From the article: "This is of course not to say MSIE is more secure it does have a number
of problems, mostly related to its security architecture and various
features absent in other browsers."
Doesn't that kind of outweigh most other issues?
It's no secret that IE is more flexible in displaying non-standards-compliant HTML. Mozilla/Firefox/Opera/etc... purists insist that this is a weakness in IE, and that alternate browsers are more standards compliant. IE fans insist that this flexibility makes IE superior. This is hashed out repeatedly on /. in almost painful detail. WHich side folks take seems to be determined by which browser they've already decided they prefer.
I also noticed that the article notes alternate browsers crashing due to buffer over-run. If I'm not mistaken buffer over-run is one of the most common ways virus writers compromise IE. I would rather have my browser crash than have a system compromising weakness any day. If IE weren't tied into the OS so inextricably, it would certainly have more going for it, but as it is now, if a virus compromises IE, it has an open door into your system. All the more reason, IMHO, to go with a stand-alone browser. I would also be interested to see this test again in a few months, as FF is now at 1.0 and Opera has a new version about to be released. I also hear that MS is putting more work into IE now tha SP2 is out.