ressources, in spikes even more and right down to system freezes. That is hilarious, even for an old but not slow system like mine (P4 3 GHz, 2 GB RAM, WinXP). At my rig it's exactly the other way around. IE always causes performance problems, firefox doesn't.

Firefox also needs much more time being invested in a period of time, in order to stay with the updates and changes with the applets, at least with the versions I tried until last year. I am not the thing's constant servant - the thing has to serve me. The way MS handles updates is far more comfortable. Switch off auto-update, but manually run Windows Update every second Tuesday, and you're done.I just get a popup window saying "there's a new version of FF, do you want to install it?" with a yes and a no button. If I choose yes, it installs itself and often automatically restarts, restoring the tabs I still had open.

The best safety mechanism to be used - is right between your ears.Roger that:up:

[the_tyrant]

Ok, well since i have time, I might as well test the different browsers myself

ill try this:https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-17/dc-17-presentations/defcon-17-egypt-guided_missiles_metasploit.pdf

the "browser_autopwn" to simulate you average half-assed attacker
I will use it to attack my old laptop in Windows XP running different browsers

I'll post the results here tomorrow

[HunterICX]

My experience with IE are not good, just too many system infections I got from it due IE's exploits and holes in its security.

currently using Firefox with the noscript addon.

and for saying one browser is superior in their security to another is just hogwash.
All have their security flaws, just pick the one you feel most comfortable and secure with.

HunterICX

[Tessa]

In some ways there can never be a winner in the browser war, the playing fields will never be matched such that a completely fair test could be conducted. Firefox has a massive developer community to add additional plugins of all types and more people always actively working on it as a result. Microsoft has no such community from which extra resources are pooled from and can pull from when needed. While MS may indeed produce a superior security wise browser it has very little room for modification; FF can be made to be as secure or more than MS through its developer network.

If you want to make straight out of the box comparisons it should be clearly noted as such, that only an unmodified/no plugin version of the browser was used. When you start trying to make broader statements about which is better overall too many external factors fog up the picture to skew any results, statistics can be worked to make almost claim true. In my stats class as an undergrad our professor used a real life example of data he found from a home pregnancy test that claimed to be 99.5% accurate. From the pure raw data the actual real accuracy was less than 70%, with careful manipulation of the numbers through legitimate math he was able to transfer the number such that the 70% product was 99% effective...