watch out for IE7, it's buggy!

[difenbaker]

IE 7 bugs abound
By Joris Evers
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: February 1, 2006, 2:22 PM PST

People didn't lose any time in finding bugs in the latest preview release of Internet Explorer 7.

It's been but a day since Microsoft publicly released a test version of Internet Explorer 7, but Internet news groups and blogs are already teeming with bug reports. Also, one security researcher claims he found a security vulnerability in the new Web browser.

Issues reported several times include compatibility problems with McAfee security software and trouble installing the browser due to unnamed anti-spyware and antivirus tools. Some testers also said using certain features or surfing to specific Web sites caused the browser to hang or crash.

http://news.com.com/IE+7+bugs+abound/2100-1002_3-6034054.html?tag=nefd.top

cheers!

[TheZodiac]

So isnt IE3, 4, 5, and 6!

:-P

[marwan]

when will they learn, two words....

FIRE FOX!

[Moby]

when will they learn, two words....

FIRE FOX!minor update today aswell

[Jose_R.A.M]

Firefox Rules! except lately in EBAY.

edit: scratch that.

OPERA and I.E. are both having problems in ebay...hmm..ebay's probably the problem.

Anyways..firefox, I trust that browser the most.

[SiriusEnigma]

Anyways..firefox, I trust that browser the most.
it is certainly much more trusted than IE. firefox has 20% market share in europe. the only reson why it isnt much higher is because beaurocratic companies have deals with microsoft so thats what theyre forced to use. it isnt by choice that people use IE.

[MikeUK]

Yeah I used Firefox too. I think eBay may not work, because IE and FF use different rendering engines, and IE's engine actually has a couple faults in, but some website are written for these faults because IE is most widespread. But another good thing is that (from a TV thing I watched) even though FF isn't more secure security wise really that IE it's a lot safer because most things to get through security gaps are aimed at IE.

I'm curious to see how well microsoft have implemented tabbed browsing and RSS feeds though, I might get the beta (which is bound to have a few more bugs than it should, it's beta!). It'll probably be the browser best implemented/suited to Vista when it comes out, for how long is the question though.

[marwan]

what do you mean opera and IE have problems on ebay?

[Jose_R.A.M]

i.e. opera and ff encounter problems with opening certain pages in ebay.

I did think that it was a browser problem, but I recall in ebay forums, that it could have something to do with the isp (I don't know how this works out).

Quite a few people are experiencing it there.

even though FF isn't more secure security wise really that IE it's a lot safer because most things to get through security gaps are aimed at IE.

Yup, with Identity Fraud costing the uk £2,000,000,000 (2 billion) I'd rather use the browser that has less idiot hackers attempting to break through it.

[edeab220]

you know, I always thought bugs were an exciting feature of Microsoft products :p. It's like excersise...you find a bug then you start hitting the computer like crazy in madness saying "I hate you Microsoft!"

hehe :p.

[brad]

I have been unable to get the MB site to work in IE7 - it renders the page, but then hides the header and navigation. Frustrating!

[carcomptoy]

The only website I've had a problem with using FF is my friend's xanga...just specifically her page...everything else is ship-shape:)

[marwan]

so your saying FF is less secure, but less people hack it becuase IE is much more popular?


i heard that FF is more secure than IE.


and what about people that hip hop till they don't stop with the rhythm of brocolli beef, and the bang bang boogie and don't stop the boogie?

[brad]

and what about people that hip hop till they don't stop with the rhythm of brocolli beef, and the bang bang boogie and don't stop the boogie?Abstract...

[666joe]

Abstract...

Lol - anyway I've been an IE users since the dawn of time and had few problems actually associated to it - browse everything and use Norton....do get the odd ad-ware which spyboit cleans up but is the real advantage of using FF or other similar products ?

[SiriusEnigma]

is the real advantage of using FF or other similar products ?
i assume you left the "what" out at the beginning. the advantage is that bugs and security vulnerabilities get fixed at a much faster speed than they do with IE. FF also has several features that < IE 6 haven't got like tabbed browing etc.

[MikeUK]

I've decided IE7 is a fart directly from satans bottom. I installed it and Mcafee refused to work, all dialogue boxes came up blank. It seems like an across the board problem and both companies have acknolwged the problem. I rolled my comp back to IE6 straight away.

[Shun]

Regarding security, there isn't much different between Firefox and an updated IE, people are just more aware of IE fault and that's what make it seems more scary, :)

FYI, many Firefox 1.5 users unknowingly become beta tester a few weeks when they issue pre-release update through the auto update system.

For users who turns off the auto update, don't forget to check out the final release of 1.5.0.1 for eight security vulnerabilities, including a cirtical one that could let an attacker take over a system running a vulnerable version of Firefox.

I think Mozilla have to make security information for it's products more "obvious" to the users, they are doing a very lousy job in this aspect, :(

Nevertheless, I'm posting this message with Firefox 1.5.0.1, :D

[SiriusEnigma]

Regarding security, there isn't much different between Firefox and an updated IE, people are just more aware of IE fault and that's what make it seems more scary
and the fact that IE is built into microsofts kernel which means that IE can never be as secure as FF.

[Shun]

LOL, since when is IE built into the OS kernel?!

Anyway, that's not important, that's not the way to tell if a product can be secure or not, :)

[difenbaker]

Regarding security, there isn't much different between Firefox and an updated IE, people are just more aware of IE fault and that's what make it seems more scary, :)

FYI, many Firefox 1.5 users unknowingly become beta tester a few weeks when they issue pre-release update through the auto update system.

For users who turns off the auto update, don't forget to check out the final release of 1.5.0.1 for eight security vulnerabilities, including a cirtical one that could let an attacker take over a system running a vulnerable version of Firefox.

I think Mozilla have to make security information for it's products more "obvious" to the users, they are doing a very lousy job in this aspect, :(

Nevertheless, I'm posting this message with Firefox 1.5.0.1, :D


mmm... I actually found 1.5 to be buggy as well.

Frequent slowdowns, a few hangings, and a lot of bugs concerning it's way of displaying web pages too.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=175007152&pgno=1



..... but Im trying out 1.5.0.1 now. No problems so far... fingers crossed.

cheers!

[Shun]

Yup, I went over to Avant Browser for a little while, :)

Testing the new Firefox 1.5.0.1 too, probably have to give up again since it's doing some weird thing in the background that causes Symantec Internet Security 2005 to prompt to open some unknown ports, just like 1.5, :(

[Serifan]

Let me see: a buggy Microsoft product. What else is new? And by the way, why are people still using Norton? Can we say resource hog and completely useless in the same breadth.

[SiriusEnigma]

LOL, since when is IE built into the OS kernel?!

Anyway, that's not important, that's not the way to tell if a product can be secure or not, :)
since when has it been unimportant that its built into the kernel? i guess its because youre not tech savvy. time for you to wise up.


here are some reasons why you're wrong
Interdependencies like these have two unfortunate cascading side effects. First, in a monolithic system, every flaw in a piece of that system is exposed through all of the services and applications that depend on that piece of the system. When Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer into the operating system, Microsoft created a system where any flaw in Internet Explorer could expose your Windows desktop to risks that go far beyond what you do with your browser. A single flaw in Internet Explorer is therefore exposed in countless other applications, many of which may use Internet Explorer in a way that is not obvious to the user, giving the user a false sense of security.

This architectural model has far deeper implications that most people may find difficult to grasp, one being that a monolithic system tends to make security vulnerabilities more critical than they need to be.

Perhaps an admittedly oversimplified visual analogy may help. Think of an ideally designed operating system as being comprised of three spheres, one in the center, another larger sphere that envelops the first, and a third sphere that envelope the inner two. The end-user only sees the outermost sphere. This is the layer where you run applications, like word processors. The word processors make use of commonly needed features provided by the second sphere, such as the ability to render graphical images or format text. This second sphere (usually referred to as "userland" by technical geeks) cannot access vulnerable parts of the system directly. It must request permission from the innermost sphere in order to do its work. The innermost sphere has the most important job, and therefore has the most direct access to all the vulnerable parts of your system. It controls your computer's disks, memory, and everything else. This sphere is called the "kernel"., and is the heart of the operating system.

In the above architecture, a flaw in the graphics rendering routines cannot do global damage to your computer because the rendering functions do not have direct access to the most vulnerable system areas. So even if you can convince a user to load an image with an embedded virus into the word processor, the virus cannot damage anything except the user's own files, because the graphical rendering feature lies outside the innermost sphere, and does not have permission to access any of the critical system areas.

The problem with Windows is that it does not follow sensible design practices in separating out its features into the appropriate layers represented by the spheres described above. Windows puts far too many features into the core, central sphere, where the most damage can be done. For example, if one integrates the graphics rendering features into the innermost sphere (the kernel), it gives the graphical rendering feature the ability to damage the entire system. Thus, when someone finds a flaw in a graphics-rendering scheme, the overly integrated architecture of Windows makes it easy to exploit that flaw to take complete control of the system, or destroy the entire system.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/

[Shun]

I didn't say it is not important to keep thing separated from the kernel, I'm saying that it is not the decisive factor to tell if an application can be secure or not.

The acticle didn't say that IE is built into the kernel, integrating into the OS is very different from builting into the kernel... it's true that Microsoft was criticized for builting the graphical rendering into the kernel for better performance, which was a very bad decision, but that is another issue, not directly related to IE, :)

[SiriusEnigma]

I'm saying that it is not the decisive factor to tell if an application can be secure or not.
keeping the browser outside of the kernel is a big decisive factor in whether a browser is secure or not.
When a browser like FireFox is compromised, the attacker gains control of the browser. When Internet Explorer is compromised, the attacker gains control of the kernel, and through it, the entire computer.
http://world.std.com/~swmcd/steven/rants/browser.html



the only reason it was put into the kernel was to tie IE with the OS and kill off netscape in the browser wars.



The acticle didn't say that IE is built into the kernel
it did. im surprised you didnt know because its a well known fact. read the article and that will tell you the reasons why microsoft did what they did.
however if you want somewhere that tells you explicitly that its in the kernel, try this
Some programs run inside the kernel because they need to be inside its security boundary. The file system is a good example of this. The web browser is not. The browsers cited above that run outside the kernel are secure—by many accounts, more secure than Internet Explorer, which runs inside the kernel. Security is not a good reason to put a web browser inside the kernel.
http://world.std.com/~swmcd/steven/rants/browser.html

[carcomptoy]

i guess its because youre not tech savvy. time for you to wise up.You know there is such a thing as modesty and tact:rolleyes:

[SiriusEnigma]

You know there is such a thing as modesty and tact:rolleyes:
i wasn't being otherwise. i was being truthful. everyone knows about IE and its failings and how it managed to kill netscape. its common knowledge.

[Shun]

keeping the browser outside of the kernel is a big decisive factor in whether a browser is secure or not.

"When a browser like FireFox is compromised, the attacker gains control of the browser. When Internet Explorer is compromised, the attacker gains control of the kernel, and through it, the entire computer."

"the final release of 1.5.0.1 for eight security vulnerabilities, including a cirtical one that could let an attacker take over a system running a vulnerable version of Firefox." - gains control of the browser only?

Here a simplified diagram of the Windows kernel from the offical site - http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/technet/images/archive/ntwrkstn/evaluate/featfunc/winarc01_big.gif

[manav]

If you really want a secure web experence use the combo of firefox + ZoneAlarm + McAfee

[SiriusEnigma]

"the final release of 1.5.0.1 for eight security vulnerabilities, including a cirtical one that could let an attacker take over a system running a vulnerable version of Firefox." - gains control of the browser only?

Here a simplified diagram of the Windows kernel from the offical site - http://www.microsoft.com/library/media/1033/technet/images/archive/ntwrkstn/evaluate/featfunc/winarc01_big.gif
lets get things into perspective. you want to look at the IE vulnerabilities. all browsers have vulnerabilities....its just that IE's are more severe. ALWAYS.
if you believe anything from microshaft, then you believe that pigs fly. have you ever read (and believed) 'get the facts'? if you do, then thats so so so so so so so sad. i mean REALLY sad.

[Shun]

I'm saying that the reasoning in the article is not right when it say "a browser like FireFox is compromised, the attacker gains control of the browser".

Yup, Microsoft is biased towards it's products, but some people are biased against Microsoft products, that diagram from Microsoft is to show the case in another perspective. It's up to us to reason out things ourselves after reading from both sides, nothing to be sad about, thanks for your concern.

Happy lunar new year.

[jayesh]

I'm saying that the reasoning in the article is not right when it say "a browser like FireFox is compromised, the attacker gains control of the browser".

Yup, Microsoft is biased towards it's products, but some people are biased against Microsoft products, that diagram from Microsoft is to show the case in another perspective. It's up to us to reason out things ourselves after reading from both sides, nothing to be sad about, thanks for your concern.

Happy lunar new year.

useless arguments anyway. ie7 is still in beta. being a closed sourced project i will not comment on how good or bad it is till it reaches release. while in an ideal world everyone would use firefox.... its still a minority ... 80 % of the web users still use ie.