Fellow tech geeks, was IE a huge mistake?

oh man, don't get me started. If I had a buck for every *CAREER*
that has been hopelessly derailed by those bastards over the last
decade and a half, I could pay all those misguided MCS<anythings>
to just give up and retire.
.
_H*

 

I don't know whether it was a huge mistake for Microsoft, but I DO believe it is a huge problem for the computing community. How many viruses exist that can ONLY propagate bcause of IE or Outlook?

P.S. I also use Firefox and Thunderbird unless forced to use IE because of non-standard websites.

 

Look guys, let's use some common sense here. Malware writers (and the script kiddies that propogate them) target IE and Outlook because that is what is in mainstream use. If Apple were in Microsoft's shoes, we'd be seeing the same problems with their software. Linux, Unix, Apple, MS - they all have flaws. The MS flaws are just more appealing to exploit because the software is used by more potential targets.

The issue has nothing to do with the security of one OS versus another, and everything to do with the attacker's perceived value of the exploit.

BTW, the link cited in the OP seems to be broken.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brandon @ Jul 2 2006, 03:04 AM) [snapback]280010[/snapback]</div>

I would agree with you except that MS has the belief that every program they create should be capable and enabled to run a scripting language behind your back. A significant number of viruses are propagated because Outlook does this unless you specifically turn it off. (How many users are savvy enough to do this.)

Also, since MS doesn't believe in following the Java standards (or any other standard they didn't create), I would have no trouble believing that their J# stuff is capable of doing malicious things that would not be possible if they stuck to the internet standards. Even now, they attack Firefox and other browsers because of these non-standardized features. There are many websites that SHOULD work on any browser but only work on IE because they were built with MS tools that use nonstandard features.

In point of fact, Windows, IE, Outlook and Word have become a monopoly. I think the US Government should declare Windows to be a monopolistic public utility, like the power and former telephone systems, then require that it meet federal standards for interfaces and reliability. The reliability requirement would keep MS busy for years, just cleaning up the bugs and inconsistancies to reach the kind of reliability we took for granted in Unix (Linux) or the old DEC and IBM mainframe system. That would also make it illegal for MS to change any Windows interfaces without public review, thus allowing other companies to write software without fear it will be made to malfunction on the next rev. of Windows because MS changed the interfaces. (Its happened before, and I doubt is was done without malice aforethought.)

 

The link to abcnews does not work anymore, but I assume this is the same story.

John Dvorak may be a big name in this industry, but I disagree with him. Not too long ago, many (commercial) webmasters decided to design their sites for IE only. Because more than 95% of their visitors used IE. They did because it was there on their PC.

That meant: if you wanted to get anywhere (everywhere) on the internet, you needed IE, so you needed Windows. I'm not counting the odd IE release for the Mac here.

Now why do most people buy a PC? Browsing the net is in the top 3 reasons. So even if the development of IE itself may have costed a lot, I'm sure it helped Windows sales. Ever tried using a Linux box for browsing a few years ago? The result looked horrible. MS doesn't mind spending billions on IE if it saves Windows. Look at their bottom line, they can afford it. When there was no real competition left for IE, they stopped improving it.

Things are changing now. Many companies have reconsidered their IE-only policy and are now making their sites work with Firefox et al. MS has started to work on IE again. Linux with Firefox is now a viable alternative for browsing the web.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brandon @ Jul 2 2006, 03:04 AM) [snapback]280010[/snapback]</div>

That's true to an extent, but MSFT has made it a lot easier to target IE and Outlook due to their lack of diligence as far as security has gone. It's a lot harder to come up with some of the exploits that trouble IE (such as filesystem access) in Mozilla/Firefox/Opera, simply because you don't have easy filesystem access in that trio.

 

When I begain using the internet over ten years ago....I used Mozilla. Then they became Netscape and I used that. Now they're Mozilla again and that's what I use. (They also have Firefox but I don't like that as much.)

All this on a Mac.

No problem with viruses. If I had to run virus software every day and update it almost daily as well, I'd chuck the thing. To me, having to do that is an indication of something that just does not function properly. (I'm sure we've all read the "car" analogy.)

While I'm sure if they wanted to, hackers could hack the mac. Especially now that it had the Intel chips. But I still think it would be harder. Windows and IE just seem to be really vulnerable. I have to use a PC at work. I only use it for two programs that must run on our secure network. For everything else I have a Mac.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 2 2006, 02:35 PM) [snapback]280162[/snapback]</div>

The chip that the mac runs on has very, very little to do with how hard it is to hack. But apple going to Intel was kind of... icky I guess. They could have at least gone to AMD, as they do make better CPUs, but I guess Intel was cheap and cheerful for the folks at Apple.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Jul 2 2006, 01:54 PM) [snapback]280170[/snapback]</div>

I do know the folks at Apple were looking toward long term future improvements and I guess Intel sold them on their plans for future chips.

While I'm not a fan of the change (I'm sure there will be some software I won't be able to run on the new Mac) I can also see it opening up the Apple market. There are at least two third party hacks that will allow you to run Windows on a Mac, for those so inclined. In my case, I could get the third party hack that allows me to run both simultaneously. So for work I could run my proprietary network programs off my Mac and still do my work. And I wouldn't even need to log off and on, back and forth. This reduces two computers in my office to one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 2 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]280172[/snapback]</div>

There are a lot of articles you can read about this, and most of what sold Apple on Intel was money. Intels long term plans mostly involve narrowing the gap with AMD.

 

I often disagree with Dvorak (article at http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1952999,00.asp), but in this case, I think he's right.

MS compounded the security issue not only by focusing on "push" technology, allowing websites to download and start running things on your computer, but also by integrating IE into the operating system. The hooks into the browser for common, mundane tasks could be exploited to reach the OS directly. Which is why Firefox is so much more secure on a Windows XP computer than IE is.

Non-IE browser usage on my sites has risen from under 4% to about 20% now, and climbing. There are some things IE does a bit better than Firefox still (I like the way IE handles in-line video much better than Firefox, for instance). But I use Firefox almost exclusively now, and I use Thunderbird for email (rather than Outlook Express, which also hooks into the OS much too easily).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 2 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]280162[/snapback]</div>

No problem with viruses because it isn't worth the time to develop them for such small user base, compared to that of Windows. If you don't run some sort of detection software, you're just asking to be owned. If your machine is turned into a spam relay, you likely would not see anything different than you're used to seeing. In that case, you can't see what you aren't looking for.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 2 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]280162[/snapback]</div>

Why do you think it would be harder? They find vulnerabilities all the time (and with fewer people looking):

http://secunia.com/graph/?type=adv&period=all&prod=96

If the motivation were there, any one of these could be exploited if the user failed to patch their system and/or did not practice safe computing. Analysts have speculated that a major virus outbreak on the Mac platform would be more difficult to bring under control because there are fewer protection mechanisms and infrastructures in place. Don't let the lack of hacker activity lull you into a false sense of security.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 2 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]280162[/snapback]</div>

And popular. Not a coincidence.

 

im a FF fan myself
ever since i got those stupid pop up with my IE, i find my simple solution, FireFox, no pop up adware tabbed browing, so i can just minimize one instead of like 20

 

Your popup problem may be the result of adware you've inadvertantly allowed to be installed on your computer. IE in and of itself does not spawn popups. In fact, the latest version in release (6 w/ SP2) includes a popup blocker. The solution to problems like these is rather simple, no matter what browser you use: find the adware and remove it, and disable active scripting/javascript.

I primarily use Firefox, and the NoScript extension works great.

Yes I, too, love the tabbed browsing in Firefox. IE 7 (currently in beta release) adds tabs to its feature list, and picks up several other ideas from Firefox like enhanced RSS capabilities, etc.

 

i think a lot of people are simply not computer literate enough to know how to get a different browser than the one that's included with their computer. i just spent yesterday setting up mom and stepdad's new computers, they were pretty clueless on how to do it and ended up having to wait months for me to come set up anything above and beyond the very basics and get their wireless internet running- because they didn't want to pay a couple hundred bucks for some "geek squad" guy to come out and do it.

now how would someone like that know the difference between IE and any other browser out there? and how/where to get it? i replaced their MS crap with firefox and thunderbird and they like the interfaces much better. they're also glad to know there are fewer viruses that can take advantage of these programs- they're not real vigilant about antivirus scans because they don't know anything about it.

anyway i guess my point is that because IE is included with windows, and because of the number of people who just don't understand this stuff, IE is still very prominent and that's what's making it such a huge target. not to say IE isn't free of faults, because that's certainly not the case...