Woopsy..

[dmsalem00.livejournal.com]

Hm...looks like nobody's perfect, huh?

http://www.local10.com/technology/3744130/detail.html?treets=mia&tid=2652420799813&tml=mia_digs&tmi=mia_digs_1_02150109202004&ts=H

Comments

[inahandbasket]

uh, except that those were all patched like 2 weeks ago.
and firefox hasn't even reached version 1.0 yet. it's technically still betaware.

[200iso.livejournal.com]

exactly!
every remotely microsoft loving fiend i know has been quoting this stupid CERT article.

[inahandbasket]

sad.
just point them at the latest security hole in IE.
or to one of those many unaddressed ones.

[reddragdiva]

Considering all those vulnerabilities are on the list mozilla.org released to Secunia ...

This story is largely a beat-up.

[fnordx.livejournal.com]

And another main difference is that when a hole like this is found in Mozilla, it's normally patched the NEXT DAY, instead of a month or two down the road... if MSFT feels like it... and hasn't promised that they weren't going to release any patches that month... etc.

[zenhansei.livejournal.com]

where there's a will, there's a way. someone will always find a mistake.

Mozilla and IE suffer from the same problem:

[coyoteden.livejournal.com]

Stupid users that aren't running the latest patched version.

Firefox had these holes patched in 1.0PR, actually, in the nightly builds leading up to 0.10. Thunderbird was patched as of 0.8.

IE... err... well, I guess MS has patched by now. Something about GDI+, I dunno. I don't use (or trust) IE and Outhouse, and XP updates while I sleep.

[gravito.livejournal.com]

The only difference between IE and Mozilla is the patch speed and comprehensiveness. I can still compromise an IE installation, despite Microsoft's "fixes" that only add registry keys which can be changed and removed.

Mozilla wins in both categories.