Login:
Password:

Symantec Says There's No Safe Browser

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

September 25, 2006, 4:47 PM

Whether you are using Firefox or Internet Explorer, Maxthon or Opera, there is no "safe" browser. This statement comes from Symantec as part of its twice-yearly Internet Security Threat Report, which showed attackers were no longer primarly focusing on Internet Explorer.

While Internet Explorer remains the most frequently targeted browser, accounting for 47 percent of all attacks, in the first six months of this year more vulnerabilities have appeared in Mozilla Firefox than within IE. 47 flaws were discovered in Firefox, compared with 38 for IE.

"In order to protect against Web browser attacks, Symantec advises users and administrators to upgrade all browsers to the latest, patched versions," Symantec recommended.

Even Apple was not immune to security issues, with 12 vulnerabilities found during the report's period. In addition, some issues affected multiple browsers, which Symantec said comprised 31 percent of all attacks during the period.

While much could be made of Mozilla's rise to the top of reported flaws, it is normally the quickest in providing patches. Whereas Firefox flaws are patched in an average of one day after public disclosure, it takes Microsoft nine days. Opera was second fastest at two days, and Apple third at five days.

Besides the browser findings, Symantec also reported on other malware trends. The overall number of computer flaws rose to 2,249, up 18 percent from the second half of last year. This was a record for vulnerabilities discovered, said Symantec. Most of them -- 69 percent -- were Web-based issues.

In malicious code, Symantec found that five of the top ten new malicious code families were of the Trojan horse type. Malicious code was also going for personal information more frequently, with 30 of the top 50 code samples exposing data such as social security and credit card numbers.

Finally, among phishing and spam risks, the company said it had detected 157,477 unique phishing messages, a staggering 81 percent increase over last period. In addition, for the second time in Symantec's survey, spam comprised a majority of e-mail traffic at 54 percent.

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 20_fan

edited May 29, 2007 - 12:22 AM

Y'all are missing the point. I DISLIKE Symantec products, however the earlier years would have shown Norton (Symantec's) previously known alias, to be profound, robust, and a rock up against many of the earlier viruses. In fact, the primary funcion of this software was to manage disks, not clean up poor online safeguards. But if one must go online and ends up with fragmented codes and scripts that have malicious intent on thier hard drives, it would have seemed prudent in earlier years to be proficient at file structure and device management, as then you would be assured maximum protection regardless of the sender's intent. The problem is that they didn't realize that browsers are code readers, and if thier software were to work browsers, then it must also find a way to prevent access of malicious mal-naries prior to exposure to your systems date stream. That said, they simply tried to do what the enemy was doing only better, however in doing so they realized that we simply to not trust anyone anymore. Not really thier fault, and definately not something that most of the posters here would understand, but one thing they should understand if nothing else, would be that browsers, are bound to be complex and prone to errors, as after all they are on the frontlines of the internet blazing a trail for our greed and fortunes, only to be presented with codes that are written in part by other software that is easy to read, but all too often the webbuilders make a crappy product too ... and i think that while i will no doubt uninstall with great care and urgency all forms of symantec and it's cohorts most every time i am able to, and use like others have mentioned, AVG, Avast, and (sidenote to wonder about comodo's virus) but thier firewall is the best i here. Users must always remember that a properly installed firewall, that is free and functional, that tells you what you are allowing and blocking in both numbers and words is best, (cause who the hell knows how many times explorer or svhost is supposed to accessing the net vs how many times it actually does as it spies on us every email or file we opoen .. I apologize for the novel but it just bugged when i saw people talking about browsers and what they are and aren't and remember firefox, and netscape are the best out there, opera is fine but unrefined even still, and exporer was too but if you all look for a file called msfeedssync on your system, a proper file indentificaion program will tell you that it is "Internet Explorer" so tell me why explorer 7 is a reverse feeds program to the world wide web? and a better question is perhaps who is subscribed? by the way, norton 2003 system works utilities of windoctor and that infosweep program they ahve are good little ones to unjar a system if you run them from disk, or from the copied disk into a folder. and speeking of antivirus/firewalls etc mcafee is crap too...

Score: 0

By gwk89

edited Apr 24, 2007 - 1:50 PM

I definitely agree with this article. It just makes sense.

Score: 0

By usakansas

edited Jan 15, 2007 - 1:43 PM

Does Norton work with any of the browsers?I downloaded Internet Explorer 7,and had much conflict between Norton,and Internet Explorer 7.Would eventually freeze up the computer.

Score: 0

By bimzalazim

posted Nov 18, 2006 - 1:42 PM

It is these flaws that enable Zedo and other adwares lited on Wikipedia as Ad serving Companies to so freely install their softwares on to every computer that uses the internet service providers to access the internet and then use Wikipedia to promote itself as Ad serving companies and zhare their wealth with the Wikipedia adminstrators like ZimZalaBim and Wikipedia Users like DoGooderJohnnyD who let the fraudulent internet companies to write the Wikipedia articles under Wikipedia User sign ins. Bimzalazim tried his best to change the wikpedia situation and have Zedo Branded as dangerous trojan horses. But he failed.

bimzalazim is still seeking donations to have the internet infrastructure and browser so as to thawarp fraudulent entities like zedo and wikipedia. His web sites can be found in all search engines under key words pixels homepage, new era wisp, fakir blog, bhardwaj blog.

Score: 0

By herrbawl

edited Sep 30, 2006 - 3:17 PM

Symantec is the LAST company to even open thier mouth about non-functional software.
Last I checked, they are now the lowest ranking software in functionality and effectivness, and are souly surviving off thier once trusted name. As a Network Engineer and pc technician I actually hold thier "security" suite as more damaging than most spyware and usually uninstall it on sight and install AVG or Avast.

New Syamntec company acronym: PCKB (Pot calling the kettle black)

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Sep 27, 2006 - 4:10 PM

Maybe Symantec should make their own browser since they think they can do better.

Score: 0

By Aegis69

posted Sep 27, 2006 - 3:34 AM

Although I agree with Symantec on the browser issue, I have to say that there is no good reason to have any symantec products clogging up your computer.

Score: 0

By kicelo

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 6:38 PM

if Symantec made toilet paper , and i had to choose between sandpaper and symantec brand TP i know what I'd take

Score: 0

By anmol.2k4

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 3:14 PM

Dumped ff for opera, and adware is completely useless since then so is nod 32 and they just are down there wasting resources.
I don't care why opera is safer but nobody is going to disagree that your PC is safer when you are using opera in comparison with IE or ff.
opera have smallest number of vulnerabilities and that is enough. So what user base is small and i know that is the reason why it is safer than most and that is all i caer about.

Score: 0

By Daddy_Spank

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 1:42 PM

Exactly what I was thinking too...

Score: 0

By axiomatic

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 11:47 AM

Symantec needs to "stuff a cork in it" lately. When Symantec offers up a browser to compete THEN that can speak up on this topic. Until then they need to shut up and get back to feeding their dying business model. Anyone serious about virus SW gave up on them years ago.

P.S. Hey Symantec, memory resident system tray apps SUCK, stop making them.

Score: 0

By randal2k

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 2:16 PM

Interesting, but i must say, there is a such thing as a secure browser. Firefox w/ ad block plus, noscript and filterG set.
And guess what, the safest browsing you can get.

Then there is IE, no add ons, nothing, just insecure pile of crap.

And then there is symantec, who had a back door in there software, has been targeted by virus and malware, and i guess there next statement will be .. "there is no safe A/v"

Symantec has and always will be the WORST software on the market for AV and Security.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 2:36 PM

Firefox with all the doo-dads you want to install on it still isn't going to be 100% secure.

Symantec is definately just playing on people's fears to try and sell more of their shoddy software though.

Score: 0

By yleclerc

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 11:15 AM

I've been saying this for years! There has never been, or will ever be, any "safe" software. You need to know and select software (even A/V) that would do the least damage.

Score: 0

By xxdesmus

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 11:11 AM

What do you expect Symantec to say?

"Symantec says 'You don't need our products any longer' " ... yeah right.

They took a lesson straight out of the Bush administration's play book: scare the crap out of people to make yourself look legitimate.

Anything Symantec says at this point is synonymous with a smoking pile of crap.

Score: 0

By MagnumOcean

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 1:31 PM

I think that regardles of what Symantec says, the number of identified vulnerabilities on all browsers speak for themselves. Nothing is safe. What Symantec states seems to be accurate.

Score: 0

By TheRecklessWanderer

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 11:02 AM

Does anybody actually believe what symantec says about security?

They would never say "everybody should use this browser because then they don't need to install our product". Yeah, OK. Sure.

Thats like the army saying "we have complete peace throughout the world. Please disband us immediately".

Score: 0

By eaves

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 10:29 AM

I think that there is no "safe" anti-virus program either.

Symantec's AV software has caused me far more security issues than Opera has.

You need to look at the larger picture, not just at the picture being painted by a company that is trying to project the image of being a security watchdog.

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 10:19 AM

Symantec is right. I've long been telling people it's merely a matter of picking one's poison. The article also implicitly confirms that the problem is typically at the keyboard and not inherent to the computer or browser.

That said, Sophist_Dreams is right about Avast!. Combine it with Spyware Doctor and even only the XP firewall and you can easily kiss Symantec goodbye. (But whatever you do, avoid Microsoft's Windows Live One Care like the plague! After six weeks of testing, it proved to be a complete joke by catching almost nothing thrown at it.)

And on another note, who here within only the past few weeks said spyware is not a problem anymore? Still feel that way with real data looking at you? Yes, spyware is still a huge problem.

Score: 0

By GCoder

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 10:11 AM

STFU Symantec

Stop trying to scare people into buying your BLOATWARE... Eat a dik too

Score: 0

By sophist_dreams

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 9:40 AM

I love it, Symantic post a BS article to scare people into buying their BS products and what gets posted here is arguments about which browser is "Best". Use whatever browser works best for you, Symantic couldn't give a big rats butt as long as someone reads the article and sends them money. Save yourselves some money, download Avast! or one of the other good FREE anti virus programs.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 9:06 AM

Good for them. Bad for you.

Score: 0

By Mr.knowhow

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 7:57 AM

This article clearly reflects the on going, so called "Browser technology war".This dilemma is the obvious consequence of,the struggle to provide the ultimate browsing experince to the ever increasing internet users.Although these browsers claim to have an edge over one another,each one of these seem to be incompetent in providing a robust & secure environment.

The probable solution is,not to keep piling up extra features; but to re-organize the very approach of accessing the internet!!

Score: 0

By Kalphegor

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 7:34 AM

I use Mozilla in last 5 years and I didn't get any viruses. Only noobs need an antivirus.

Score: 0

By ZenWarrior

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 10:27 AM

I once felt that way. I'm glad I changed my mind about two years ago. Since then, Avast! has been triggered once by a virus and twice by a Trojan. Both came from apparently "legitimate" sources where one would not expect something to be lurking. (Have you read about the infection problems with some very legitimate corporate web sites? In fact, wasn't there an article here at BetaNews about that only within the past couple of weeks?)

(BTW, the virus was identified by Avast! while using Mozilla Firefox. Agreeing with the article, I have no idea why someone thinks *any* particular browser makes them safe.)

Score: 0

By chowmein

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 9:00 AM

You are right. Only "noobs" get "viruses"

Jaded "pro" types like yourself who use no protection get Trojans, instead.

Enjoy.

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 6:59 AM

Symantec is correct. What they forgot to mention is the fact that it is most true if you use Norton products to protect your system. I don't know anyone who would even think of using Symantec products.

Score: 0

By geggam

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 6:52 AM

My company supports Linux for the home user. What virus infects that operating system with which browser ?

Forget Internet Explorer or Windows. Use Linux and surf the net in freedom again.

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 7:11 AM

You also get to spend a few weeks searching for drivers and downgrading the quality of audio and video on your system. Some linux systems also have problems with raid arrays, they simply don't see your hard drives. If you don't use command line in Windows, and most people don't, you can forget about linux.

Score: 0

By monkeysmith

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 6:22 AM

IE is 11 years old, and they are still finding loads of flaws per month. Anyone who thinks IE is the safest browser is either blind or an idiot.

Score: 0

By DaveBG

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 5:21 AM

IE forever :)
I will never use any other crap ;)

Score: 0

By axmukher

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 3:34 AM

Of late I have been noticing that Google is trying to introduce a lot of new tools, and these are seriously interfering with the normal working of the browser. Some of these tools appear not to have been properly tested. Initially I was tempted to install and use some of these tools, including the customizable search page, but now I am seeing I was better off without them.

Mr Bill Gates must introduce a display window showing what the heck the system is up to when it hangs up, or is taking an unusually long time over a process. This way the user can disable the program or process. At least I would feel much more comfortable with this arrangement, knowing that it could be almost a fortnight before Mr Gates' army gets around to fixing it.

A. Mukherjee

Score: 0

By glock__17

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 4:02 AM

I'm sure Mr Bill Gates is working on your little problem at the moment... you should be hearing from him soon. In the mean time try "Ctrl, Alt, Del" Task Manager, Process and sort by CPU usage... right click and kill.

Score: 0

By cannie

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 3:25 AM

Safe software would be the worst of all news for Symantec.

Score: 0

By zee7

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 3:18 AM

Props to 33Nick for summing up this non-news in one tasty bite-sized post.

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 3:10 AM

"there is no "safe" browser."

WOW ... how long did it take them to work out you can say that ? And on the back of findings that "attackers were no longer primarly focusing on Internet Explorer". They should patent this scare tactic and licience it to other scaremongers ... "There are no safe cars..." said the bus operators. "There are no safe buses" said the train operators. There are no safe trains said the airlines ... etc

Its a load of old waffle to basicaly sell more products and let us all know in a roundabout way that the internet is a big bad world and before you click and reach for your credit card to put brain into gear or else you get royaly shafted.

Score: 0

By twosheds

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 1:51 AM

Give it up with the FUD, Symantec, your day was yesterday.

Score: 0

By samanathon

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 12:48 AM

"Whereas Firefox flaws are patched in an average of one day after public disclosure, it takes Microsoft nine days. Opera was second fastest at two days, and Apple third at five days."

Wow, I had no idea about these numbers!

Score: 0

By GordieT

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 11:57 AM

Those numbers do look nice. But how long do they know about them before they disclose it to the public?

Score: 0

By sanawar

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 11:34 PM

Firefox has been safe for me, at least for the past 4 months I have been using it. Maybe Firefox is safer than Internet Explorer because of the small minority that is using it at the present time and it does not have the hacker's attention at the momemnt or whether is safer because of its open-source roots....nonetheless, it is working for me and I am going to continue to use it.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 11:11 PM

"among phishing and spam risks, the company said it had detected 157,477 unique phishing messages, a staggering 81 percent increase over last period."

Like I always say... Why should they waste time making code for an exploit when all they have to do is ask the moron in front of the computer.

Score: 0

By drummerboy627

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 10:28 PM

well according to symantec there is probably no safe car... none of them can prevent the driver from driving himself or herself off a cliff.

Score: 0

By jbaltz69

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 9:46 PM

The browser has nothing to do with being safe on the internet, it's how smart the person using it is when it comes to browsing the internet by not going to suspect websites and downloading and installing things you aren't sure about.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 4:17 AM

Yes it does, but to a much lesser degree. There have been numerous IE attacks that didn't even require opening an attachment or going to a malicious site.

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 8:11 PM

This is due to the symbiotic relationship between Windows, IE, and Outlook Express.

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 8:39 PM

Only a complete moron (or someone that knows nothing about computers) would think there is such a thing as a 100% completely safe browser.

The idea is to have (and use) the "safer" one. But, in all reality...the only way to have the safest browser is just simply to never update.

Score: 0

By saint.alpha

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 1:15 AM

to the text based browsers we shall flock. :)

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 4:15 AM

Or IE5. Oh wait, your logic doesn't work on that one...

Score: 0

By prndll

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 8:08 PM

Are you suggesting that IE5 was worse?

Score: 0

By gmangw

edited Sep 25, 2006 - 7:58 PM

"Transmission coming in sir. It's from Captain Obvious!"
"What's it say?"
"Uh... 'There is no safe browser'"

Theres a simple way to make any browser totally safe... disconnect your internet.

Score: 0

By yorkshireman50

edited Sep 25, 2006 - 7:33 PM

The more I see of the problems with IE, Firefox and Opera the more I am glad to have Netscape its seems to be problem free
as regular sweeps with antivirus programs show no attacks

Score: 0

By petgamer

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 7:49 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Netscape based off Firefox?

Score: 0

By computershack

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 5:19 AM

You're wrong...

Firefox is based off Netscape.

I'm showing my age now aren't I?

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 8:24 PM

Yes, Netscape is just a rebadged Firefox with a different theme.

Score: 0

By brinkeguthrie

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 11:46 PM

someone still uses netscape?

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 8:44 PM

Actually I think the new Netscape uses both Firefox and IE elements... so in theory it's got the flaws of both systems. :P

I know for sure Netscape doesn't supply the patches to Firefox code as quickly as Firefox itself.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Sep 25, 2006 - 9:00 PM

Netscape can actually switch between the IE and Firefox rendering engines. The same functionality can be obtained on Firefox by installing the IEtab extension.

edit: and betanews just put my post in the wrong place.

Score: 0

By Johnbald01

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 7:28 PM

Yeah like I can believe anything they say when they cannot even make their bloated software work correctly. Duh talk to the hand............

Score: 0

By Browser12

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 7:19 PM

Yeah, and your software blows, So whats the point.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 6:55 PM

Good job I use Opera then. 1 Secunia issue in 3 months. Can't get too much safer than that.

Score: 0

By Mark Gillespie

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 8:18 AM

Indeed, and the 1 issue was fixed in 2 days..

Whilst no browser is 100% secure, you can help yourself by choosing a browers that is designed from the ground up with security in mind. The only browser currently that fits this bill is Opera.

Score: 0

By MonacoMan103

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 6:47 PM

They should test IE 7 Release Candidate 7. Its security features can kick Mozilla's any day. Also, one of the reasons IE has so many vulnerbilities is because hackers want to affect as many people as possible so must work on trojans that work with the majority of web browsers (Internet Explorer). Although I do agree Microsoft should act quicker on patching fulnerbilities, Internet Explorer 7 (even though in RC stage) is still the better choice.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Sep 25, 2006 - 6:29 PM

You can't patch "stupidity".....

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 26, 2006 - 5:51 AM

You can't fix stupid. heh

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

edited Sep 25, 2006 - 6:21 PM

Found: 93 Secunia Security Advisories:
http://secunia.com/searc...mantec&sort_by=date

Score: 0

By nuttymcb

edited Sep 25, 2006 - 6:12 PM

Seriously, it's pathetic that IE is at this level of vulnerability. Yes, it's a given that people will attempt to exploit the most popular browser the most, but the resources behind Microsoft versus Mozilla?

"Firefox flaws are patched in an average of one day after public disclosure." That makes me feel better than being told that there's no safe browser, which is obvious anyway.

Score: 0

By tjhiggy

edited Sep 26, 2006 - 6:57 AM

Um... if you are going to compare resources, then also compare the amount of products as well on both sides. Microsoft has more resources because they have more retail products.

Seems like most people here haven't been involved with IE7.... mmmmm.

Score: 0

By Pensador

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 6:04 PM

"This browser is flawless -- you don't need our product anymore".

Score: 0

By 33Nick

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 5:29 PM

Good points below.

A- Symantec is in the business of selling security and might we add, buggy software that cannot be uninstalled easily.

B- How many exploits were patched correctly, in a timely manner with Firefox compared to I.E.?

C- This is coming on the heels of more reports on how anti virus softwares makers are losing ground not being able to keep up with the slew of exploits.

Tough market to be in. Good PR stunt disguised in a study.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 5:20 PM

I'd rather have spyware and trojans on my system than that Symantec crap. Fortunately I don't have to have either.

Score: 0

By JustExtreme

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 5:16 PM

Well if you're a ****ing pansy a** idiot who clicks on everything then what can you expect.....

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 5:10 PM

Symantec is also in the business of SELLING software that can "protect" you. It's not baseless FUD, but it's FUD disguised as a marketing plan.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 5:03 PM

"Symantec Says There's No Safe Browser"

Oh look the shmucks finally grew a brain.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 4:58 PM

I can't disagree with that.

"While Internet Explorer remains the most frequently targeted browser, accounting for 47 percent of all attacks, in the first six months of this year more vulnerabilities have appeared in Mozilla Firefox than within IE. 47 flaws were discovered in Firefox, compared with 38 for IE."

As I've said when the numbers were opposite from this--the number of flaws is not the big deal, only the number of unpatched exploits.

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

edited Sep 25, 2006 - 5:37 PM

Let's see how the numbers change when you divide both by the total flaws discovered per browser. This gives you the percentage of browser flaws discovered this month... higher numbers mean more flaws have went UNPATCHED until now. This way you get numbers that actually mean something, although you still have to take time into effect (remember IE6 has been out YEARS longer than Firefox, and thus, ideally, should have had more than enough time to work out any major code problems. Yet we see 38 more have popped up since March).

Score: 0

By DavidRantz

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 5:04 PM

Re: the number of flaws is not the big deal, only the number of unpatched exploits.

Amen brother.

Score: 0

By junimations

edited Sep 25, 2006 - 6:07 PM

I work with tech support, and 50% of my calls have to do with some type of virus or spy ware. People are still ignorant on internet security. It is necessary that those young kids who are aware of these things teach the older crowd what not to click on and what not to do online. Symantec on the other hand is in the business of security and they will do anything to stay in business. They are probably exploiting these flaws and who knows may be even creating some of these Trojans. All you have to do is reverse engineer some of these browsers and you will find many flaws you can exploit.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Sep 25, 2006 - 6:38 PM

"I work with tech support, and 50% of my calls have to do with some type of virus or spy ware."

Amen, man! Sadley, "hardware support" basically means there's a bunch of pi$$ed off callers that don't assist customers in removing those 433 spywares and 312 trojans. Format and reinstall? Yeah, we do that :)

Score: 0