Computer Hope
Other => Computer News => Topic started by: evilfantasy on March 17, 2010, 10:27:37 AM
-
Pressed for time so no description from me. You can figure it out I'm sure. ;D
http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/
-
Would be interested to hear opinions for anyone who's tried IE 9. Still think Firefox is going to continue to grow unless IE can get the community and add-ons like they have.
-
think firefox is generally more used from the little I know and everything which I have read. Most people that I know are using MF :)
-
It will take a long time to knock IE from the top spot. http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
-
Well at least it's good to see IE6 and 7 falling back a little.
-
hopefully M$ will get it right this time, IE8 seems clunky I think :P
-
MS will never get a browser right...
-
MS will never get a browser right...
Actually, come to think of it, I think MS had one of the first operating systems with hypertext support.
I'm not talking about Internet Explorer- actually, I'm referring to "winhelp" on windows 3.1. Sure, there were hypertext applications, and hypertext enabled applications (much like Apple's "hypercard" but hypertext-type document browsing was a rather foriegn concept at the time.
Actually, I take it back- winhelp was not the first MS program to use this; the help system of many of their DOS products used a similar system, with linked text going to other topics. (QuickBasic/QBASIC help, for example, and MS-DOS 6's "help" menu)
EDIT:
That being said, browser-wise I don't think they are going to get it right.
I mean, consider, that in the early days of firefox, they didn't actually try to fix IE6 by using the features that users liked in Firefox; instead, they made trite arguments against it:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ptorr/archive/2004/12/20/327511.aspx
This guy is the freaking epitome of melodrama. Apparently the fact that the firefox download downloads from a university site is enough to say it's a security risk.
he points out a number of "security risks" in the firefox installation and plugin system, and yet for some reason misses the point- Firefox is more secure while browsing. Not because of the buttons it assigns to be the defaults. He's over-analyzing and missing the forest through the trees. It's an old post and has a LOT of replies, and that just goes to show how very wrong he is about the whole thing.
I mean, with Internet Explorer 4, it was possible to instantly download ANY binary code from a web server and execute it on the remote machine. There were no dialogs, so it didn't make a *censored* bit of difference how their dialogs are designed.
In fact, this is the problem with Microsoft's security approach, at least when it comes to IE. it's not about making the User Interface secure, it's about making the actual stuff the User Interface is invoking secure. it's not about what buttons are chosen by default or what captions or chosen or who signed what file with what certificate. IE4 used to show a certificate screen with all sorts of info with MD5 hashes and the like, was the average user supposed to read this and understand it? I doubt it. But it's ok, since Cancel was the default option. It wasn't a security problem after all.
-
IE8 isn't bad as far as web standards go, anyway.
-
I was in the IE8 beta and it sucked then too. I have no doubt this beta will be just as bad.
-
OF course it's going to suck, at least to you. You've already decided.
-
Now think, more than 90% of PC users own a Windows OS, with that Windows OS comes Internet Explorer. Until Windows 7 you were not able to get rid of Internet Explorer as a browser on your OS. So people have having 2+ browsers on there PC which is a improvement because people are obviously seeing the difference in which browsers are actually good. *cough* Opera ftw.
-
Still think Firefox is going to continue to grow unless IE can get the community and add-ons like they have.
Agree. I also think Chrome, Opera, and Safari may continue to creep upward. I've been using Chrome and Opera some of the time just to get familiar with them. They're both fast. Chrome seems a bit faster to me. And, Opera has some unique features that make it interesting.
-
I posted this article from PC mag a couple weeks ago under browsers, but a lot of it pertains to this thread also.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361444,00.asp (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361444,00.asp)
One of the most interesting things in this article is the speed tests between different browsers.
-
Agree. I also think Chrome, Opera, and Safari may continue to creep upward. I've been using Chrome and Opera some of the time just to get familiar with them. They're both fast. Chrome seems a bit faster to me. And, Opera has some unique features that make it interesting.
Chrome is nice and snappy and the interface is decent. It'll be even better as they get more add-ons, they at least learnt from Firefox's success (unlike IE). Safari quite frankly sucks in my opinion. Opera runs a tad slow (*cough* Linux bug) for me. But I love all Opera's built in features (bookmark syncing, IRC chatting etc). The only 3 browsers I'd use full time would be Firefox (& it's rebranded variants like Iceweasel), Chrome/Chromium & Opera.
Google Chrome will become very successful due to Google's influence over the web. Chrome has already grown faster since it's release than almost any other browser. Safari will only grow as much as the OS X does. Opera I think will continue to grow, but slowly like it has the last 5 years.
-
What about those IE based browsers? Although they're based on IE, I think they got some plus over M$'s original browser....................
-
What about those IE based browsers? Although they're based on IE, I think they got some plus over M$'s original browser....................
Except the browsing is done by Internet Explorer, not by the application.
They don't just <render> with Internet Explorer. All of the vulnerabilities that are found in things like ActiveX, or Flash, or any of those, in Internet Explorer will still be present in the applications that use IE.
I might also point out that it's hardly difficult to create a browser like that. a few drags and drops and a line or two of code would make a functional, if spartan, browser.
-
All of the vulnerabilities that are found in things like ActiveX, or Flash, or any of those, in Internet Explorer will still be present in the applications that use IE.
This is why you must always update Windows even if you don't use IE.
-
This is why you must always update Windows even if you don't use IE.
Most people with windows have IE permanently installed on their computer. Even if you don't use IE, someone can still hack your computer using IE so you must update. :)
-
*Patiently waiting for a Linux fan to pop in with Linux FTW!!! :rofl:
-
*Patiently waiting for a Linux fan to pop in with Linux FTW!!! :rofl:
And Linux doesn't have any problems with people hacking the system through a browser like this. And Linux doesn't force you to have IE installed.
Did it just for you, evilfantasy ;)
-
where happened to MacOSX FTW?? ;D
-
And Linux doesn't have any problems with people hacking the system through a browser like this. And Linux doesn't force you to have IE installed.
Did it just for you, evilfantasy ;)
Linux/Unix does have problems with buffer overflows in C applications being easily exploited... especially printf() calls with a single argument.
Also, I think we're getting a little off-center in our view; exploits in Internet Explorer are no more dangerous then exploits in Firefox. Internet Explorer is integrated into the OS but it doesn't give any extra privileges over hacking any other browser- the goal is to simply get a program running on the remote machine, and then they can use any number of elevation techniques 9buffer overflows, for example) to elevate to admin/SYSTEM on windows and root on a Linux system. Once they do that they can scoff etc/pwd and the NTLM hashes and attempt to crack them locally. I don't know if Linux does something similar but windows has a password cache that stores the login names and hashes of recent logons, regardless of the domain. a Lucky hacker might be able to compromise a machine that has the admin password for a domain controller in that cache.
For Linux/Unix a common source of problems for quite a long time (at least for servers) was the sendmail daemon. the basic concept ath the time was simple- send more data then it can handle, (usually in the form of Nop instructions) and then insert a bit of assembly that executes bin/sh. at that point, sendmails buffer overflows, and overwrites the return address and it jumps to the asm instructions and executes bin/sh- and the machine is rooted. Similar vulnerabilities exist for almost every program that runs as root; thankfully most of these services are hardened against these attacks but as long as they are being exposed to the rain they will weather, and more holes will be discovered.
-
No. BC is right. Unless you use a browser that prompts for everything and you set it up to be secure, you can still get rooted on Linux; and, there are things far worse than a virus with a rootkit being up there.
I've done my share of HTML hacking and have made the browser execute commands- IE- or just overload the system with data- firefox.
If it is a java hack, you're screwed.
-
where happened to MacOSX FTW?? ;D
;D ;D :D Famous Hacker Calls Windows More Secure than Mac (http://lifehacker.com/5518787/famous-hacker-calls-windows-more-secure-than-mac) - April 15, 2010