[Bush2000]

Can you show me anything in the article that anything about Firefox being hacked?

The Firefox site, n00b.

A pretty bold claim based on a perl-based wiki module being hacked.

The source code is open and widely available -- and yet it's loaded with vulnerabilities. So here's the deal. Projects that are higher profile (Linux kernel, Apache, etc) are more likely to have more eyes looking at them. Low-profile projects don't. And, if you're running a site, you damn well better be careful about what you're deploying. This wiki code is spaghetti.

[zeugma]

As usual, you lack the ability to admit misstatements on your part.

You said:
Um, yes, it does have something to do with Firefox being hacked.

So I replied:
Can you show me anything in the article that anything about Firefox being hacked?

Then you, being unable to maintain civil conversation reply:
The Firefox site, n00b.

So, if you meant the site initially, why didn't you just say so instead of trying to make it seem that the referenced article had something to do with a vulnerability in Firefox?

As far as it being your comment about FF being "open and widely available -- and yet it's loaded with vulnerabilities"... at least, when we find vulnerabilities, they are fixed in a timely manner because the entire process is so open. With proprietary products like IE, even though we can't look at the code, we find as many, if not more defects and are then forced to wait until Microsoft feels like releasing a patch. Btw: they missed this month's patch release didn't they? They can't even stay on time with their patches for their shoddy products. Must be the backlog of critical defects snowing them under. It's amazing that even with billions of dollars at their disposal, they still can't outperform the Mozilla team in their timely release of fixes.