Is this dodgy? (Eek Errorsafe malware!)

[dasjoe]

blaming microsoft because you can't handle your pc is like blaming a car manufacturer for a crash. as with about everything, pebkac.
people don't think it's their duty to keep their pc clean or are too stupid to see why they should. it's easier to blame microsoft for everything than actually learning how spyware works and how to protect yourself. this is ridiculous, ms provides excellent tools for that, all you need is a legit version of windows xp with sp2. running anything else than that would be dumb, ms stopped supporting pre-xp versions recently, iirc.

[ManicMatt]

"Blaming microsoft because you can't handle your pc is like blaming a car manufacturer for a crash."

Only if the brakes weren't working.

[dasjoe]

no, you obviously don't know how to secure your own pc. there is no one to blame but yourself.

[Radiant]

You are obviously unaware that e.g. the latest version of MS Outlook contains fifteen known security vulnerabilities, which is more than the other ten most popular e-mail clients combined, and the oldest of which has been known for over two years and remains unfixed. It helps being aware of security issues, but one of those issues is that Microsoft's track record proves them unreliable. Don't be a lemming.

[Kweepa]

That is what the Microsoft marketing department wants you to think.

This may be true, but it's clearly irrelevant. I think meat is tasty. The Meat Marketing Board says meat is tasty. That doesn't mean I only think meat is tasty because the Meat Marketing Board says so.

While it is obviously true that the most popular browser will have its flaws exposed quicker than any other, it is also true (although less obvious) that (1) IE has significantly more flaws than other browsers, some of which a result of flawed design, and (2) Microsoft is significantly slower in fixing those flaws than other companies.

(1) This is not "true". IE has significantly more KNOWN flaws. That's all you can say with any certainty.
(2) I don't doubt it.

"Exploitation of Internet Explorer's security holes has earned IE the reputation as the least secure of the major web browsers."

Of course. This goes back to my point that malware is targeting the "market leader".

"Art Manion, a representative of the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) noted in a vulnerability report that the design of Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 made it difficult to secure."

And did Art study the other browsers?

"The Apache HTTP Server, for example, had a much larger market share than Microsoft IIS, yet Apache has traditionally had fewer (and generally less serious) security vulnerabilities than IIS."

Ok, so Apache is demonstrably more secure than IIS. Yay!

"In an October 2002 interview, Microsoft's Craig Mundie admitted that admitted that Microsoft's products were "less secure than they could have been" because it was "designing with features in mind rather than security.""

This merely says that MS products aren't 100% secure. Nor is any product. It certainly doesn't say anything about relative security.

"Microsoft has also not responded as quickly as competitors in fixing security holes and making patches available. Not only are there more holes in Explorer, but holes remain unpatched for a longer time. ... As of May 28, 2006, Secunia reports 101 vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer, 21 of which are unpatched. In contrast, Mozilla Firefox, the main competitor to Internet Explorer, is reported to have only 31 security vulnerabilities, of which 4 remain unpatched."

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
1. More KNOWN holes.
2. IE has patched 80 holes. Firefox has patched only 27.
3. How serious are the remaining holes?

I'm a Firefox user myself, because right now there are less KNOWN vulnerabilities in it. I'm hoping it won't become too popular. I certainly don't want it to beat IE. I don't know whether Firefox is more vulnerable than IE, but I don't really want to find out. Even if Firefox holes get patched quicker than IE's, I'd rather not have the holes exposed at all.

[Radiant]

"In an October 2002 interview, Microsoft's Craig Mundie admitted that admitted that Microsoft's products were "less secure than they could have been" because it was "designing with features in mind rather than security.""

This merely says that MS products aren't 100% secure. Nor is any product. It certainly doesn't say anything about relative security.

That's true. But the important point (to me) is that a browser or network system should be designed with security in mind rather than features. I'd take safety over bells and whistles any day. Judging by their past, Microsoft's chief goal has always been marketing rather than performance, so to me that means they have their priorities wrong.

Of course, I'm not saying that Firefox is designed with security in mind; that's why I still back it up with a firewall and adkiller. But the point is that it is possible to make an application secure from the bottom up, even though it is rarely done; there are certain core design issues that make Linux inherently more secure than Windows. Security works far better as forethought than as afterthought.