Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Critical Vulnerabilities Found in Firefox

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

May 9, 2005, 11:01 AM

Two new security vulnerabilities have been uncovered in Mozilla's latest Firefox Web browser, which could be exploited to launch cross-site scripting attacks and potentially compromise a user's system. Security firm Secunia has given the flaws its highest "extremely critical" rating and says an exploit is already in the wild.

The first vulnerability stems from a bug that enables IFRAME JavaScript URLs to be executed in the context of another URL in Firefox's history list. "This can be exploited to execute arbitrary HTML and script code in a user's browser session in context of an arbitrary site," Secunia says.

On its own, the issue is not extremely dangerous for an end user. However, increased concern comes when the flaw is used in conjunction with a second Firefox bug. Code passed to an install function, used by Mozilla sites to update Firefox, is not properly verified before being run.

An attacker could use the first vulnerability to run arbitrary code using the second vulnerability, potentially gaining control of a user's system.

Secunia says the issue was confirmed in the latest Firefox release, version 1.0.3, and that other versions may be affected as well. The firm recommends disabling JavaScript for the time being, as well as turning off software installation via the Web.

To protect its users, Mozilla has implemented a temporary solution on its update sites that will stop publicly available exploit code from using a combination of the vulnerabilities to execute malicious code.

Add a Comment (78 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By sophist_dreams

edited May 10, 2005 - 10:41 PM

the new nightly, can be found here. It contains the fixes for these security problems. Anyone think microspud would respond this quickly?

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 10, 2005 - 12:58 PM

THIS IS NOT AN IE ARTICLE!

hahahaha, couldn't help it. ;-)

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 5:45 PM

Channeling Aries again?

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 10, 2005 - 7:09 PM

jes

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited May 10, 2005 - 4:21 PM

You finally deemed a flaw in FF to be "extremeley critical". Maybe you aren't completely biased. Anyways, it's nice to see Secunia still doing the same o' blabbing the security flaw to the public before the company can fix it.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted May 10, 2005 - 1:59 PM

Stop whining.

It has happened in the past, it will always be. It's like complaining about virus writers continuing to write viruses. complaining about it does nothing. Assume it will go on for perpetuity and design around it or accept it.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited May 10, 2005 - 4:23 PM

Actually it might be taken as a gripe, and well...I see your point.

Score: 0

By Mastertech

edited May 10, 2005 - 10:35 AM

Least we forget: Firefox Unleashes Spyware
http://poptech.blogspot....-unleashes-spyware.html

All this proves is how blatantly wrong those who try to push Firefox as a security or spyware solution, instead of just an alternate Browser. No amount of proof however will ever shut up fanboys with fingers in the their ears.

Expect more and worse exploits in the future.

Score: 0

By sophist_dreams

edited May 10, 2005 - 3:15 PM

I love it when trolls post 2 month old articles about problems that have been fixed to try and prove something. The difference between the Mozilla Foundation and Microspud is illustrated in the following artice published today on top-tech-news.com

"The California-based Mozilla Foundation is promising an update soon after two extremely critical security Latest News about Security vulnerabilities were found in its Firefox Latest News about Firefox browser.

One flaw, which involves "IFRAME" JavaScript URLs, could be exploited to conduct cross-site scripting attacks and compromise a user's system, PC Latest News about PC Pro reported Monday.

A second flaw exists when input passed to the "IconURL" parameter in "InstallTrigger.install()" is not properly verified before being used. It could be exploited to execute arbitrary JavaScript code with escalated privileges via a specially crafted JavaScript URL, experts said.

Because the foundation controls all sites in the default software installation white list, it has been able to take preventative action by placing more checks in the server-side Mozilla Update code and moving the update site to another domain.

The foundation said users who have not added any additional sites to their software installation white list are no longer at risk. It also promises a Firefox 1.0.4 update "shortly.""

Mozilla recognizes the problem and immediately does something to rectify it....Microspud denies there is a problem then tries to tell us how wonderful they are by fixing it months later.

Score: 0

By eleven80

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:56 AM

Thank the lord I've found someone else who thinks this... it's an ALTERNATE BROWSER PEOPLE, not a solution to spyware and popups (although it claims to be)

Score: 0

By setzer

posted May 10, 2005 - 2:43 PM

Here's one for the both of you: ALL THIS ARTICLE YOU ARE LINKING TO IS SAYING IS THAT FIREFOX DOESN"T GET RID OF SPYWARE THAT WAS ALREADY ON YOUR COMPUTER!!!!!!!1!!!
No-one ever claimed it would cleanup your system of existing spyware, which it doesn't. It does still block a lot more spyware than IE, but not all: then again, who CAN block all of it?

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted May 10, 2005 - 2:02 PM

zero spyware and very few pop-ups in the year I've had it. The pop-ups are quickly added to my adblock list and not a problem anymore. I took back the web.

I cannot say the same for IE. what torture people must still endure to use that pathetic excuse of a browser. Crappy ads everywhere, interstitials, spyware, lack of tabbing without extensions, having to reboot just to patch your browser. ugh....

Score: 0

By Mastertech

posted May 10, 2005 - 6:03 PM

"No-one ever claimed it would cleanup your system of existing spyware, which it doesn't."

You haven't been around much. Didn't you know Firefox is THE Spyware and Security solution? Yet I get 0 spyware and use IE 24/7? How is this possible? LMAO.

Step 1-3:
http://mywebpages.comcas...pportCD/OptimizeXP.html

Score: 0

By Pegusis2

posted May 10, 2005 - 8:20 AM

It does not matter what the program is. If a Hacker wants to Hack at any program sooner or later they will find a way in, by, pass, around, over, under... I don't care but in the end they find a hole in it. So for you folks that are all upset including buddy rantin and ravin about IE not being mentioned... so what. Like I said, all programs have holes in them. The big problem lies in two areas... 1 - The Developer(s) to get the program fixed ASAP and 2 - The End User needs to learn how to update and the importance of being on top of things.

If Users want to surf the net and yet be ignorant to important information on security and surfing the net then the Users are just asking for trouble.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

edited May 10, 2005 - 5:51 AM

no program is/will remain perfect at one set state, but open source is a great philosophy. Firefox is still in its early days, learning from every mistake. All software will have their vulnerabilities. I personally like Firefox because it is built based on security and user wants/needs, plus anyone could create their own functionality to add to it.

I really like the built in JavaScript options - allow or disallow scripts to do the following: Move/resize existing windows | Raise or lower windows | Disable or replace context menus (get your right click back on those sites that disable it)

fx has so many features it's great, the more I use it, the more I learn, the more I love it.

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted May 10, 2005 - 1:30 AM

IE is a POS, theres not a single exploit or bug in the world for Firefox that can ever change how i see IE and their uber creator Microsoft.

Im also wondering what the **** is IE doing integrated into Windows. Its amazing that Windows can even have alternative browser installed, perhaps they will "fix" that in the future aswell.

Score: 0

By eleven80

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:57 AM

So the world knows you hate Internet Explorer... happy now?

Score: 0

By Portal3

edited May 10, 2005 - 2:53 AM

Pfft, thanks for bringing that up. If you read the article, not just the title, you'd notice that Microsoft Internet Explorer isn't mentioned ONCE! NOT ONCE! This is because it's a FIREFOX SECURITY FLAW! Not Internet Explorer! Firefox!
If you want a more secure browser then learn the TCP/IP protocol and HTML standard etc and just connect to sites manually and sort through source code to get the info. Or you could put that knowledge to use and make a browser. Or STFU! This is not an Article to promote Internet Explorer in any way! If anything it makes every other browser look good.
*edit: Heaven forbid some anti-IE f**k start flaming in reply to an Article about a Firefox Security Vulnerability stating that "IE sux0rz!". If anything perhaps this article has enlightened some of the narrow minded Firefox/Anti-IE users as to what browser has just become less secure. Less secure than it was before that is.*

Score: 0

By jessshaun

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:16 AM

Hey bud relax...

can you not read.... look at this part..." theres not a single exploit or bug in the world for Firefox that can ever change how i see IE"

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:10 AM

Relax, man...just follow Aries lead and say something like:

THIS IS NOT ABOUT INTERNET EXPLORER!!!!!

'nuff said.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 10, 2005 - 9:28 PM

jes.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted May 9, 2005 - 11:12 PM

Ye olde Double Standard flairs again: When vulnerabilities are found in IE, the Firefoxers march to tell us how unholy all things Microsoft are. But when Firefox itself comes up with a new security flaw — this is getting to be a weekly event now — IT'S MICROSOFT'S FAULT! Grow up. Browsers are actually too complex to stave off every fool out there hacking away at them. Just be consistent is all I ask.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 10, 2005 - 6:44 AM

Oh, but they ARE consistent... they are very consistent at not accepting responsibility for their faults and blaming their problems on others as well as bashing anything else to make their problem look "good" by comparison.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted May 10, 2005 - 2:17 AM

I am an avid firefox user, no we arent all rabid dogs. I use firefox for many reasons, the biggest being when firefox crashes or locks up it doesnt make my whole windows desktop restart or otherwise misbehave. Unlike IE which is so integrated into the windows shell that when IE crashes it crashes windows. security holes and/or issues - no matter what application are a problem for us all. we should all be aware of the inherent security issues as well as other problems in the windows operating environment. My biggest concern for windows presently - if Microsoft has not corrected the issue already - is how windows runs both system files and application files in the same space in memory. This can in some instances - cause loss of critical system files...

Score: 0

By SomeGuy

posted May 10, 2005 - 1:06 PM

>My biggest concern for windows presently - if Microsoft has not corrected the issue already - is how windows runs both system files and application files in the same space in memory. This can in some instances - cause loss of critical system files...

What do you mean by memory space?!? Are you telling me that the Windows kernel runs in user mode?

Score: 0

By mukerjee

posted May 10, 2005 - 3:42 AM

Dude this is a FIREFOX security flaw found topic. Do you guys are in a habbit of not reading before you make a comment or just need any topic to join the Microsoft bashing spree .. Strange people and after all these statistics claim that the number of educated people are increasing .... what a shame.

Score: 0

By jessshaun

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:19 AM

Yes, it's a shame that you have to bash someone to tell them to stop bashing... shame...

Score: 0

By The-Ancestor

posted May 10, 2005 - 12:35 AM

Well said...

Score: 0

By Arnvid

posted May 9, 2005 - 11:10 PM

In the end the bottom line will always be, not what is found, but what is fixed. It's not possible to prepare for all possible security-bugs - that's the same with an anti virus program. There will always be new virus, but the mark of a good AV is how fast it's able to find a solution and protection to the new virus. Same with any other software program - browsers being on the top of the list here. How fast does the program developers respond to the attack or a newly discovered open security wall? Personally I don't care who this happen to, IE, FF, Opera or other browser - the bottom line is how fast a solution is available. Firefox has impressed lots of users lately, a fast solution as here is far more impressing in the end than speed or starting time - may this event make the developers prepare even more for coming events like this, and we will see even more new users based on that feature alone!

Score: 0

By jessshaun

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:22 AM

AMEN! Take a look at security sites for exploits for IE. There are alot more for IE that haven't been fixed than there are for firefox. SO FAR (yes I said so far, calm down), there hasn't been many security vulnerabilities for Firefox that haven't been fixed quite quickly.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 10, 2005 - 9:12 AM

Indeed, right you are... but let's call a spade a spade and point out that a workaround involving the disabling of legitimate functionality is NOT a fix... it is a workaround. That is, a temporary solution until a fix is released.

As you said, the real importance comes in seeing how quickly Mozilla Foundation releases 1.0.4 that contains a fix. And then for the long term, as more and more issues are found, can they maintain that *high speed* release rate as well?

Score: 0

By ogman

posted May 9, 2005 - 3:15 PM

...it was fixed! Let's see Microsft fix anything that fast. Firefox...still the safest.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 10, 2005 - 9:16 AM

As I stated in the post above, it is not fixed... a workaround was made available by disabling legitimate functionality until a true fix is available.

Firefox, fortunately, has a low-impact rate right now... only Firefox extensions developers are affected--- Not countless developers of all types of applications. Microsoft has the unenviable task of catering to everyone's needs, not just the needs of YOU.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted May 9, 2005 - 5:38 PM

Lets see firefox support a userbase even 1/10th as large as microsoft's IE has ;-) Then we will see how quickly they test and patch their browser

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 9, 2005 - 5:51 PM

What does market share have to do with how fast a patch is released? If anything Microsoft has 1,000,000 times more funding to fix their browser with. ;-)

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted May 9, 2005 - 5:59 PM

Yes, but they have to make sure it doesnt break anything else in the OS, firefox just has a browser to worry about.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:14 AM

Microsoft would only have to worry about the browser as well if they hadn't integrated it so tightly with the OS. I admit the integration has its benefits as far as speed and compatibility goes, but the turn-around time on fixed/updates is drmatically increased since the testing has to be so much broader.

Score: 0

By RobertM

posted May 9, 2005 - 10:37 PM

What's a Web browser doing integrated into the OS, anyway?

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted May 9, 2005 - 7:54 PM

So you're arguing that IE is superior in that it takes longer to patch? Nice logic.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted May 9, 2005 - 8:12 PM

Nope, arguing people bad mouthing IE for taking so long, My point was that if mozilla had to support as large of a userbase as IE has, as well as the number of products that microsoft has to support, then they would have to take alot more time to check if a patch will work on all platforms.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:17 AM

User-base has nothing to do with it. The reason MS takes longer to test their IE fixes is due to the depth of integration with windows. Anything they do with IE affects windows dramatically and vice-versa.

The benefit of extended testing is compatibility, the drawback is the itme it takes to do this.

Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, none of these will ever see this kind of extensive testing durations because all they need to worry about is the browser.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted May 10, 2005 - 12:08 PM

"The reason MS takes longer to test their IE fixes is due to the depth of integration with windows"

Perhaps...but more so the fact that if they released a patch that broke any software program or function on earth you may have on your pc people will go wild in BetaNews forums :) FF can blame it on the apps--or Windows...

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 12:35 PM

And the reason IE might break other apps?? It's integration.

Thanks for adding to my point. FF Is just a browser, no risk of breaking other apps except possibly via plugins, which are not Mozilla's domain.

Score: 0

By Scary Guy

posted May 9, 2005 - 10:16 PM

I'm confused as well.

First off IE has its own team of programmers working on it.

Second IE is only on Windows platforms. Mozilla is on Windows, Linux, Mac OS primarily and can be ported to anything.

Third, if you're arguing that it's harder to patch because it is integrated into the windows file system then you're right. BTW now is a good time to point out that most people considder that a security risk in and of itself.

Score: 0

By gsbrock

posted May 10, 2005 - 12:02 AM

IE is NOT only available to windows. It is only INTEGRATED into windows... Personally I use firefox, but IE has its perks... neither browser is perfect and it is not realistic to expect such.

Score: 0

By Adarro

posted May 9, 2005 - 9:03 PM

A patch is a patch is a patch.
Regardless of whether its rolled out to 10 people or 100 million (aside from bandwidth constraints).
Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand your angle of 'userbase'.
MSIE suffers from 'seemless integration'. Firefox is a stand alone brower, so they don't need to worry about killing what seems like unrelated applications. I'm not trying to bash MS. Tight integration == tight integration, can be a good thing, but a nightmare to patch.

Score: 0

By hwalton

posted May 10, 2005 - 1:43 PM

WRONG! Web apps can and will be broken as FF starts to patch their browser. I find it amazing that there as so few people in this post that have a clue about the impact of changes be they MS or any other company or organization.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted May 9, 2005 - 8:55 PM

Your logic doesn't make any sense. Microsoft has billions in the bank, there is absolutely no reason they can't spend $500M a MONTH supporting their products if they wanted to. Even if they spent just 1% of their profits on support they have dedicated more money than Mozilla probably has since it's inception.

Your argument is flawed, surely you see that by now.

Score: 0

By Adarro

posted May 9, 2005 - 9:26 PM

The sad part is that they do spend a good bit of money on support. I've had to call their 'Gold' support (which they got much of that money back on :) on a number of occasions, and the people I spoke with were very intelligent, knowledgable and truly eager to fix the issue.
The problem seems to me that their 'product offerings' have reached a monolithic and near unsupportable level of 'seemless integration and complexity'.

Score: 0

By sophist_dreams

edited May 9, 2005 - 3:06 PM

I read the article, here is part of it

"Successful exploitation requires that the site is allowed to install software."

I assume this means that if you have only trusted sites on your allow to download software list you are not vulnerable. Since the only default sites are "addons.mozilla.org" and "update.mozilla.org", Mozilla is already redirecting those sites to "do-not-add.mozilla.org". This will stop the publicly available exploit code using a combination of vulnerability 1 and 2 to execute arbitrary code in the default settings of Firefox.

The other option is to disable the "allow websites to download software" feature in Options/Web Features.

Wow look, easy solutions and no one bashed anything.

Score: 0

By jordenpro

edited May 9, 2005 - 1:58 PM

The problem with people arguing over which browser is more secure and going to protect you from being attacked is ridiculous.

Majority of these exploits/viruses are still on the "underground" or "dirty" sites. So, if you go walking in the ghetto at 3:00am you have a chance of being mugged, regardless. Meaning, IE or Mozilla, both can be exploited and this is nothing new and won't be anything old, get used to it!

Learn how to configure you browser of choice, and always have a backup browser.

Mozilla hitting over 50 million downloads is plenty reason to create more of these fun and games! So patch up your PC, update your virus definitions, update your USB stick with the latest spyware/virus/rootkit detector and get back out there!

Oh, and quiting blaming the browser security, it's YOU!

Score: 0

By danniboi

posted May 9, 2005 - 5:22 PM

so right :)

Score: 0

By dex23462

edited May 9, 2005 - 11:46 AM

And so we start the week off with the ol' "which browser is less secure" debate. Let the flaming begin! ;)

Score: 0

By Dries

posted May 9, 2005 - 12:39 PM

The absolute only way to keep a computer safe:
1. plug out network connection and/or modem connections
2. plug out cd-rom devices and floppy drives
3. make sure no-one comes in reach of the computer

congratulations! you just made your pc absolutely safe!

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted May 10, 2005 - 2:57 AM

You forgot to mention the evil genius who invented the ICFD (Intercontinental Balistic floppy disk)... :)

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:18 AM

lmao...

Score: 0

By billweh

posted May 9, 2005 - 4:27 PM

I think back in the early 90's, Microsoft was touting Windows NT 3.51 to be some level of secure that the government would approve for use. You could run this tool and it would tell you what you had to do to make it C2 (I think that's the rating) secure.

My network admin and I got a big chuckle out of the big red exclamation point next to "This computer is connected to a network".

I think one of the other posters had it right - pull out all external devices that provide access (cdroms, floppies, plug up those USB and Firewire ports, tape over the IR port), disconnect keyboard and network and bingo, one secure PC. ;-)

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted May 9, 2005 - 12:26 PM

LOL... indeed. Well, you know how it is-- everyone wants to criticize everything that they don't use, and refuse to accept fault in something they choose to use/do.

I've never understood why people can't accept that every piece of code has flaws according to someone, and people are just going to use what they like and what works for them.

Score: 0

By zee7

posted May 9, 2005 - 12:13 PM

I.E. is and always will be less secure.

I'm sure The Mozilla Team will have a fix available in no time flat. In the meantime, Firefox users just need to go to:

Tools-->Options-->Web Features

and UN-CHECK the boxes for

"Allow Web Sites to Install Software" and "Enable Java Script".

Big Whoop.

Score: 0

By RobertM

posted May 9, 2005 - 10:40 PM

They've already taken care of the problem on the server side. Expect a more permanent fix in Firefox 1.0.4, but it's already fixed.

Score: 0

By athome

edited May 9, 2005 - 2:01 PM

I agree with GoodThings2Life

zee7 Open mouth and insert foot.

1st. Define "no time flat"

2nd. If you turn of all functionality of IE, you will be surfing safer than FF too.

Then again, what fun would the internet be.

Score: 0

By t1nais

posted May 9, 2005 - 1:51 PM

ha ha. An article about how unsecure Firefox is and it only takes 4 posts to knock Microsoft instead.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted May 9, 2005 - 3:17 PM

Are you surprised, or just new to computing?

Score: 0

By asellus

edited May 9, 2005 - 12:41 PM

Disabling Javascript is not a good solution, if you did not know that already.

Score: 0

By #include

posted May 9, 2005 - 10:43 PM

My Commodore VIC 20 is pretty safe against viruses, plus its got a external tape drive for storage.

take that IE and Firefox

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 10:22 AM

Heh..you got me beat. My 8088 can actually connect to the internet... So unsecure. I'll have to unplug everything and box it up.

Think they'll give me my money back?

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted May 10, 2005 - 3:00 AM

Ha! I have a tandy trs-80 model 16 that has you beat! not one but TWO 8" floppy drives and a massive 5 meg hard drive~ take that :) (BTW. I actually used to go on the net with this compy.. 300 baud modem and it even had a modern dot matrix printer LOL)

Score: 0

By DarkOne123

posted May 10, 2005 - 6:37 AM

IE is not good in that is intragted with Windows, and that it takes longer to release a patch for a security flaw, someone said it's because they got a lot of products, well they also forgot to mention MS has BILLION$. The problem at the beginign was nothing could touch IE, since it got intragted Netscape lost all hope. Then FF came along and scared the hell out of MS, most properly MS is the one finding these flaws so it can make FF like its full of bugs, it is full of bugs but the common people do not know nothing.
There is currently a TEMP Fix for this problem. Uncheck Allow Websites to install software and uncheck Enable Java and JavaScritp

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited May 10, 2005 - 10:21 AM

"Then FF came along and scared the hell out of MS, most properly MS is the one finding these flaws so it can make FF like its full of bugs,"

...the aliens are watching you.

How many times have you been abducted, anyway?

Score: 0

By DarkOne123

posted May 10, 2005 - 5:46 PM

What you are forgeting is a lot of people moved from IE to FF because they thought it had much better security. MS need to make the people think FF is less secure than IE.

Also FFs default theme looks like IEs to make the transfer easier on people.

Score: 0

By DarkOne123

posted May 10, 2005 - 1:00 PM

Lets look at the evidence, IE7 was suppuse to come out with Longhorn, but now its coming out this summer. MS didn't change nothing in IE since what version 4 was it 5, and now they intend to add TABs and stuff just after Firefox starts becoming popular.

How many times have you kissed MS's ass?

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 5:37 PM

****

Sorry, had to get back up on the chair...fell off laughing.

What. The. Hell. ?

Yeah...I'm a big fan of MS... okay. Sure. If that's the impression you get when I pointed out your paranoia, well...I guess it's at least consistant. If I'm not with you, I'm against you, eh?

Yes, MS is now, finally, updating their browser, and about damn time, too. And yes, I am sure the FireFox release had something to do with it. But pointing out flaws and security holes in FireFox? Sorry, Microsoft has better things to do than to help make sure a rival browser gets fixed.

absolutely clueless...

Score: 0

By hwalton

posted May 10, 2005 - 1:39 PM

I love this! So when the majority of apps are running in a browser, how quickly will FF fixes come out that don't break these web apps?

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 5:43 PM

What apps will be running in Firefox? Really, I am very curious.

Score: 0

By hwalton

posted May 10, 2005 - 7:26 PM

That has to be one of the most ill-informed questions I have ever heard! Siebel runs in a browser, many internal organization apps run in a browser, new versions of PeopleSoft run in a browser. Are you one of those "Computer Guys"?

Score: 0

By xrayspex

posted May 10, 2005 - 4:02 PM

Sometimes my feet smell like chedder cheese

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted May 10, 2005 - 5:44 PM

:lol: Sounds like a personal problem. Try a baking-soda bath. That might help.

Score: 0

By DarkOne123

edited May 10, 2005 - 5:49 PM

What you are forgeting is a lot of people moved from IE to FF because they thought it had much better security. MS need to make the people think FF is less secure than IE.

Also FFs default theme looks like IEs to make the transfer easier on people.

I am not saying MS 100% found the problem, but they migh of tried to find flaws.

Score: 0

Dec 1 - 9:34 PM ET Alltel breaks in a mobile wallet with mFoundry

Dec 1 - 7:38 PM ET Intel tries to turn the tables on AMD in document discovery dispute

Dec 1 - 6:59 PM ET Palm to restructure yet again, may cut more jobs

Dec 1 - 4:58 PM ET Blockbuster downloads headed for more devices via Live Mesh

Dec 1 - 4:55 PM ET AOL's PlaySavvy speaks to game-shy parental units

Dec 1 - 4:41 PM ET Less bad news than anticipated for the semiconductor industry in 2008

Dec 1 - 3:51 PM ET 'Xohm' makes way for 'Clear,' as Sprint/Clearwire merger moves ahead

Dec 1 - 2:01 PM ET Chasing down the latest Cyber Monday tech deals

Dec 1 - 12:50 PM ET Will 'Cyber Monday' fare better than a weak 'Black Friday?'

Dec 1 - 12:38 PM ET Microsoft Cashback goes offline to Black Friday shoppers