Comments on: UK Government says “No Evidence” IE is Less Secure

By: lg over the range microwave

lg over the range microwave — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 06:44:59 +0000

I抳e turn out to be a devoted admirer of the website for some time but not actually supplied just one thing back, I hope to alter that within the future with more conversation.Thanks for another new addition to the internet website.

By: Microsoft’s Internet Explorer Faces More Bans or Backlash | Boycott Novell

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:20:21 +0000

[...] France, and Germany have already warned against the use of Internet Explorer. The UK, however, is in Microsoft’s bed, as usual. Its government seems to be listening to Microsoft's lies about Internet Explorer [...]

By: Terry Thomas what

Terry Thomas what — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:35:04 +0000

@Terry Thomas

People like you without a clue are the problem. “Caching” is not why other browsers are faster. They’re more efficiently coded, run javascript in a fraction of the time (learn what JIT compiling is) and don’t use ridiculously complex design like IE. I’ve never had a problem with Firefox, Opera or Safari on any number of large networks that I’ve administered. Pull your head out of MS’s lap and learn the facts.

By: UK Government Says “No Evidence” IE Is Less Secure « blog.hajotus

Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:23:02 +0000

[...] gov’t claims that the latest IE is as secure as any other browser, and they don’t see any reason why using an alternative browser would protect the users. [...]

By: Business Internet Community » Blog Archive » British government ignores MS Internet Explorer fears [Updated x2]

Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:15:22 +0000

[...] the security of Internet Explorer and whether the UK government would reconsider its use. He got an answer from the UK Home Office that’s unlikely to please most readers. The UK government contends that ‘there is no [...]

By: Dom De Vitto

Dom De Vitto — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:01:00 +0000

Clearly, the Home Office hasn’t examined the patch release model of Microsoft, in that they only release patches for vulnerabilities that are known to be being exploited, or are likely to become immediately exploited.

Many security researchers have has issues with Microsoft’s suggestion that releasing patches enables those without prior knowledge to determine the vulnerability, however this logic is flawed, as ‘spearfishing’ and similar limited-distribution attacks typically use vulnerabilities that are known, but without any publically available patch.

In short, if a patch is published, attackers can engineer an exploit, however this is only after all auto-updating systems have been made immune. Systems that are not auto-updating will not recieve the patch, but would also have not had many other patches – for which legacy exploits are widely available.

Converesly, other web browsers vendors produce patches much more often, and their browsers check for, and prompt for installation, patches at every startup and periodically afterwards – so unpatched versions are highly unusual.

Dom

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:36:02 +0000

Terry Thomas – i guess you are living up to your moniker of a comedy actor – IE more secure – what a joke

By: Eric Elliott

Eric Elliott — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:41:14 +0000

When a Lord reports on minor details, ignores significant details and totally disregards government security, the Lord’s report can not be considered as valid. Using MSIE, an insecure browser, on Windows, an insecure operating system, for government work, for government communications, rather than use of a secure operating system with relatively secure browser, should be the matter in consideration.
Safety of every UK citizen is severely compromised while the military & government use the most vulnerable software on the most vulnerable operating system. Paying billions of pounds to get the latest versions of same vulnerable system will not make UK secure.

By: Terry Thomas

Terry Thomas — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:30:53 +0000

I agree IE is probably more secure than the many other browsers out there, as an admin I have had many problems with other browsers and 3rd party badly coded plugins than I have ever had with IE.

Also other browsers are popular because they claim to be faster this may be true but only because of the amount of caching they are doing in the background wasting valuable bandwidth. caching every link they see is not always a good idea or needed

By: philip ramsey

philip ramsey — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:58:34 +0000

Lord West of Spithead, like many Microsoft supporters, blindly accepts everything Microsoft says. The facts are:
1) Internet Explorer is too deeply tied to the Windows o/s which means whenever the browser becomes compromised, the o/s is also compromised. E.g. a hacker causes I.E. to crash will also crash the o/s. All other browsers are not tied into the o/s so even if the software becomes compromised it doe not affect the o/s.
2) Windows o/s in inherently insecure. It is virtually impossible to easily secure without major spending on security systems. Linux is both very secure and less expensive to keep maintain.
3) Most web sites designed specifically for I.E contains security issues that would be noticeable in browsers like Mozilla Seamonkey or Mozilla Firefox.

By promote a company that charges an arm and a leg but does not care about customer security. Why not promote open source software? Open Source software are free, secure and very responsive and concerned about user security.