its only the beginning ( i havent read the article )

just wait till firefox becomes more popular, its gonna have hax just like IE does..

I hate it when people use that logic. Just because a product is more popular, doesn't make it automatically buggier and open to more exploits. It doesn't matter if FF were the most used browser ever, the way it handles pretty much everything makes it more secure than IE.

I've been getting more and more popups with ff, but its still only like 5/mo :/

Still getting zero here. stop going to those gay porn sites.

i hate when people use that logic

i hate when people use that logic

I never said that. Way to go not reading my post. I said that the use of the "Its only hacked because its popular" is stupid. I also detect a hint of your dislike towards open-source in your "rip into the code." Just because a program's source is openly seen and downloaded doesn't make that code more vunerable to attack.

how can you rip into IE's code when it's not known? at least with firefox the code can(and prolly has)be ripped into and checked out by anyone. yet it has only had how many critical flaws?

closed source leads to illusions of security and sloppy programming that can be reverse engineered easily.

m$ boy.


i don't hate ms, i actually kinda like em but, you can't sit there and say they are not guilty of some pretty sloppy code.

I can't imagine firefox running into the same number of vulnerabilities as IE, even if firefox were to get 99% of the market. Firefox was built from the beginning to be secure; there will of course be exploits that come out every so often, but firefox was founded on a secure base and is not burdened by fundamentally unsafe features, such as activex.

linux/apache/php/perl is a very secure environment, even though it runs on the majority of servers out on the internet. the reason LAMP is secure is because it was built from the beginning to be secure, just like firefox.

I will. We should start a betting pool.

The argument in question is: there are more vulnerabilites for IE because it has a larger market share, so anyone wishing to cause the most damage will target IE instead of Firefox. This also implies that Firefox is not inherently more secure than IE .. rather it just seems more secure because no one targets it because it's got less market share.

What I'm trying to prove is that the entire basis of the argument in question is flawed.

IE has bigger market share = people target it more = there are more exploits for it

Now if our argument actually held true, it would follow that:

Apache has bigger market share = people target it more = there are more exploits for it

Empirical evidence will show that this is blatantly NOT true. Hence, that argument is null and void.

I am not (I repeat, NOT) comparing IE (Internet Explorer) to Apache. I'm comparing "IE vs Firefox" to "Apache vs IIS". By IIS I'm referring to "Internet Information Services", Microsoft's enterprise grade web server. So I'm comparing the comparison of two user friendly browsers with the comparison of two hardened web server products.

and by basic logic you would expect it to be easier to write exloits when you have the source code.