(Let's see, is it "down the highway" or "across the road"?) 
Posted on 05/12/2005 7:54:09 AM PDT by holymoly
A security update for the Firefox open-source browser has been released by the Mozilla Foundation, a move that follows the public disclosure of exploit code for two "extremely critical" vulnerabilities.
Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4, released Wednesday, addresses vulnerabilities that surfaced earlier this week. The update includes several security fixes, as well as a fix to DHTML errors that were encountered at some Web sites, according to a posting on Mozilla's Web site.
The update is designed to address the two flaws, which when combined could allow malicious attackers to engage in cross-site scripting and remote system access. Although the two vulnerabilities could be exploited, there were no known active exploits.
Security monitoring company Secunia had rated the flaws as "extremely critical."
Since the debut of Firefox 1.0 in November, the browser has grown at a rapid pace, passing the 50 million downloads mark last month.
With its initial release last fall, the open-source browser has demonstrated to analysts that the mature Web browser market dominated by Microsoft's Internet Explorer can be shaken up. Microsoft's IE has begun its see its market share dip slightly--a first in a number of years.
Firefox held 6.8 percent of the domestic market share as of late April, while Microsoft saw its role dip to 88.9 percent, compared with more than 90 percent share last year.
The fast-paced growth of Firefox, however, is beginning to show signs of slowing, according to results released this week by WebSideStory.
(Let's see, is it "down the highway" or "across the road"?)
How many times do I have to say it?
I USE BOTH IE AND FIREFOX AND HAVE NO PREFERENCE! THEY BOTH HAVE ISSUES!
It was inevitable and just a matter of time that when Firefox became so popular then the evil ones, ( maybe even hired by MS, ) curious teenagers, hackers, etc were going to try to punch holes in Firefox. They have succeeded and probably will continue to succeed.
However, since this particular thread was about Firefox with holes in it I just HAD to respond. :-)
My comments were directed at both those who advocate the exclusive use of IE AND those who advocate the exclusive use of Firefox. It is a useless argument. To each his own.
Sheesh! :-)
( Calm yourself and read my tagline. ) :-).....then lighten up, will ya?
It took the morons of Mozilla almost a year to fix a horrendous bug where some would uninstall Firefox and it ended up dumping all of the Program Files with it. No, I don't toot Mozillas horn very loudly, and quite frankly wince at those who do.
Now, if you're really nice to me, I'll tell you what I think of Big Brother Gates. 
The invulnerable Firefox!!!!!
Curses, foiled again!!!!!
AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
The invulnerable Firefox!!!!!
Wow, you really need to cut back on the cafine/meth!
What's the big deal? A piece of software needs a patch? Get over it...
Mark
"Firefox is better than IE," OR vice versa, or, "X software is better than the other X software,"
So you're saying that windows 2000 is not better than DOS6? Sometimes software is better than other software (Oracle vs Access), and if you dint think thats the case than you are exposing your ignorance...
Same here. Good for you - but, your comments sound like software relativism.
None are perfect, but they are not all equally imperfect. Some are clearly better than others. Subjective tastes, different uses and preferences.
I do understand the frustration, though. Going since the 1980s, it's still PC vs. Mac. Ford or GM. Coke vs. Pepsi. Creation or Evolution.
Yawn.
aw, buzz off.
ROFL
There are still dentists' offices, doctors' offices and shrinks' offices, as an example, ( there are many more, ) whose main, frontline software which controls their whole business is DOS based and some of them are running versions of DOS prior to 6.22.
Why don't you ask them if Win2k is "better?"
Now do you get my point?
Sheesh!
And they are only on DOS because of the application software, not because dos offers any advantage at all over windows.
You still don't get it and I doubt that you ever will so be off with ye.
Because what you said is just plain stupid..
I just wish that people would get over the "penis size comparisons," thinly veiled as "my OS/Browser/Email/application is better than yours!"
Geez! A COMPUTER IS A TOOL. DIFFERENT TOOLS ARE GOOD FOR DIFFERENT THINGS!Is Windows 2000 beter than DOS6? Well, it depends on what it is that you're doing! If you're running certain types of apps, DOS is actually better, especially if you're using a legacy application, custom written with network APIs and some oddball memory extender that Win32 programs barf on, for your company by a programmer who is long dead!
The best OS is the one that helps you get your job done most efficiently!
Mark
No, because what you said is just plain stupid and I have no tolerance for stupidity and your comments about limitations of software capability represents the most contorted, convoluted logic I have ever witnessed. That had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
Had I asked a doctor, dentist or shrink, who still it stuck in a time-warp with DOS, about Win2k the response would be, "I have never heard of Win2k so I can't make a determination as to whether or not it is 'better.'" Therefore, he would be trumpeting his ignorance, just as you have done. :-)
Well, DUH!!!
There's something known as business. When you run a business, you have to decide on certain priorities, like "will this application allow me to retire to a comfortable life before the age of 90?" Or should I get the latest "whiz-bang" OS that's "better?"
I've had interesting conversations with CEOs and COOs of rather large companies, who had decided on the direction their IT department was going to go. I was lucky enough in both cases to convince them that the proper way to plan was to first figure out what applications they needed to run their business. Next, figure out what OS those apps run on. Finally, select the proper hardware platform for the OS and applications.
In once case, I installed a Novell server in a little division of a very large corporation. At the time, the company was 100% MS Lan Manager. The productivity at that division went up dramaticly. Eventually, the comany converted completely to Novell (although they're now about 50/50, running all their file and print services on Novell, and their application services on UNIX, Win2K, and mainframes.
Mark
You know, this was something that's really bothered me for a long time.
Maybe you'd care to explain exactly how Oracle is "better" than Access.
I have never had any problem with people who say application X better suits my needs than application Y. But (other than when there's a version rev that fixes problems - without introducing new ones) it's ignorant to make the blanket statement that application X is "better" than application Y.
For instance, let's say you don't have a server to run Oracle for your small business... Is it still better than Access? Or let's say you do have a server, but it doesn't run an OS that Oracle needs to run on. Or you can't afford to pay an Oracle DBA.
Mark
bump
I'm sure the IE crowd was hoping they would pull a Microsoft and either deny the problem exists, not fix it or fix it and open up another can of worms...
...Anyway, I'll get back to my tabbed browsing, Adblocking, popup blocking Firefox browser and leave my IE browser gathering dust...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.