Firefox Myths

[Klaynos]

EXACTLY! That is the context in which it is used so you just defeted your own argument then? I don't recall anyone every saying "Firefox is 100% secure" - Firefox is secure compared with IE and so its a vaid statement.

 

Ryan Jones

 

I agree completely, these "statements" should always be taken as comparative statements. When IE is more secure than firefox then people can say that IE is the secure browser out of the two, untill then Firefox is the secure one.

[Dak]

How can you prove there are? There have been none confirmed because no-one has reported them - thats how they find that out.

 

If your talking about no FF vulnerabilitys being exploited in the wild, then...

 

Troj/Briss-B is a Trojan that installs software on a computer without the user's consent.

 

Troj/Briss-B arrives as an XPI (Cross Platform Installer) ZIP file named IST_NETSCAPE.XPI.ZIP. The ZIP file contains an EXE file named ISTINSTALL_NETSCAPE.EXE and a JavaScript file named INSTALL.JS.

 

The Trojan exploits a security hole in unpatched versions of Mozilla browsers to run the executable file.

 

The JavaScript file INSTALL.JS is automatically run by the browser. The file copies the EXE file to a Temporary folder and then runs it.

 

The EXE file is detected as Troj/Small-GL.

 

From http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/trojbrissb.html

 

Also: http://vitalsecurity.typepad.com/vitalsecurityorg/firefox/index.html

 

----------

 

You cannot call a browser a "Secure Web Browser" if it has existing security vulnerabilities.

 

also...

 

Then no piece of software is secure because there is always the possibiliy of a vunerability being found and most have some anyway.

 

Also I hope you don't have any money in a bank because that is obviousely not secure and hiding it in your draws is a FAR better idead... ffs...

 

a computer that is not plugged into the internet' date=' and has an updated anti-virus and anti-spyware programs, and is running a limited user account with all the latest OS updates could still catch a virus via removable media that is capable of gleaning/guessing the admin password and running itself with administrator privelages.

 

What about a computer that is switched off? secure? nah-ah! It might be set so that the BIOS will switch on when recieving a command through the ethernet, which would constitute a security vulnerability.

 

What about a smashed-up computer. well, it might be possible to gather bits of the smashed hard-disk drive and recover sensitive information, so no.

 

hell, we may aswell abandon the word 'secure' alltogether. what we need is a word that means 'secure', but doesnt nessesarily inply absolute 100% 'security'. hmm, Im sure that a word like that exists already... what is it now...

 

 

Like for example,

"Firefox is Bug Free",

"Firefox was the first Web Browser to offer Tabbed Browsing",

"Firefox fully Supports W3C Standards",

Firefox works with every Web Page"...

 

... I've never heard any of those claims made.

 

Actually, I've heard the '100% w3c compliance' myth quite alot. none of the others tho.

 

A secure web browser would have no known unpatched vulnerabilities. You can say firefox is a MORE secure web browser but you cannot say it is a Secure one.

 

A flaw with your definition: upon each relese of FF (and, presumably IE), I assume that there are no known unpatched vulnerabilities -- otherwize they'd have patched them for that release -- but there always turns out to be vulnerabilities.

[RyanJ]

If your talking about no FF vulnerabilitys being exploited in the wild' date=' then...

[/quote']

 

I did not say there were none, I was saying you cna only tell if there are by people reporting them, I ever said anything abotu there being none!

 

Ryan Jones

[Dak]

OK. I wasn't sure, hence the 'if...' clause at the beginning.

[penagate]

hell, we may aswell abandon the word 'secure' alltogether. what we need is a word that means 'secure', but doesnt nessesarily inply absolute 100% 'security'. hmm, Im sure that a word like that exists already... what is it now...

Safe?

[1veedo]

Like I said earlier the author of this page is arguing the straw man. Go read my post again. As for the link I did some searching. I didn't find the exact website but this one is very similar and shows the same results.

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

Graph All

 

IE is faster on startup (as has been laready discussed) but the graph plainly shows that firefox is much faster rending tables, scripts, displaying immages, etc etc. The other site I wish I coudl find compared browsers in many more areas then just these 7 and firefox was consistently faster than IE. (actually firefox was faster CSS 1 and 2 at the other site)

 

The firefox myths site claims that IE is faster startup ergo IE is much faster than firefox. The claim doesn't follow, at all. And it's a straw man.

[Dak]

Safe?

 

I was sarcastically pertaining to the word 'secure' ; 'safe' suffers the same flaw as 'secure' if you've a mind to view them as absolutes. Which (Mastertech), by common usage, they aren't.

 

The firefox myths site claims that IE is faster startup ergo IE is much faster than firefox. The claim doesn't follow, at all. And it's a straw man.

 

Humans are faster than horses on the start-up. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to outrun a horse.

[penagate]

I was sarcastically pertaining to the word 'secure' ; 'safe' suffers the same flaw as 'secure' if you've a mind to view them as absolutes.

I'm aware I was alluding to the Firefox slogan that was quoted earlier "Safer, Faster, Better"

[penagate]

MasterTech, I'm having a hard time gauging your position. You say on your page that "Firefox is a decent Web Browser". You have Google-syndicated Firefox-related ads at the top and bottom for it. But you also say that you use IE 24/7, and in this thread you have vehemently opposed any claim that Firefox is superior to Internet Explorer. So where exactly are you coming from?

[Mastertech]

Like I said earlier the author of this page is arguing the straw man. Go read my post again. As for the link I did some searching. I didn't find the exact website but this one is very similar and shows the same results.

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

Graph All

This is the exact Speed source in the guide. Did you even read the guide or just these posts? Seriously if you are going to participate in the conversation at least have the courtesy to read the material.

 

IE is faster on startup (as has been laready discussed) but the graph plainly shows that firefox is much faster rending tables' date=' scripts, displaying immages, etc etc. The other site I wish I coudl find compared browsers in many more areas then just these 7 and firefox was consistently faster than IE. (actually firefox was faster CSS 1 and 2 at the other site)[/quote']The graph is adding in Linux results. Who cares about Linux, I'm talking about Windows results which clearly shows IE is faster in everything but script speed.

 

The firefox myths site claims that IE is faster startup ergo IE is much faster than firefox. The claim doesn't follow, at all. And it's a straw man.

No you can't read. Try reading it again. I can't believe all the people that misread things and skim everything. It says IE is faster overall AND significantly faster from a cold start. No wonder so many Myths exist.

[Mastertech]

In that case no browser is secure... so what's your point?

That Firefox is NOT a secure web browser. This isn't some comparison of what is the best web browser. It is not some analysis of all browsers features. Man, a bunch of fan boys see something they take as negative towards Firefox and they are about to have a coronary. Get over it. It is real simple, these are Myths people claim about Firefox that are untrue.

 

MasterTech, I'm having a hard time gauging your position. You say on your page that "Firefox is a decent Web Browser". You have Google-syndicated Firefox-related ads at the top and bottom for it. But you also say that you use IE 24/7, and in this thread you have vehemently opposed any claim that Firefox is superior to Internet Explorer. So where exactly are you coming from?

#1 Do you use Firefox?

#2 Do you tell others to use Firefox?

 

I've defended all of my positions. Just because you want to believe Firefox is superior to IE is your problem. I've never stated either is superior.

 

I'm tired of people making up BS to push Firefox on people.

[RyanJ]

I've defended all of my positions. Just because you want to believe Firefox is superior to IE is your problem. I've never stated either is superior.

 

 

Umm' date=' lets see - people are probably not going too listen to you for 3 reasons.

 

1) They have too try for them selves too see what they think.

2) You take a very one sided argument nad show nothing about the plus sides of Firefox or the down points of IE.

3) You have taken a shed load of the arguments out of their context as is the case with the browser being secure.

 

When you make it so that:

 

Quote sources for the good sides as well as the bad ones, Firefox gets thousands of good reviews - are they all wrong too?

 

Show that Firefox has its good sides as well as its down sides.

 

Take the arguments in the context in which they are used and not your own version of them.

 

When you follow the above then yu have a nice ballanced argument and people will listen more, right now you'r only making the point Phi for All stated: you have an agenda against Firefox.

 

I use Firefox and I give it a good review, much better than I give IE, this has to do with my asessment of its featers, securite, reliability etc. There is no point giving an argument unless your going to ballance it - you may as well leave them decide for themselves.

 

Ryan Jones

[Mastertech]

EXACTLY! That is the context in which it is used so you just defeted your own argument then? I don't recall anyone every saying "Firefox is 100% secure" - Firefox is secure compared with IE and so its a vaid statement.

I didn't defeat anything, more then and the blanket statment "Secure" are two very different things. Saying Firefox is Secure is a lie and designed deliberately to mislead people into thinking it has no security problems. You have to add the word "more" which is technically correct but in terms of security it is flawed because you only need one vulnerability to be insecure.

[RyanJ]

I didn't defeat anything, more then and the blanket statment "Secure" are two very different things. Saying Firefox is Secure is a lie and designed deliberately to mislead people into thinking it has no security problems. You have to add the word "more" which is technically correct but in terms of security it is flawed because you only need one vulnerability to be insecure.

 

Yet again your taking it oout of the context it was used, everyone knows that the majority of users use IE as a browser, therefor people know when you are saying secure you must mean secure in relation too the current leader - its common sence, everyone knows nothign cna be 100% secure so there you go.

 

Adding the mord more is correct, everyhting has secuty homes so it only makes sence to call it secure in relation too another product therefor its prefectly acceptible as people know its refering too IE as the leader right now.

 

Put the "myth" int he context in whcih it was used and then you'll see its not a mythh but fact.

 

Ryan Jones

[Mastertech]

Umm, lets see - people are probably not going too listen to you for 3 reasons.

No actually people are listening to me and sending me thankyous for telling them things they were misled about with Firefox.

 

2) You take a very one sided argument nad show nothing about the plus sides of Firefox or the down points of IE.

This isn't a review. Don't you get it?

 

3) You have taken a shed load of the arguments out of their context as is the case with the browser being secure.

Yeah right. Maybe now people will get the truth instead of the BS hype and lies that people use to sell the browser.

 

Quote sources for the good sides as well as the bad ones, Firefox gets thousands of good reviews - are they all wrong too?

What part of it is not a review don't you get. Seriously do you have a comprehension problem?

 

Show that Firefox has its good sides as well as its down sides.

Maybe if it was a review but this is not.

 

Take the arguments in the context in which they are used and not your own version of them.

Those are not arguments, they are exaggerations designed to mislead people.

 

When you follow the above then yu have a nice ballanced argument and people will listen more, right now you'r only making the point Phi for All stated: you have an agenda against Firefox.

It is not a review. So get over it.

 

I use Firefox and I give it a good review, much better than I give IE, this has to do with my asessment of its featers, securite, reliability etc. There is no point giving an argument unless your going to ballance it - you may as well leave them decide for themselves.

It is not a review. Again.

[Mastertech]

Yet again your taking it oout of the context it was used, everyone knows that the majority of users use IE as a browser, therefor people know when you are saying secure you must[/b'] mean secure in relation too the current leader - its common sence, everyone knows nothign cna be 100% secure so there you go.

NO THEY DO NOT! Do you have any idea how many people have sent me emails, saying they had no idea Firefox had any security vulnerabilities? You either need to start saying things in the correct context or you become part of the propaganda machine.

 

Adding the mord more is correct, everyhting has secuty homes so it only makes sence to call it secure in relation too another product therefor its prefectly acceptible as people know its refering too IE as the leader right now.

That is fine just make sure you use the word more and you explain to them that unpatched vulnerabilities exist and you only need one to be vulnerable. But I'm sure you will not do that.

 

Put the "myth" int he context in whcih it was used and then you'll see its not a mythh but fact.

No it is a Myth. That is why it is there.

[RyanJ]

NO THEY DO NOT! Do you have any idea how many people have sent me emails' date=' saying they had no idea Firefox had any security vulnerabilities? You either need to start saying things in the correct context or you become part of the propaganda machine.

[/quote']

 

Uhu, right do they get updates at all? it clearly says why its being updated.... I have NEVER, EVER seen anyone say Firefox is 100% secure, it has no vunrabilities. Even SpreadFirefox, a site devoted too Firefox, has never claimed that.

 

No it is a Myth. That is why it is there.

 

NO' date=' its a "myth" because YOU placed it out of its context. Put it back into context and it fits with the description. Your trying to argume 1+2 = 3 by putting out of its context.

 

That is fine just make sure you use the word more and you explain to them that unpatched vulnerabilities exist and you only need one to be vulnerable. But I'm sure you will not do that.

 

Firefo has unpatched ones, no-one denies it but have you sem not many IE has too? http://nanobox.chipx86.com/ie_is_dangerous.php

 

Ah, OK your talking about "security" and telling people too change too a less secure browser? Nice job Where is the securitor link to IE vunrabilities?

 

No actually people are listening to me and sending me thankyous for telling them things they were misled about with Firefox.

 

Hard not to when your using a very biased argument. Luckily there are sites like Nanobot which aim to show a more reliable argument. I bet those people are using IE in any case' date=' I have seen people talking about how stupid that article is in many places - one sided arguments just don't work at all.

 

Yeah right. Maybe now people will get the truth instead of the BS hype and lies that people use to sell the browser.

 

You've taken the stuff out of context and therefor your argument is flawed. Put it back itno its correct context and then argue with it. And I suppose what you missquoted out of its context is not BS then? I think it is. Stop lying, put the stuff back into the contect for which it was intended and then try too arguw with it.

 

What part of it is not a review don't you get. Seriously do you have a comprehension problem?

 

It seems like too me' date=' your basically saying Firefox is insecure, slow and crap. Presejnt a non-biased argument for gods sake, its not hard. Nanobot showed a corect, non-biased one in the context everything was inteded - yours is missleading, biased and for those reasons wrong.

 

Those are not arguments, they are exaggerations designed to mislead people.

 

Ah, and what do you call what your doing then? Taking somehting out of its context is lying. Its called miss-quotation.

 

When you put everything its the context it was written in most of the arguments you present fall too pieces.

 

There should really be laws about spreading lies and information in its unintended context like you are doing, its missleading and its wrong. Some of the things are right granted but a lot of it is not.

 

Ryan Jones

[Mastertech]

Uhu, right do they get updates at all? it clearly says why its being updated.... I have NEVER, EVER seen anyone say Firefox is 100% secure, it has no vunrabilities. Even SpreadFirefox, a site devoted too Firefox, has never claimed that.

You don't get out much. Here is one example:

 

http://www.useff.com/firefox-browser.html

 

Firefox is secure.

 

NO, its a "myth" because YOU placed it out of its context. Put it back into context and it fits with the description. Your trying to argume 1+2 = 3 by putting out of its context.

I just proved it is not a Myth.

 

Firefo has unpatched ones, no-one denies it but have you sem not many IE has too? [url']http://nanobox.chipx86.com/ie_is_dangerous.php[/url]

You read the Myths Guide too right? "Arguing that Internet Explorer has more vulnerabilities than Firefox does not make Firefox a Secure Web Browser"

 

Ah, OK your talking about "security" and telling people too change too a less secure browser? Nice job Where is the securitor link to IE vunrabilities?

You do realize this isn't a review or a recommendation of what browser to use? I actually recommend people use Avant Browser. With SP2 in XP I have no security problems.

 

Hard not to when your using a very biased argument. Luckily there are sites like Nanobot which aim to show a more reliable argument. I bet those people are using IE in any case, I have seen people talking about how stupid that article is in many places - one sided arguments just don't work at all.

Nanobot is a FF fanboy who uses deceptive tactics and exaggerations to get people to switch. Everyone who talks about the Guide being stupid are all fan boys. It is a Myths guide and they take it out of context as an IE endorsement. Guess what, that it their problem for not being able to read.

 

You've taken the stuff out of context and therefor your argument is flawed. Put it back itno its correct context and then argue with it. And I suppose what you missquoted out of its context is not BS then? I think it is. Stop lying, put the stuff back into the contect for which it was intended and then try too arguw with it.

Myths are usually things taken out of context initially and then spread as the truth. I'm putting them back into context by debunking them.

 

It seems like too me, your basically saying Firefox is insecure, slow and crap. Presejnt a non-biased argument for gods sake, its not hard. Nanobot showed a corect, non-biased one in the context everything was inteded - yours is missleading, biased and for those reasons wrong.

No I am saying Firefox does not have lower system requirements then IE, is not faster then IE, is not secure, is not a solution to spyware, is not bug free, did not invent tabbed browsing, is not standards compliant and does not work with every web page. Yes the truth hurts. No where did I say crap. Actually it says "Firefox is a Decent Web Browser".

 

Ah, and what do you call what your doing then? Taking somehting out of its context is lying. Its called miss-quotation.

Nothing is taken out of context. These are things people are saying, some are uninformed others are using deceptive sales tactics to push the browser.

 

When you put everything its the context it was written in most of the arguments you present fall too pieces.

Every argument stands.

 

There should really be laws about spreading lies and information in its unintended context like you are doing, its missleading and its wrong. Some of the things are right granted but a lot of it is not.

You are right Firefox Fanboys should not be allowed to spread BS.

[RyanJ]

You are right Firefox Fanboys should not be allowed to spread BS.

 

No' date=' you should not spread BS... by the way am I right in saying you thing Nanobot is bias - if yes then how can you quote him in your article...

 

Did you not get the letter he sent too you explaingin that you miss-quoted the statistics he posted? As for people "believing you" yes very weel, I have seen posts oin other forums with people quoting your article and asking if its true and as here they have just shows our a biased IE supporter with no interest in showing truth but rather spreading a load of lies.

 

All your so called myths answers are myths themselves and thius I reward you with a nice stamp: [img']http://www.cavill.com.au/images/234.gif[/img]

 

Lets see what other people say about this: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=356670&highlight=myth

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=357049&highlight=myth

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/blog/2005/12/re-firefox-myths.php (Notice the letter saying about how the informaiton was miss-quoted?)

 

Your first link is not very interesting. It's outright funny.

 

Your second link doesn't even include Firefox 1.5...

 

Seen all this FUD before. Those speed tests are too limited to mean anything, to be a valid test it would have to be repeated many times, on many different computers. They would need to be freshly reformatted before each browser was installed, to insure the same baseline condition for each test.

 

If you follow the link to the source for the "multiple unpatched vulnerabilities" claim, you find a Secunia page which reveals that there are 3 "less critical" unpatched vunerabilities. Oooh, scary..

 

I presonally think yuor article is a joke, for anyon reading this Nanobot is a reliable resource and his information is non-baised, if your reading that article and then you should also read this: http://nanobox.chipx86.com/firefox_myths.php its non-baised and its argument is quite reasonable pointing out the true myths about Firefox, the article posted here was a load of rubbish for the most part though there is some truth in it. This is also reinforced by the fact that the guy refuses too change the information evne when one of his sources told him he miss-quoted the information - BAD!

 

People are laughing at your "information", its so bias that its obviously FUD when you present a non-biased argument then you'll get some real interest untill then why bother?

 

Ryan Jones

[Mastertech]

No, you should not spread BS... by the way am I right in saying you thing Nanobot is bias - if yes then how can you quote him in your article...

I never said his data is biased, only that he is and his website. Try viewing it in Internet Explorer. And look at the scare tactics he uses. You don't see that on the Firefox Myths Page do you?

 

Did you not get the letter he sent too you explaingin that you miss-quoted the statistics he posted?

See even you can not read through all the rhetoric on that page.

 

I am glad that you corrected the statement

As you can see it is correct and has been.

 

People are laughing at your "information", its so bias that its obviously FUD when you present a non-biased argument then you'll get some real interest untill then why bother?

Don't be afraid of the truth.

 

In regard to webpage rendering, Firefox is most often faster than Internet Explorer, even with its more extensive support for web technology.

Notice this is flat out false based on the source from the Firefox Myths article. Also notice how he sources nothing? Now why is that? Because to use any source would only show the exact opposite of what he wants to mislead people with. I don't have to prove anything the sources speak for themselves and are undeniable. No number of Firefox Fanboys can change that.

[Mastertech]

v1.0.1

 

Performance Myths - Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser

Security Myths - Firefox is the Most Secure Web Browser

Feature Myths - Firefox Blocks all Popups

Feature Myths - Firefox is the Most Standards Compliant Web Browser

 

 

Don't bust a blood vessel on any of these please.

[RyanJ]

v1.0.1

 

Performance Myths - Firefox is the Fastest Web Browser

Security Myths - Firefox is the Most Secure Web Browser

Feature Myths - Firefox Blocks all Popups

Feature Myths - Firefox is the Most Standards Compliant Web Browser

 

 

Don't bust a blood vessel on any of these please.

 

Feature Myths - Firefox Blocks all Popups - thats damn true luckily there should be an update for this soon (Which I am well looking forward too I may add).

 

Feature Myths - Firefox is the Most Standards Compliant Web Browser - Be warned' date=' some of the features have not been tested for Firefox 1.5 yet since it has not been released for very long so this may need too be changed sometime (Source)

 

Security Myths - Firefox is the Most Secure Web Browser - quite true even though it does rate higher than Opera in some areas but overall you are correct there... (Source)

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Phi for All]

Mastertech and RyanJ, some of your remarks are getting close to Flaming. You are obviously baiting each other by using phrases like "You don't get out much" and "Don't you get it?".

 

Keep it civil, please. Stick to the facts and let's use no ad hominem logic.

[RyanJ]

Mastertech and RyanJ' date=' some of your remarks are getting close to Flaming. You are obviously baiting each other by using phrases like "You don't get out much" and "Don't you get it?".

 

Keep it civil, please. Stick to the facts and let's use no [i']ad hominem[/i] logic.

 

Your right and I appologise but I have said what I needed too say and so have finished posting in this thread

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Dak]

Id just like to quickly point something out.

 

Uhu' date=' right do they get updates at all? it clearly says why its being updated.... I have NEVER, EVER seen anyone say Firefox is 100% secure, it has no vunrabilities. Even SpreadFirefox, a site devoted too Firefox, has never claimed that.[/quote']

You don't get out much. Here is one example:

 

http://www.useff.com/firefox-browser.html

 

Firefox is secure.

 

 

The line that you quoted part of reads, in its entierety, this:

 

Firefox is secure. You are in much less danger from harmful spyware and adware once you're a Firefox user.

 

http://www.useff.com/firefox-browser.html

 

I fail to see how you could have misinterpreted 'firefox is secure' as meaning that its 100% secure when the very next sentance, which doesnt even have a return inbetween it and the 'firefox is secure' bit, expands upon the point in a way that makes it clear that 100% security is not being inplyed.

 

Firefox is secure. You are in much less danger from harmful spyware and adware once you're a Firefox user.

 

(emphasis mine)