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

Mozilla to Issue Firefox Security Fix

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

April 28, 2006, 12:59 PM

The Mozilla Corporation plans to rush out a minor update to Firefox, numbered 1.5.0.3, in order to address a denial-of-service vulnerability in the most recent version of the open source Web browser. The move comes despite the flaw being rated "non-critical" by security firm Secunia.

The security issue involves an error in the handling of unexpected "contentWindow.focus()" JavaScript calls. A malicious Web site could be used to "corrupt the memory and cause a crash by calling the "contentWindow.focus()" method on a container with specially crafted content," according to an advisory.

Exploit code for the vulnerability has been released, prompting Firefox developers to quickly patch the browser -- even though the risk of attack is minimal. The decision will, however, slightly push back the next Firefox update.

"What was previously called 1.8.0.3 will shift to 1.8.0.4. 1.8.0.4 will ship on a schedule slightly offset from the original 1.8.0.3 schedule to accommodate the new release in the middle," developers said on Thursday.

"The new 1.8.0.3 release is happening off of a mini-branch from 1.8.0.2 so no action is required to back out patches or stop landing patches for the next release."

The DoS problem affects the latest Firefox 1.5.0.2 build, which was released earlier this month to correct a slew of security-related flaws.

Add a Comment (304 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 anmol.2k4

posted May 2, 2006 - 12:02 PM

one thing i love about firefox is that it is because of firefox there is sooo much competition. And Firefox has become blessing in disguise for both IE & Opera.
One thing im unhappy about Firefox is that mozilla's priorities has changed, even though ff is open-source *they* are going deaf to the community, is it greedy to ask them to get better.
NOW security should not be their number one priority.
Their priority should be functionality & features.
I have searched my pc many times with Anti Virus and ad-aware, still found nothing!
Much of our system's resources are getting used up by cc
Even after all that our system can get infected, then nothing can really stop what is supposed to happen some day.
If antivirus,antispyware and firewalls are running in the background , then it simply doesn't matter whether one uses IE/FF/Opera, one should use what one likes best.
that is why their priority should be functionality & features.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:17 AM

Crapstertech,

You have posted so much crap and lies that I am just sick of reading. You have taken BN from a great place to voice opinions to the worst place to come in only a few days. Your lies and bull crap have made it clear to everyone that Opera may have at once been an option in the future to never at all with your lies and crap that you have posted. You have been banned from more sites that I have ever been to, and you still have no idea of what you are doing. I am sorry that you are one of those people that have less that a 70 IQ, but you need to learn that you can't go around spreading lies and thinking you will earn friends that way. Again, I am sorry that you feel this way, I have looked up a few places that might be able to help you find friend of your ability, if you are willing to meet them. I would be glad to help. Just email the admin at http://www.hearmerworld.com God bless people like you and I hope that I am able to help find your place in this world.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:41 PM

Everything you have typed can not be proven at true and such can not be proven as false. You pick these things to tell everyone to prove you wrong and knowing that they can't prove and opinion right or wrong, then you are propelled to push harder saying that the OPINIONS that you try to pass as facts are proven, when the fact here is that you can not prove an opinion, only support one, and all you have done is turn millions away from Opera with your lies and opinions that you claim are fact, just because you paid a 13 year old child to post it in a site for you.

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted May 2, 2006 - 12:09 PM

If we can fight for a BROWSER, i will repeat browser.
Then i can imagine what will happen if few of us are going to meet (physically).
i will admit that i too took part in that & i feel stupid about that still i LOVE opera, but is it soooooooo hard to tolerate if other guy does not like what we like.

Firefox is good, many LOVE it
IE is good(7),90% use it
opera is good too, I love it.

Score: 0

By tscar12

posted May 2, 2006 - 12:06 AM

I have a suggestion: let's have a contest. All the fanatics of FF, Mozela, IE, and any other browser or OS agree to try to break into one another systems. The one that succeeds will advance the cause of their OS or browser. The only condition will be that no personal info will be revealed. Afterall, setting aside the bells and whistles, security is the name of the game when in comes to computers. So to all you fanatics, I say put-up or shut-up. I may not be the smartest but I'm smart enough to now that and build a secure wall. So, Anyone of you little kids willing to take up the challenge or are you afraid that all your little ranting oabout this browser or that browser or this OS or that OS is just a cover for your ignorance. Like I said, there's always someone smarter than you and someone knowing that will always beat an arrogant fanantical a**wipe.

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted May 2, 2006 - 9:19 AM

No need for a hacker contest tscar12. There are more than one security site destined to test and count security vulnerabilities in each product everybody is flaming. Secunia is one of the most serious. Taking scores from there:

Micro$oft internet exploited: 21 security holes, various critical: http://secunia.com/product/11/
Mozilla Firefox has 4 security holes but none critical
Opera has 0 vulnerabilities.

So, anyone using IE have serious chances of being attacked. Microsoft is also patching monthly and without success for years now.
Isn't that enough? Ok, is your computer.
Of course, you can still browse safely in disney.com, cnn.com and maybe, microsoft.com. EOF.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:02 PM

Debunking the Debunking of Mozilla/Firefox.

The evidence is very clear. I can see where people are very adamant about coming up with a new technology, and ignoring the present one. MS has been around for over 20 years, its old! Not really, but youngsters ALWAYS want their era to be heard. Its this way with music, art, clothing, and its no different with software. If you go back in history, its the parents that complain about their children's choice in music.

Parents thought at one time, Classical music, which by today's standards is about as tame as you can get, was "devil music". Religion egotists back in the 17 and 18th century actually referred to Bach as the "demon spawn", yet historians proclaim him as one the founding fathers of the great composers. Years later, people thought Elvis was also "noise", and he has been considered by many as the founding father of rock and roll, which as we all know, is SATAN music... right? Metallica, AC/DC, sex, drugs rock and roll, we have all heard it.

So here we have software, MS is a bygone era from the "parents" of today. Children, REFUSE to acknowledge that era as having anything good, because well, its old! Its not old, MS employs people of all ages, young AND old. They are not simply a company full of old farts and people that grew up with the Dos prompt.

There are those of us, contrary to popular belief, that can progress. Do not confuse those hard headed people that can't see the usefullness of new products, with those of us that can and do. We ALL benefit, so why this contant bickering and bad mouthing?

I get into with people when their comments are OBVIOUSLY biased. I am not really biased, but I do take a biased stance, when people are simply being argumentative, or make statements like "Firefox is cool, MS sucks". That has no place.

So I contradict, on the same level as the apparent intellect with whomever I am dealing. I can be articulate, and I can be petty. I am not going to waste my time on some moron that is obviously immature, and only posts to start a flame war. So, I antagonize and attack. I get real tired of people that think their comments won't be challenged.

Well, *I* will challenge you EVERY chance I get. That being said, IE. Its a browser. Its part of an OS. Its also a MS product. Firefox, not without its problems, is a VERY SMALL COMPANY. Let's put that into perspective.

GM, makes what millions and millions of cars each day? So they have a recall. How long does it take to recall 500,00 vehicles? Before that happens you have to notify each and every GM Dealership. We aren't talking a few, we are talking hundreds of thousands of dealerships. So you have to notify them FIRST, you have to get them time to prepare, they have to get replacement parts, AND get trained on what needs to be done.

A small car company, an upstart, like Scion, has a new product. Its a very small car company, only 3 models to support, not many dealerships sell Scion, and since its still new, they have no history, no worry about previous upgrades or problems with other cars, they start fresh. They issue a fix for a car, its relatively simple, a few hundred dealerships, only a few thousand on the road.. its only going to take a few days to get the problem resolved, done.

GM. Let's be realistic. People are the problem, not the company. GM has to deal with not only customers, but bone head dealerships that don't follow instructions correctly, or follow timelines. So knowing this GM, issues a declaration of a recall. The dealerships can't simply be brow beaten into doing the fix, they have to be given an allowable time to prepare, so that could be 6 weeks, maybe longer. So GM says the recall will take place in 3 months.

In the mean time, EVERY customer get's notification that their car needs a replacement. How many people (and don't like, because I know how people are, and its already been discussed about how people are complacent and resistent to updates) pay attention to those notices? Its only after some dork fails to read owners manual, and their tire pressure is low, and their SUV rolls over, and then it comes out that GM coincidentally has a recall on something that is close, but not exactly the tire, and it affects this one family, a member gets killed, now you have a lawsuit, and GM is to blame. Yes, I know that was Ford, but still..

Scion, doesn't have this lasting history of cars on the road (which GM STILL has to be accountable for - parts, manuals, documentation, etc...).

Now. MS. Same identical thing. Replace GM with MS and scion with firefox, and you tell me that's its adequately feasible to update millions upon millions of customers (each one running not only Office, Windows, and a host of other MS products, but IE as well). Maybe every IT shop doesn't want to address those issues right away, because they have NO IDEA the impact that even a small security update with do.

Even if it is proven to be a huge security leak, many companies are slow (again its the people) to update, because a patch isn't going to fix one thing in the MS world. They choose to roll-up fixes into a service pack.

As a sideline, MSDN subscribers (of which I am one) we get updates, EVERY SINGLE DAY. This constant BS about Firefox coming up with fixes every so often and more often than MS is a TOTAL CROCK. I am tired of that c*** and bull story, and it needs to cease. Its abosolutely NOT true. You can get plenty of updates for IE each and every day and WHEN they become available.

The problem is, notification. Why notify about 1 security fix, when you can announce for a SP that is coming out to address these issues (which if you actually READ the damn announcement it clearly states - FIXES *ARE* available via windows update OR from the download site).

Firefox ONLY has to be accountable for their part, which amounts to a SINGLE product, of which 1 or 2 updates fixes it, now they can sit on their laurels and laugh at MS.. because their piddly updates didn't take long.

MS has to account for whatever library is shared in IE (It may share with Office, the OS - which is why many people *incorrectly* mistake that the IE is integrated into the OS - MS did mention this, but it was their feable attempt to snow the judge, so they didn't have to do something with IE. Its easier to say its combined with the OS, so they could make it appear to be a monumental problem, rather than trivial - Anyway, I digress.) that may affect OTHER products. Firefox doesn't care. As long as their product works "its MS problem". That, sadly, is part of the main reason why many products in Windows *SUCK!*. I am a programmer, and some of these companies disgust me with the way the manipulate windows, and then it appears to be a MS problem (one I keep proving time and time again is the registry. I can change a single registry entry and it would crash windows, now I ask you, is that TRUELY a MS problem? HELL NO!). If I go and release air out of your tires, and you fail to check them before you drive the vehicle... whose fault is that? Firestone? Ford? NO, its the customers fault. ITs your car, YOU take care of it. PERIOD!.

We have a huge responsiblity problem, parents want to complain about content on TV, turn the damn TV off! Parents want to give their kids drugs, rather than address their energetic children, umm.. its called find something productive for them to do, and quit whining about how you have no time to watch or spend time with your kids!

The point of this rant, is the show that Firefox has a simple update plan. MS can't feasibly update the whole world in a short amount of time, even with the internet.

Hell, I send an email to many companies daily, my average response time is a week. Yes, a week. Its totally rediculous. And when they do get back to you, its some automated response which has nothing to do with my question.

I know we have a communication problem, but the youngsters today WILL NOT see the benefit in using something their Parents used 25 years ago.

That's just historical fact. Firefox is the new age, and kids, young people, and new techs are going to do ANYTHING to discredit the incumbent, because they want THEIR era to be noticed.

Take it with a grain of salt, when it comes to security and updates.. but just remember 2 things.

MS is a multi-billion dollar company, that uses THEIR own product line. They didn't get their by producing or using crap. MS has been PROVEN to work, otherwise 80% of the global companies wouldn't use them.

Firefox is still new, doesn't anyone remember what happened even in '99 and '00? We had a dot com crash.. Everyone has a very short memory.. Firefox is the last of a few new companies that managed to survive the dot bomb.. So conceivably, they could be gone tomorrow. You want to invest your future in a product that has no track record? Go ahead.

I am sticking with MS. I have drivers, I have support, I have a company with ESTABLISHED history. If firefox crashes, and blows up and your bank account is compromised because of it.. Opps! Sorry. They will have no accountability.

I don't care what you think about MS, Banks, Fortune 500, Government, Games, they ALL rely on it, and to quote a very famous saying..

billions of people CAN'T be wrong. There is a reason MS has survived this long. Its no accident.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 1, 2006 - 2:03 PM

MS is a multi-billion dollar company, that uses THEIR own product line.

In fairness they did only switch from using Apache webserver on several of "their own" sites (Hotmail for example) last year.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 2:10 AM

What the FFUUCCKK Are you talking about you stupid son of a biotch??? We all know they are a profit company and his post NEVER once said anything about that.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:43 PM

It's not anger, it 100% awe at how stupid you are!

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 1, 2006 - 2:14 PM

Ummm that was like done a year after they bought the service.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 1, 2006 - 12:31 PM

As I was saying Masterlies, it is you who choose the sites to get your misquotes from. Perhaps you'd care to clarify to readers why they are posted in such a butchered & contextually incorrect way?

"...all web sites are IE compliant, use a browser with IE engine & tabs, & a fully patched system = 100% security." - FreewheelinFrank (MrFlibble)
Actual comment - "This includes 1 of Mastertech's typical phrases designed to suggest he is not the author ('Makes interesting reading') but then goes on to use the first person. Strange- that would be the first time for Mastertech. The notions are his: all web sites are IE compliant, use a browser with IE engine & tabs, & a fully patched system = 100% security."

"I'm not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called "Firefox Myths" entered my radar recently, I was very interested." - Tre
Actual comment - "I’m not a big fan of evangelism or hyperbole, so when a page called “Firefox Myths” entered my radar recently, I was very interested. Then sadly disappointed. Rather than a balanced analysis of some of the folklore surrounding Firefox, it is merely a stream of weak arguments against imaginary “myths” supported by misquoting or deliberate misreading of sources. I’m not even going to reference the page".

"...Good stuff - give it a read." - Asa
Actual comment - "Robert Accettura has a nice response to the poorly constructed & mostly worthless article Firefox Myths. Good stuff - give it a read".

"It's an interesting read..." - Robert A. (Mac User)
Actual comment - "Someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame (obviously not worth 15 minutes) decided to post some Firefox Myths. It’s an interesting read, though has a few oddball statements, that really don’t make sense".

"The sources & data are convincing..." - Ryan J. (Editor note - this should start "...the sources")
Actual comment - "Even though the sources & data are convincing, I see nothing pro-Firefox there - notice no links about IE's insecuity I wonder why."

"...your web pages are actually pretty good: I personally link to Secure XP" - MrFlibble (FreewheelinFrank)
Actual comment - "What is clear is that Mastertech has unbelievable energy for incessantly persuing the same arguments over & over & over again, he is entirely incapable of admitting that anybody else has a valid point of view, let alone might actually have anything to add to the discussion that might contradict his pre-set notions, & will never give up until he has the last word on this subject, or until he finds the last internet forum on the planet to post in again & start up the whole argument again. Mastertech, I personally don't care if you have a bee in your bonnet about Firefox. I don't care if you see yourself as some kind of "Master Technician" come to save us from falacy. Personally I think you are becoming the "laughing stock of the internet." I don't care how many forums you post your articles/blogs/web pages in. Just know that you have attracted a lot of attention now, so posting 1 of your articles & talking about the author in the third person isn't going to work anymore. Admit authorship for what you write & post. Anybody Googling you past postings can see you have been dishonest. Some of your web pages are actually pretty good: I personally link to Secure XP, but as far as I am concerned you are a busted flush".

"Mozilla Firefox is a great web browser, but its praise is not without its share of exaggerations. ...Internet Explorer typically starts up faster than Firefox... Firefox is by no means perfectly safe. Users still have to use reasonable caution when downloading files & plugins from untrusted websites. Firefox ... does not yet have complete support for the current CSS, DOM, or even HTML standards." - David H. (Linux User)
Actual comments - "Internet Explorer typically starts up faster than Firefox the first time you double-click on the program icon. This is mainly because the core Internet Explorer engine is actually loaded into memory as your computer is starting up. Furthermore, not all components of the web browser are in memory when the browser window comes up. Some components, such as the favorites manager, are only loaded into memory when you access them, while Firefox loads everything at once.

Something as complex as a web browser will almost certainly have security vulnerabilities crop up from time to time. No major web browser has a perfect security record. There are some fundamental differences between the architecture of Firefox compared to Internet Explorer with regard to security, & Mozilla has shown a much better record than Microsoft at fixing its browser's vulnerabilities, as shown in this security summary, but Firefox is by no means perfectly safe. Users still have to use reasonable caution when manually downloading files & plugins from untrusted websites.

No web browser is 100% standards compliant. The web technology standards are very extensive & it often takes many years to implement all of the features of a standard, plus additional time to fix the bugs. In addition, the standards are always evolving & becoming more & more robust. Firefox (along with Opera, Safari, & Konqueror) is certainly a leader in the field of standards support, & is quickly adopting new emerging technologies, but it, like the others, does not yet have complete support for the current CSS, DOM, or even HTML standards. More information is available in this standards support summary".

"Any browser is more secure by not supporting... Firefox. All Browsers have vulnerabilities... No Browser can claim... to be 100% standards compliant" - Thomas (Editors note - This is actually me)
Actual comments (i.e. this thread) - "Any browser is more secure by not supporting ActiveX, not just Firefox.

All Browsers have vulnerabilities (& more will be discovered); what's more important than the number of vulnerabilities is how quickly they are patched & in that regard Firefox has a proven record of being quite secure much of the time, Opera also proved extremely responsive in this regard.

No Browser can claim (Or ever has claimed for that matter) to be 100% standards compliant. However, both Firefox & Opera clearly have made significant movement in this area while IE 6 lags well behind in all but 1 area".

"I'm tired of all of these Firefox fanboys who try to brush off the facts on your page... This is laughable. Your Firefox Myths page clearly says that it's dealing only with Windows versions of Firefox... Of course the fanboys refuse to look at the sources... I want to shove that... into their faces... This would be excellent ammo against the fanboys." - David H. (Linux User)
Actual comment - "Hey, guess what? It seems Mastertech has been watching this thread (a loophole in the ban system). I have removed him from all topic watch lists, so he should no longer be receiving notifications of new posts on these forums.

I also sent him the following e-mail:

Subject: Firefox fanboys spouting more lies

I'm tired of all of these Firefox fanboys who try to brush off the facts on your page. Someone on my forums tried to tell me that Firefox on Windows has never had an extremely critical vulnerability. This is laughable. Your Firefox Myths page clearly says that it's dealing only with Windows versions of Firefox, & it plain as day lists "1 Extremely Critical" vulnerability for Firefox, directly linking to Secunia's advisory page as the source. Of course the fanboys refuse to look at the sources, but I want to shove that vulnerability into their faces. I went to the source and started looking for the vulnerability, but I can't seem to figure out the Secunia website. Could you please give me a link to the extremely critical vulnerability Secunia lists for Firefox on Windows? This would be excellent ammo against the fanboys.

Thanks in advance!

I'm looking forward to his response. Wink

(& for historians who might wish to dig up this post, the contents of this e-mail are very much sarcastic & are purely intended to point out flaws in his article.)"

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:06 PM

Master, you have your own fan club..

I have a question, a previous post said you were banned on a bunch of website.. How do they KNOW those are you? Or did you admit to as much?

Score: 0

By Nanobot

posted May 1, 2006 - 7:16 PM

Hey now, don't forget that I banned you from webdevout.net too.

You also got banned from Mozillazine, ban evaded, and got banned again. http://forums.mozillazin.../viewtopic.php?t=369823

Then there's Neowin, which you got banned from due to spamming the Firefox Myths page, trolling, and threatening to sue people because you didn't like what they were saying. http://www.neowin.net/fo...ndex.php?showuser=31164 (his user profile, which you'll need to be logged in to view; the thread that got him banned was deleted.)

You've also been banned from TechSpot due to spamming the Firefox Myths page. (http://www.techspot.com/...php?p=238896#post238896)

And let's not forget all of the sites you were banned from before the whole Firefox Myths thing. Why, here, I'll even let you spill the beans:

http://www.bamahome.com/...s/4/384.html?1003443229
http://www.bamahome.com/...s/4/524.html?1007277593
and then sometime after ranting about your bans on Forum bX, it seems you were banned on Forum bX as well: http://www.bamahome.com/...14/4537.html?1027205326

And don't try to pretend that you aren't Drew, because Drew=Mastertech was revealed in the replies to that first Forum bX post. Four and a half years later, you're still getting yourself banned everywhere you go. Perhaps the problem isn't just Firefox fanboys, since I don't recall there being many Firefox fanboys back in 2001.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:00 AM

OMG! you just admitted to the bans, and are still trying to talk shiot to the admins that banned you. Damn you are a sorry sack of fish poop!

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 2, 2006 - 12:11 PM

I banned you from TechSpot for spamming the forum, as you've done on countless others. I'm quite happy for others to criticise Firefox all they wish. Were you not spamming yourself on numerous forums you wouldn't have been banned regardless of how much others may like or dislike your comments. As I've clearly indicated here already, I've been quite reasonable & critical of Firefox over the months. Referring to us as fanboys is just a desperate defense as anyone can clearly see my checking my past statements.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:46 PM

You have spammed your myth page about 60 times in the past week, maybe more. What the heck do you mean that you don't spam it?

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 2, 2006 - 3:28 PM

On Evil Avatar you also "just posted a link" where you then proceeded to deny you were the author & refer to yourself in the third person (The poster, curiously, is a Mastertech);
"The author isn't debunking CSS" Mastertech
"He says that right here: "even without fully supporting XHTML yet"" Mastertech
"That is what he is getting at here." Mastertech
After several pages however your identity was exposed.

If you believe I intended to allow you to carry out similar spamming & deception on my forum then you were sadly mistaken.

Oh no, wait, this must be one of your impersonators again right?

Score: 0

By Nanobot

posted May 3, 2006 - 11:58 PM

Wow, it seems EVERYONE wants to be Mastertech!

I sure wouldn't want to be in your shoes, Mastertech. I would be quite bothered if I had been caught in as many lies as you (and you're the only one here who thinks you haven't), but you seem to thrive on making people sick of you. I don't get it. But looking through your past, it seems your mind has been in the gutter for a long time now and it seems you're beyond fixing. You've spread lies about all of us and then acted like we're making lies about you, and you think we banned you because we're stupid fanboys? Lots of people have said negative things about Firefox on my sites, but you're the only one I've banned. I even gave you several warnings beforehand.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 1, 2006 - 2:10 PM

"They also think I post under various other names as well."

We are quite sure of it:

http://www.webdevout.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37

Score: 0

By Nanobot

edited May 4, 2006 - 12:03 AM

Your site says "All Myths relate to running the default install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions."

You then say "Secunia - lists 97 security vulnerabilities in Firefox, 63 of which are rated as Highly Critical and 1 Extremely Critical."

But if you look at the only Extremely Critical vulnerability Secunia lists for Firefox, it says "This vulnerability can only be exploited on Unix / Linux based environments."

So Secunia does not list an Extremely Critical vulnerability that affected the "default install of Firefox in Windows with no extensions".

So your page lies.

QED

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 2, 2006 - 3:38 PM

On Evil Avatar you posted as Mastertech, referring to yourself (the author of Firefox Myths) repeatedly in the third person;
"The author isn't debunking CSS" Mastertech
"He says that right here: "even without fully supporting XHTML yet"" Mastertech
"That is what he is getting at here." Mastertech
You were finally sent packing from the forum after a member proved you were the author of Firefox Myths. How truly pathetic that is.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:29 PM

"How do they KNOW those are you?"

From his IP's:

http://www.webdevout.net...ic.php?t=38&start=0

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 1, 2006 - 2:07 PM

You means there's another Mastertech posting on Firefox myths who isn't you? As well as another Andrew posting who isn't you?

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 1, 2006 - 2:28 PM

It's funny really, as the "Mastertech" that registered on TechSpot Forums also displayed an IP Address of 69.136.66.xx (Hidden for security) when I log into vBulletin admin console. Doing tracert on that address leads to a comcast domain. What's Mastertechs ISP? Comcast.

So believe as you wish rijp. You can believe that the same person has been impersonating Mastertech & promoting his articles on several forums for several months - right down to using the same IP address (& ISP) as the "legit" Mastertech. Or you can believe the "crazy" theory that he's used Aliases on multiple occassions while promoting the exact same articles in much the same way - hence the matching IPs. Now which of these seems the likelier?

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited May 2, 2006 - 2:57 AM

There are not a million ppl that use the last 6 that you could use, only 255.255 and seeing how that is beyond belief, even a court in any country would convict you for that bullshiat.

OOPS, my bad I mean 255. They have 3 out of the four that mean that only 255 ppl could be that out of the millions that would be more than enough!!!!

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted May 2, 2006 - 11:09 PM

If you do not know how many addresses can be in each octet of an IP address, then give it up. Just knowing the first three octets lets me narrow a potential location to a small area, like say a city. I can tell what he's talking about; it seems you don't. lowmrn01.pa.comcast.net sound familiar? Lower what in Pennsylvania?

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:44 PM

Can you even read you retarded son of a crack wh***?

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:04 PM

dude I can contest many of your things, but like you said, I dont' want to spend the time.

This is your opinion, those myths have some merit.

You obviously like Firefox, so of COURSE you won't find fault with them.

I find it funny, that you complain about MT, but yet in your post, I ONLY see good things about Firefox.

A realist can see all in a product, the good AND the bad.

According to you, Firefox is perfect.. And that makes you full of s***.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 1, 2006 - 1:48 PM

Obviously you've failed to read my posts or anything I've been saying. Nowhere have I said Firefox is perfect. Here's some conclusions I've stated on Firefox Myths Debunked;
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic44405.html
All Browsers have vulnerabilities (& more will be discovered); what's more important than the number of vulnerabilities is how quickly they are patched & in that regard Firefox has a proven record of being quite secure much of the time, Opera also proved extremely responsive in this regard.
Any browser is more secure by not supporting ActiveX, not just Firefox.
No Browser can claim (Or ever has claimed for that matter) to be 100% standards compliant. However, both Firefox & Opera clearly have made significant movement in this area while IE 6 lags well behind in all but 1 area; IE 7 offers some improvement over IE 6.

Where do I say it's perfect? Try reading before typing. Perhaps you've read the post I made last year when Firefox Myths was initially posted;
http://www.techspot.com/.../firefox-myths-debunked/
Noticed the site behind XP Myths has posted up a new article - Firefox Myths. Alas, while the former I think can be pretty useful in many instances this is not & offers a bias/misrepresented look at Firefox (Not to mention the fact that sources have been misquoted/misread). Do I say anything especially pro-Firefox there? Nope.

Or perhaps I should refer you to something I said last September;
Security (No Active X, although as popularity grows Firefox IS & WILL be exploited more & more...
& again;
Let it not be said that Mozilla is without security flaws.

Perhaps you'd care to re-assess your current belief that I am somehow a mindless fanboy who sees absolutely no problems with Firefox.

Score: 0

By gawd21

edited May 2, 2006 - 2:52 AM

Your site is so much like you full of lies that can never be proven seening how they are closer to opinions than they will ever be to facts. SHUT THE **** UP!!!!!

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:43 PM

A page that is written by a 13 year old child filled with opinions are not facts.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 1, 2006 - 12:49 PM

You mean, "Fanboy Misquotes".

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 1, 2006 - 12:03 PM

TO: tscar12, athome, GoodThings2Life.

What took you so long to bring these points up? I have been trying to encapsulate what you posted, so many times, yet I never seem to get support, until now. Where have you been?

There were all EXCELLENT points, I have wanted to illustrate, but couldn't find the right terminology, and in one morning, you managed to post the things I keep trying to reiterate.

I am glad to see there are 3 posts, all supporting the facts and personal choice. That's all this really comes down to.

You 3 should be commended.

Score: 0

By tscar12

posted May 1, 2006 - 11:25 AM

Look, no browser is completely safe.It's all about critical mass. When a OS or browser reaches a critical mass, the hackers take notice and then put all their effort into exploiting the holes. Anyone that thinks their browser makes them safe should remember the old saying "their no such thing as an unsinkable ship." The Titanic was billed as unsinkable and what happen? it sank on it's maiden trip. Anyone who thinks they are automatically safe behind this OS or that one or this browser or that one, probablly would have been the first in line to buy a ticket on the Titanic.

Score: 0

By Floodland

edited May 1, 2006 - 1:09 PM

Let's be fair: To be perfectly safe, disconnect your computer from the net.
Now, the main problem for the Titanic was (after the lie of saying it was unsinkable) that once the ship started going down, pleople on it denied the fact and sank with the ship.
The same applies to IE: If you don't start using Firefox, Opera or another product, you will go down faster than Titanic.
The spyware zoo destined to IE is bigger than any iceberg, and IE has more holes than Titanic and the WTC official story togheter.

Score: 0

By tscar12

posted May 1, 2006 - 3:02 PM

Floodland- to set history striaght.. the Titanic sank because of the so called security features it built into the ship. When the fron of the ship starting filling up with water the bulkheads closed. what this did is make the front end heavy and as it went under water, it broke the ship in half. second, the ship didn't have enough liferafts. But more to your point, I have never said which OS i use or browser i use. I only said that they al have their problems. But I willissue a challenge to any of the fanatics on this site: Do whatever you want to try and break into my system and if you do, I'll come online here and acknowledge your Accomplishment and agree with your rantings. To make it even easier for all the fanatics out their, I use XP Pro and IE6. Good luck and put up or shut-up. As far as this Mastertech, he/she seems to be a nutcase so I tend to ignore the posts. By replying to his posts you just encourage him/her.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:02 AM

A page full of home made, 13 year old made crap that says little to nothing more that what you typed in.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:47 PM

None can be proven in the real world and none are facts!

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 1, 2006 - 11:57 AM

Ha! I love it. Very good post.

Score: 0

By athome

posted May 1, 2006 - 8:14 AM

To the general public, they don't care what browser they use to get to the Internet. In fact, they rarely even know what a browser is until you tell them. To say that one is better than the other is merely the techies/fanboys pushing their preference to these people.

Another fact, is that the people that are swayed to use a particular borwser don't know enough to update those browsers and therefore are no more secure for switching than they were in the first place - unless the said techie/fanboy tells them to do so. This will take some change in the way in which people use the Internet.

Usually, there is an event that happens to one's computer before even considering that there even is a problem and there are such things as updates. Most of the people I have come in contact with are shocked that SP2 will give them greater security than without. They hear that it causes problems with other programs and therefore have been told to not install it, when the only thing they use on it is Internet Explorer and Freecell.

Another funny piece of news that I often chuckle at is those that use the ISPs ATT/SBC, AOL, Netscape, etc, believe that they must use the browsers supplied by the said ISP to access the Internet.

I feel that in my position, I must provide the knowledge(educate) needed to perform the everyday tasks that the general user needs. Whether they use Firefox, Opera, Netscape, or IE they are all at risk. SP2 and all updates from Microsoft are necessary for security, but they may use whatever browser they wish is more secure and prefer - security is a state of mind. For simplistic reason, I will still tell them to use IE because the updates are automatic - Firefox is getting better with this, but all the extensions...

I really don't think that people care what they use as long as it takes them where they want to go and show them what they want to see. The browser wars will be fought by the techies/fanboys and not the general public. Those that are installing the plethora of browsers are not doing it for security reasons, but only because they are told to do so - even when applying updates. This gives statistical imbalance to the browser stat wars we hear all the time.

A long about way of getting my point across, and really not wanting to debate the issue with anyone. I just find it a bit comical to read the many points that are brought up here that relate to personal preference rather than security. As GT2L says, use what you like. Everything has risks, it is only a matter of time before it is exploited.

IMO

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Apr 30, 2006 - 9:11 PM

I look at these comments and can't help but think that there really shouldn't be this much discussion on the announcement that ANY product is getting an update for ANY reason.

Seriously... every company releases updates... you install them, or you don't... and who the heck cares what your opinion is on a product? Why does everyone feel a need to convince others that one product is better than another. USE WHAT YOU LIKE!

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted May 1, 2006 - 2:27 AM

even though i too was acting like a fanboy,

but i agree with you.

Score: 0

By mikeyx11

posted Apr 30, 2006 - 8:00 PM

If Opera is so good, then why is FF more popular? hmmm.....

I don't use FF because its "more secure" I use it because it does what I want it to. Opera doesnt, and I don't like Opera's UI. It also doesn't render a few pages properly, such as my ISPs one, and an IT store that I use. If Opera was so good i'm sure there would be alot more people using it.

Score: 0

By azazel-

posted May 1, 2006 - 10:35 AM

Or...maybe...they just prefer to chose what ****ing browser they want to use, and prefer Firefox to Opera? You do understant personal choice, right? Or is that a completely foreign concept to you? Actually, scratch that, I know the answer, having seen you heckled off enough sites in the past. Do everyone a favor, quit spamming your stupid blog full of "myths". It's beyond tired.

Oh, and FYI, Diskeeper sucks, and the air force has some of the worst-skilled computer-related personnel I've ever seen. Have a good day.

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted May 1, 2006 - 2:28 AM

because opera didn't use to be free,
it had ads.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited Apr 30, 2006 - 7:13 PM

Mastertech Debunked;
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic44405.html
Perhaps Mastertech'd care to explain again the misquotes, lies, deceptive statements & bias throughout his page? (Instances of which I've thoroughly sourced & documented).

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 1, 2006 - 4:31 AM

Spammer ehh? That's an ironic statement. Checking my logs I've been banned from zero forums/sites. Whereas you have been banned from...
Neowin - http://www.neowin.net/fo...ndex.php?showuser=31164
Digg - http://nanobox.chipx86.c...ch-banned-from-digg.php
Along with (To mention a few);
3dgpu
Anandtech
Forum bX
Geeks to Go
IntelZone
Lunarsoft.net
PCMechanic

For what? Oh yeah, spamming FirefoxMyths on their sites.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:11 PM

What are you stalking him? you obviously have waaay too much time so you can follow his career, are you threatened...

I find it truly amazing you claim he was banned, so following your own theory of debunking, you know this because....?

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:38 PM

It's not a "claim" it's a fact. I didn't perform this however, others did;
http://www.webdevout.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:04 AM

It's because they were taking the first steps in the suit against you that ill put you in the poor house for the rest of your life as well as the next 1000 years of your families'.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:48 PM

You will see!

Score: 0

By azazel-

posted May 1, 2006 - 10:36 AM

Too bad he's right.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 1, 2006 - 12:14 PM

Yep, Neowins a real Firefox fanboy site. According to your profile - http://www.neowin.net/fo...ndex.php?showuser=31164 - you registered on 20/06/2003 & had 796 posts at time of being banned. Yep, those fanboys pounced on you real quick.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 1, 2006 - 12:42 PM

Really? My mistake. Someone must have been impersonating you all those years on the site! Because, according to a search on Neowin "Mastertech" made repeated posts regarding Firefox promoting PopularTechnology & FirefoxMyths. You must be really irritated having a clone who goes around for 3 years promoting your work.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 1, 2006 - 3:04 PM

Any sources pointed out are met with responses of "That don't refute anything" without hesitation or consideration.
So why bother with that line when it far simplier to showcase your fraudulent, unethical character? This is something which is provable, irrefutable & verified by numerous sources.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 2, 2006 - 12:11 PM

Technically it would be yours as I don't need to spam my own articles.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 1, 2006 - 3:55 AM

Try Googling "TSThomas" and "spam"- all references to Mastertech. Google "Mastertech" and "spam"- countless accusations for many sources that Mastertech has spammed his commercial web pages.

Score: 0

By great-gazoo

posted Apr 30, 2006 - 5:12 PM

Firefox has an increasing percentage of users as people are realizing that IE, while convenient, does not have the stability of FF. Mozilla mobilizes quickly to patch FF as needed. Open source is another benefit to FF and many people are realizing that the open source movement is the way to go. The percentage of FF users will continue to climb.

Score: 0

By irdepesca572

posted Apr 30, 2006 - 12:22 PM

Is it out yet?

Score: 0

By eclipsingdivinity

posted Apr 29, 2006 - 11:13 AM

I could care less if Firefox has 3239 vulnerabilities, if Mozilla fixes them before they are announced or mere weeks after being announced, then that's it. Whining is over, the problem is fixed. It's not like we're dealing with the 8-month-till-I-patch-a-dangerous-vulnerability Internet Explorer.

It seems like lately everyone is getting so patriotic about their browsers. If you're so worried about security, STAY OFF THE INTERNET. Mozilla claims it's a more secure browser, but that doesn't mean it's a fortress. By secure, i'm sure they mean "We actually patch our flaws in a timely manner".

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Apr 30, 2006 - 7:23 AM

if you really care about security, pick a browser with 0 unpatched vunrabilities, from a company that genuinely cares about security.

http://www.opera.com

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted Apr 30, 2006 - 6:28 PM

Opera also has an arrangement with Secunia to not post vulnerability advisories until Opera have released a patch. To say Opera has zero unpatched vulnerabilities is simply untrue.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:13 PM

So, why doesn't MS follow this lead, or hey maybe they do!

I think mastertech is right, you have baseless debunking.. your mama weaned you to early didn't she?

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:35 PM

No, I was quite contently sucking at her teat until puberty (Eye roll).

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 1, 2006 - 4:26 AM

The latest instance of this being stated was on OperaWatch in March I believe;
http://operawatch.com/ne...o-be-released-soon.html
"Opera usually coordinates its browser updates with Secunia, so that Secunia doesn’t release any information about security vulnerabilities in the browser before a patch is made available." He then goes on to note additionally that "Opera 8.52 in the above languages was originally released with an insecure version of Macromedia Flash."

Opera Watch was first to break several Opera stories in the past & has been featured in the press on countless occasions including The Inquirer, CBS Market Watch, Red Herring Magazine, InternetNews.com, Slashdot, Investors Business Daily, Neowin, & more.

We all eagerly await your "that doesn't disprove anything" response.

Fun fact #5 - Firefox Myths uses 10+ blogs as sources, yet the use of blogs as contrary sources is derided by the author as hearsay.

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 1, 2006 - 11:57 AM

The statement I've pointed to is from a respected Opera news site. What you have in text in quotes without a source. Tsk tsk, I thought you knew better than to post something without sourcing it.
I could just as easily have said I emailed Opera & received the response that "We do have a special agreement with Secunia regarding disclosure of vulnerability information". Alas, people are more likely to have believed me as I don't actually have a current & verifiable record of deception & misrepresentation.
To save you time, we'll just assume your response is "here's the email address, contact them yourself".

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

edited May 1, 2006 - 12:30 PM

Myth: "Opera usually coordinates its browser updates with Secunia, so that Secunia doesn't release any information about security vulnerabilities in the browser before a patch is made available."

Reality: this applies to any vendor.

You're overreacting, Mastertech.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:32 PM

Read your own link, Mastertech:

"All vulnerabilities discovered by Secunia Research are reported directly to the vendors in a responsible manner, giving the vendor two weeks to reply with a confirmation and details about the expected release date for the security update. Secunia always wait for the security update - as long as the vendor keeps a reasonable time frame for issuing the update and actively co-operate with the Secunia Research team."

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:52 PM

It is clearly an arrangement. Nobody used the word "special" until you did.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:08 AM

That was the first time the word "special" occured.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

edited May 2, 2006 - 9:18 AM

Exactly. The statement from Opera watch that"Opera usually coordinates its browser updates with Secunia" is perfectly consistent with the statement from Secunia that:

"All vulnerabilities discovered by Secunia Research are reported directly to the vendors in a responsible manner, giving the vendor two weeks to reply with a confirmation and details about the expected release date for the security update. Secunia always wait for the security update - as long as the vendor keeps a reasonable time frame for issuing the update and actively co-operate with the Secunia Research team."

You obviously got hold of the wrong end of the stick and started imagining conpiracies and secret pacts and went off to ask Secunia if they had a special arrangement with Opera, and they wrote back to say that they had no special arrangement. The first time the word "special" appeared was in Secunia's reply to your email. Everything else said before that is perfectly clear. If Secunia finds a vulnerability, it may be kept secret (with certain conditions.) Thankyou for establishing the point that this applies to all vendors; no thanks at all for going off at the deep end about "secret pacts."

Score: 0

By TSThomas

edited May 1, 2006 - 12:26 PM

Well you'd better contact OperaWatch as they are the ones that stated this.

I've not stated any "lies" about Opera, I merely re-stated what OperaWatch said, I can't help it if they are apparently incorrect.

Then again, there's a difference between unknowningly repeateing someone else's incorrect statement & knowingly misrepresenting 9 others statements;
http://www.techspot.com/vb/topic44405.html
So you still "lose".

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted May 1, 2006 - 3:38 PM

Facts were stated as from Operawatch, all your email proves is that it's not Opera alone with such an arrangement, rather all vendors. So technically I'm not wrong in any sense, just your chosing to interpret Opera as having a "special" relationship is.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 2, 2006 - 9:20 AM

You are the one who has twisted this into a myth of secret pacts between Opera and Secunia to put on your page.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 1, 2006 - 12:36 PM

They are not incorrect.

Opera watch said "Opera usually coordinates its browser updates with Secunia..." because they were talking about Opera. The statement applies to any browser.

Sorry, Mastertech. No conspiracy or myths for you to debunk here. Move along please!

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 1, 2006 - 1:39 PM

Only you could reduce a complex issue to spiteful and juvenile point scoring and myths about secret pacts. The fact remains that if a vulnerability is found by Secunia in any browser, we may not hear about it till the patch is released, so to say any browser is 100% secure is to say something we can never be sure about because we cannot know for sure what vulnerabilities exist in any browser.

Score: 0

By MrFlibble

posted May 2, 2006 - 3:28 AM

You are a deeply sad and delusional character Mastertech, and your hatred for an internet browser is pathetic. Even more pathetic is your need to troll the internet bashing people over the head with it. Sadder yet is the fact that this is only your latest obsession- in fact you used to be an anti-Opera troll.

These things are sad, but your spamming if a commercial site, lying about your identity, repeated denials in the face of clear evidence and hateful attempts to put people down are deeply offensive.

Firefox has had vulnerabilities, but they have been patched before exploits emerged. However much you spout the number of past Firefox vulnerabilities, or tell us about the minor vulnerabilities which remain, it doesn't change the fact.

Nobody is a fanboy here: that's just a juvenile term you use to reduce the argument to your level. Some of us