As Firefox plugged yet another set of security holes, the question arises if the open source browser really is so much better than Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
Certainly Microsoft has a reputation for being insecure, but the Mozilla foundation so far has a pretty weak track record argues Information Week's Fred Langa.
Since the launch of Firefox, the Mozilla foundation has had to plug 21 vulnerabilities, according to a study by Symantec. Internet Explorer in the same period sprung 13 leaks, Opera six and Safari, Apple's browser for OS X none.
What does this say? Close to nothing unfortunately. Popular software is more attractive for hackers and virus writers to target, and the same goes for security vendors. The fact that 21 holes were detected in Firefox can mean that the product isn't yet mature, or just that it's more of a challenge for security experts to hunt for flaws because its perceived to be more secure.
Do you agree?
I have been using firefox for nine months now. Firefox is much better than explorer for many reasons. First, no pop-ups at all. Second, tabbed browsing, no more tens of windows to flip through. Third, extensions that allow you to add to your browsing experince. Fourth, a little search bar in the upper right hand conner, and if you want more, just check out the site at www.mozilla.org
Posted by James, 27 Apr 2005
You reply to a comment on the security of firefox vs other browsers by writing an ad regarding it's other features and not mentioning security once? Please keep the fanboy stuff to yourself, no one's interested.
Posted by Paul, 28 Apr 2005