http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/s ... le_browser
All IT issued machines here have Norton Corporate on them. The rest is kind of up to us. I have a Win7 and an OS X machine on my desk. We all have Office and the Adobe stuff we use for making the mag or site (Photoshop, Indesign, Acrobat, Word, Excel). We use Outlook for mail.
Browsers are up to the user. Most people use Firefox on the Maximum PC team, although there are a few tentative users of Chrome and I think at least one person is using IE8.
i'm curious as to how your staff feel about the new report out that firefox is the least secure browser in the world now and IE8 is the safest....
that report was nonsense, if you read the actual report their logic was since Firefox has the most security fixes they are the most vulnerable. what that really means is that firefox is the most active plugging security holes.
if that report had actually done some kind of experiment (IE: running various kinds of attacks and seeing which ones worked with the most frequency) maybe it would have been legitimate. by their standards the way to have the "most secure" browser is to never release a security update.
just compiling bug fix numbers is a laughable way to determine the most secure browser
what report are you talking about.... the one i've seen took the info from all the top security companies and how many vulnerabilities each browser had..... nothing whatsoever was even stated about security fixes anywhere in the report.... the only laughable thing here is that people are still spouting off about firefox which is the worst browser now.... it's actually crashed 3 different computers of mine.... also uses more resources than any other browser....
accounting for 44 percent of all browser vulnerabilities reported
read the actual report here
http://www.cenzic.com/downloads/Cenzic_ ... 2-2009.pdf
notice that every time they talk about vulnerabilities they say "published" or "reported", never "we found". it's mostly about what types of attacks are most prevalent, the part on specific browsers is not that big. The point of report was never actually to rate browsers (which is what most lazy news services are reporting) but to help web companies identify which types of attacks are most prevalent. as such they actually never ran tests themselves, they merely took info that was already published by the browser, software, and other research companies. that makes sense when you consider the objective of the report. Since Mozilla publishes every single bug they find, its only natural that as the number of FF users increase, so does the bug report list. unfortunately this report misconstrues that into a weakness. with MS your left wondering, is there a bug? have they fixed it? we only find out when they tell us. MZ takes the opposite approach, telling us how many bugs there are, what they are, and if they have been fixed yet.
if they had actually tested themselves, by repeatedly assaulting these browsers with every attack they could think of, and reported the results; this might have been a decent report on browser vulnerability (which this report was never trying to be in the first place). as it stands it really tells us nothing about browser vulnerability because of their flawed reasoning.