Computer forums - charter change suggestion

dahamsta

Chalk wrote:

ie does not have a "safe" setting, it has to be combined with pop up blockers, os updates, activex blockers and whatever else, all separate programs.

This is FUD, plain and simple. That's me being polite btw, what I really want to say is that it's complete bollocks, but I'm far too polite to say that. Oops...

As I've said on Boards a dozen times or more, I've run on Windows and IE (or IE variants) for not far off half a decade, and my machine has been compromised 2-3 times. All instances were human error, i.e. I opened an attachment without thinking, or clicked Ok when I should have clicked Cancel. On each occasion I blamed myself, because it was my fault.

A fully-patched and secured Internet Explorer is just as safe and secure as Firefox, with one small exception: One IE expolit has yet to be patched. Which is shameful, but it's not the end of the world.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think we can put the full load of the blame on the shoulders of the user. I'm a techie, I know why I have to patch, I know how to patch, and I do patch almost religiously.

However Firefox has to be patched too. All software does. How many Firefox users will go to Tools > Options > Advanced > Software Update > Check Now when the first exploit comes out? 75%? 50%? 25?

I'll tell you how many: About 1% more than Internet Explorer users. If that. And that's only because a lot of early Firefox users are techies.

Oh, and Mulley? Bite me.

adam

Sherifu

YA! what dahamsta said, except i'm too lazy/inarticulate to say it.
A fully patched IE with the proper settings + common sense
with regard to attachments and activex and popups(which has
become easier since sp2) is safe browsing!

Chalk

dahamsta wrote:

A fully-patched and secured Internet Explorer is just as safe and secure as Firefox, with one small exception: One IE expolit has yet to be patched. Which is shameful, but it's not the end of the world.

one?
thats a fairly accurate number, i doubt even bill gates would be sure enough to call that one.

we use ie in work , here and in my last job, without the users ability to install protective software or the availability of sp2 [win2k here] almost all pcs have wonderful spyware installed, i get popups on most pages of boards because of a number of background programs running , and thats with 99.9% of the web blocked by whatever net nanny program is running on the server [ im not a techie, thats my explanation of how servers work]

my parents at home have a win98 macjhine with ie and os up to date [ i do it for them] no matter what i did they got crap without fail, so i put firefox on , changed the icon, hid ie ,the browser takes longer to load but there are a lot less problems,

as you said yourself firefox gets patched quicker because tech people use it and its open source. plus it can update itself in a few seconds/minutes depeending on your connection without a reboot.

anyway now im wandering into fanboyism myself.
so i think ill leave it a this. anyway this is a discussion about a charter not firefox v ie :rolleyes:

ps im all for that seamus dahamsta and chalk forum

Blub2k4

I support what Seamus said 100%.

It is glib and offhand to suggest a change of browser when someone has a problem.
If you dont know how to fix the problem with the materials at hand then stay quiet you are not being helpful.

Covering up your lack of technical knowledge with a stupid suggestion is not smart even if your suggestion would sweep the problem under the carpet, that is all that you have done.

I use Firefox by the way but find that its handling of cookies leaves a lot to be desired, it helps to keep adware out but opens up a whole new can of worms when security cookies are being passed between the browser and a web proxy for example.

dahamsta

Chalk wrote:

one?
thats a fairly accurate number, i doubt even bill gates would be sure enough to call that one.

Now you're just being anal. To the best of my knowledge, one known exploit exists that has yet to be patched by Microsoft. I read the security mailing lists, do you?

As to all your exploited machines, that demonstrates that the people using those machines haven't secured and patched their computers correctly, and as I said, the same will likely happen if they use Firefox.

adam

Chalk

i dont read security mailings , they wouldnt interest me in the slightest, i just know what has made improvements in my own experience,
as you say these pcs are not patched or even remotely up to date, and even if we wanted to could not install any software on to them.[ if your trying to suggest i dont patch my machines , forget it]

other than that , with regards to the charter, people come here for free advice, with no moderater in place and with no one being paid to do anything we can only expect them to be able to help themsleves as much as we help them. if every thread turns into an argument as this had then the computers forum is not a place that will prosper with return users.
besides as ive posted before using firefox is part of an overall control of a problem not the be all and end all,
if someones technical knowledge extends as far as suggesting a browser and nothing else then im sure its obvious to anyone that there help is going to limited.

damm it im rambling again