Computer newbies forum: ***READ THIS if you use Internet Explorer***

Using any computer online (like driving) is a risk.

Switching browsers to a more secure browser would be the equivalent of switching to a safer car.

As long as these vulnerabilities exist, any browser that doesn't have these vulnerabilities would be consider safer.

I posted here to educate computer users that there are risks with IE and that they have a choice. Many do not know that choices exist.

Obviously this post was not intended for someone like yourself.

The truth of the matter is IE is a poor imitation of Netscape which exists only because some Judge thought that if a different language was used to write it it wasnt an infringement on the Netscape copywrite.

As to other browsers one good reason to use them is that they are not interwoven with Windows but are free standing (more or less) programs. Which means that a browser glitch is just a browser glitch and does not mean an OS crash will follow. Plus the other browsers which are available are faster,take up less space and o yes...they are more secure!

Hi Acaykath,

could you suply just ONE example of HTML 4.0 and CSS that Mozilla does not support ?

Thanks in advance,
Josir

>> could you suply just ONE example of HTML 4.0
>> and CSS that Mozilla does not support ?

> www.geocities.com/acaykath

LOL. That page has 104(!) HTML errors and numerous CSS errors:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.geocities.com%2Facaykath
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=www.geocities.com%2Facaykath&usermedium=all

The reason it may work in IE is that it was aparently programmed using MS's proprietary code. It's like saying "Hey, Mercedes sucks because my Yugo seats don't fit in it." :-P

To those who say "nothing is absolutely safe, therefore everything is equally unsafe", I say: do you use contraception during sex? Do you not look before crossing the road? There's "unsafety" involved no matter what you do, so why bother?

The point is that Firefox is SIGNIFICANTLY safer than IE.

It's your choice. Mine is Firefox.

http://www.GetFirefox.com

The biggest problem we have is that IE was created by Microsoft. Not just that it most likely stole the technology from Netscape to make a shoddy copy of Netscape, but because Microsoft does not fully document its Windows api component capabilities. That and the fact that all Windows api components appear capable of sending and receiving "messages" without any way for the user to know what is going on. The possibility exists that the folks at Microsoft may decide to just bore into any computer connected to the Internet to view or change things for any reason.

This happened to me when XP was initially--released: within a week, my Windows 98 computer started behaving like 2000/XP. My previous wallpaper setting began to appear during the boot process (a markedly Windows 2000/XP behavior). This is because any non-XP computer that a Windows XP server encountered was altered by the XP server. This activity was documented on some websites at the time with the excuse that XP needed to be able to interface with previous versions of Windows. But I was not warned about what Windows was doing, nor given the option to decline the alterations an XP server made to my system. XP changed my operating system, and to what ends I still do not know. But it made the change unbeknownst to me--and more importantly--without my permission.

Those of you techs afraid to speak against Microsoft lest you lose your certification are the only ones I ever see who publically miminize this problem--and are usually the only ones who heatedly support Microsoft's claims against its detractors. But if you cannot see the danger to yourselves and your companies with this predilection of Microsoft to up and alter non-Microsoft computer systems at will and with no regard for asking the end-user's permission, then you have no place in any reasonable discussion on Microsoft products--at least in my mind. It would be different, of course, if Microsoft wasn't so draconian in its certification policies, nor embroiled in so many technology theft disputes (lawsuits), and if it was more interested in compatibility as a means to better computing environments and as a means to greater company profits. Sadly, there are certain realities to consider here.

The real danger of using IE is that it could be the point of centralization for Windows (api) messaging (at least, related to api component messaging to and from other Windows systems connected to the Internet). After all, IE components are not fully documented--Microsoft never actually complied with the judges order to completely document Windows api functions, so who really knows whether or not IE doesn't fulfill this role?

Which means that Microsoft, or any other company that knows how to exploit even some of the undocumented api functions of IE could use IE to obtain information from your computer without your ever knowing about it. Do you really want your competitors to see the new software you are engineering, or read your corporate network security plans--do you rally want to support a product that may be the main reason your computers are sabotaged by internet viruses? Stand-alone browsers such as Netscape offer an additional and important level of protection, because they are stand-alone products which are not designed to be specially integrated with Windows. But also because non-Microsoft products are often better, more stable and secure products anyway.

But even if it is not a likelihood, it would be safer to use a stand-alone browser and not IE because IE is vulnerable to attack from without (no sane person can argue against this point): remember, its api components are NOT fully documented or made available by Microsoft. This may be a good reason for the PC industry to shift to Linux operating systems, since Linux-based programs' sourcecode are usually readily available (the benefit of being based on an "Open Source" theory of development which Microsoft will most likely never really embrace).

Failing that, there is a company that removes or separates middlewear like IE from the different versions of Windows (LitePC.com). This may offer some protection against the problems of IE, but not all of them. IE is a shoddy product, and its api components were developed by Microsoft to be integrated closely (too closely?) with Windows. It is probably best to separate IE from Windows and use another browser instead. This is what I did with Windows 98 (which immediately became faster and more stable) and I will do it again someday with Windows XP.

Ok points
a) There is no "win xp server", windows 2000 server perhaps and ive never heard of anything like that happening, perhaps the network administrator upgraded the computer you were using from windows 98 to windows 2000 or windows XP?
b) this sounds like a typical comment from a linux fanboy still harping on about problems that were solved with the release of windows 2000 / A computer phobic luddite who relies on tinfoil hats to protect him or herself from "mind warping radiation released by computer monitors as part of a microsoft / US government mind control plot"......i am being sarcastic
c)if you are using DSL/cable use a router (masks your computer from the rest of the internet), install a software firewall (zonealarm etc) and use antivirus (avast!, norton, macafee) and install a spyware checker (ad-aware etc)

Beta is a better video tape format than VHS in picture quality and tape longevity. But there is a time when we must "go with the flow" and adhere with defacto industry standards.

Netscape was once my preference as well, but the AOL and Time-Warner mergers fed Netscape suicide pills.

Netscape still has a place in the Linux world, but the war is over in the Windows world where most of us live. This is espescially true when all of my business clients are running Windows, MS-Office, and IE. They demand compatible file interchange.

It's not a personal attack on you dude. IE is a spyware/trojan magnet. He probably used Mozilla as an example because it is easy to use and is FAR more secure than Explorer. I used to have to root out dozens of spyware programs every time I used IE. I have not had one since changing to Mozilla. If you are really attached to IE, however, by all means keep using it. But I would certainly run Spybot or Adaware every day then.

Sorry mate but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes free programs install malware, but a lot of spyware/adware/malware comes from IE and that is a fact. IE allows installation without your consent through its active x capabilities. Mozillas Firefox is a 4.8 MB download, is fast, secure, adheres to all current standards (IE is old bloatware) and more stable than IE. Try it out and get the facts, I am virtually spyware free since using it.

Michael

I was thrilled to discover mozilla via this thread- it doesn't allow those *^%$# annoying popups. thanks for the tip.

I am a great believer in using non-microsoft products as much as possible. is it not true that, the less consistency in computer software on the net, the harder it is for any one virus to make a major impact? =fj

But how many hackers actually want to attack Mozilla? As opposed to attacking Microsoft, a company who's ethics and business practices have p1$$d off half the IT world?

Agreed, they both have vulnerbilities, (IE having considerbly more), but how often do hear of Mozilla's actually being exploited?

ozos, this *is* the Newbies forum, and Larry was simply pointing out something to the many newbies out there that they may not have been aware. He pointed out 1 alternative. Others mentioned other browsers. You apparantly aren't a newbie, but to suggest that crackers/hackers do what the do for the reasons you suggest is a bit naive. Personally, I find most anything Windows based is inherently unsecure, and IE is widely known to those that keep up with these things as probably THE most unsecure thing on your system- putting Outlook Expess in preview pane aside, opening up attachements, and on and on...lol. I have both Mozilla and Opera installed, but still use IE 99% of the time. At least I know the risk I'm taking, and making an informed choice (I like living dangerously, lol). Others may not have known there were choices. I consider Larry's post a "public service announcement" and think it should be taken as such. As newbies will hopefully learn, there are steps they can take- as you pointed out, nothing is fail-safe. Larry simply pointed out an alternative.

I am also happy Opera user. I have been using it for a long time (free version). I can get it to work with my bank's site if I change the browser identification to IE 6 in the Quick Preferences menu. You can get there through the file menu or by pressing F12. There are also hotkeys: ctrl-alt-I for IE and ctrl-alt-o for Opera. You could just leave it on IE, but I have had problems with 1 or 2 websites that use heavy scripting. They work fine when I identify as Opera. I don't think that the bank problem is related to encryption level; I think that the reason why banks don't like Opera is because it caches encrypted pages and lets you go back to 'expired' pages with the back button. This could be a bad thing if you were on a public or work computer. Opera is for people who own their own computer and know enough to clear the cache if they are worried about someone looking at their account balance. Opera can be configured to clear the cache every time it is shut down. It sure is nice to be able to go back and not get that "this page has expired" message. And when I say go back, I mean right away. By the time you take you finger off of the button you are looking at the previous page WITH any form data you may have entered. BTW, what is IE _doing_ when you hit 'back' to see a page that you were just looking at? Not an encypted page, just a regular old page. Your dual Pentium4 powerhouse will just give you a blank stare for as much as a few seconds; what's up with that?!

Mouse gestures, tabbed browing, accept only requested pop-ups, highly configurable integrated searching, personal bar... If you don't know what any of this stuff is, you don't don't know what you are missing.

...puterdude knows, funkfeend knows...

I agree totally with you about EVERYTHING in Windows being vulnerable. Could it be because everyone loves Bill Gates so much? lol.

If you REALLY want to be freaked out or just really informed about security problems with Windows and other software beforehand (depending on your point of view) I would suggest Secunda Security Updates. We [IT people] get them almost every day at work. The alerts are also free.