Firefox is a safer browser in the sense that it has the latest in browser technology, lives up to www and Java standards, applet safety is good, you have to add to the code to make it malicious. In java I I coded for safety this Java permission restriction: grant.codebase=“http://www.google.com/-”{
permission java.lang.RuntimePermission"usePolicy";signedBy(*)=any signed applet};
which is according to me safer still.
Besisdes want a joke, a FF one, try this link (it is harmless) http://http://google.com , and you will land at, well microsoft.com. Well I thought FF’s default was google. How about that,
That with the malformed URL is a joke of course, you all know that on a windhose machine all malforms are by default shown as default, and that’s why it links to that address. Easy, peasy.
FF does not need any arguments, the concept speaks for itself. It does not use Active X like Internet Explo(d)er. Active X opens up to all of your computer, a wrong idea from the start. A gigantic plus with FF is you can analyze what you do. You can tweak it like a glove, it is a search browser per se. It is coming now with all the certificates, so there is little argument not to use it. Have the latest version on, spoof check, a good hosts file, clean out your cookies and temp files and regularly backup your profile.
Dear mr Polonus. Can you tell me what exactly is safer: IE’s active-x technologie or Mozilla’s XPI extension technology ?
Also I’m curious about the warning system of Firefox before someone clicks “install”. And what is the default value for installing an XPI-extension when a user is prompted and should press “enter” ?
I know this was an issue in FF 1.0 about 5 months ago.
I’m curious if this has changed since then.
It is just because of this attitude that Internet Explo(d)er now has to clean up its act. People, like you apparently put user-friendliness over safety. So that ActiveX opens up to all of your computer, no worry, click now scan afterwards. FF has all the plug-ins, wait a while and webmasters have everything running on FF also. The ++ for FF are they keep RFC’s and code properly, where Internet Explorer code bends the rules to keep customers happy, but unsafe. Most of the holes for Firefox go through IE that is like swiss cheese in some respects. If you do not like Firefox I do not say you should use it, but use another browser like Opera etc. , but not IE or one of its clones. the last Netscape also had a gigantic safety hole in it. I will always advice people only to usef IE that is patched fully, and you run it on a WIN XP Pro with Service Pack II and a firewall. Furthermore if you search FF, it has up to a 100 search-engines in con-query witout any buggy searchbars or BHO’s to install. You can tweak FF as a glove. Of course a browser is as safe as the one person behind it. If you download a lot from buggy P2P, or irc unsafely, your computer definitely needs a clean up now and again, nothing can safe you there, not always even Peer Guardian, or you will slow up because of ad-, spy-, & malware. (“IE = gatenkaas, dit vrij vertaald naar Cruyff”)
I realise risks I run using IE. I have installed several programs to block stuff from loading automatically. Popupcop helps me to block popups, activex contents, flash movies and a lot of other stuff. Also spywareblaster and spybot S&D immunize. Untill now they have saved me from trouble. If you follow the news, you can see that firefox is not that safe itself. They now are confronted with the fact that the larger the userbase grows, the more bugs are found. Anyway, like you already said, a system is as safe as it’s user. I just noticed that one of the reasons I don’t use firefox has a plugin now (Roboform). Time to test!
Looks interesting, Fast. Have you tried it? Won’t it slow down the connection if it constantly does a “whois” for every visited site, or is’t that the deal?
have used FF for quite some time, love-it until something better