Symantec: Mozilla browsers more vulnerable

Security wars continue..

Symantec is claiming that Mozilla based web browsers are more vulnerable to attack than Microsoft's Internet Explorer. 

However, some (such as us) are skeptical of these claims as Symantec is basing its opinion on the number of security flaws that have been confirmed by the vendor.  Uncinformed, unacknowledged security holes do not get counted.  Nor is the number of actual available exploits being weighted in.

It should be noted that Symantec's software routinely flags software as being "dangerous" based on languages used rather than actual danger.  For example, widgets or gadgets that use VB Script are routlinely blocked by running by Symantec's security products.

Whether Internet Explorer is less secure than the Mozilla browser remains a matter of debate. It largely depends on who you talk to and how you define a vulnerability.

5,675 views 11 replies
Reply #1 Top
All software has holes, if Linux or Mac OS X ever became as popular as Windows, you would see 1,000's of virii, and exploits. But what you need to base software security on is the speed in which the bugs get fixed. And with very little browsing, you can find out Microsoft takes months...Mozilla takes days...there is the difference.
Reply #2 Top
Seems like the best thing to do for the Mozilla organisation is to keep their bugs secret then. Ignorance is, once again, bliss.
Reply #3 Top
Thank Bob for alternatives to Firefox and IE.

Opera is now ad-free and completely free with 8.5, which they update their software quite frequently.

There are a plenty of other good browsers out there...I just happen to use Opera.
Use what you like but don't expect security from an internet browser. That is what they made Anti-Virus and Anti-Spyware programs for...plus if you are really worried, software firewalls and routers.

- X
Reply #4 Top
I happily use the three biggies (IE, FF, and Opera). They all have their uses. Opera for browsing most sites, Firefox for those sites that won't work in Opera, as well as for other things, and IE when I need a browser that just feels light.
Reply #5 Top

Probably means that IE is more susceptible to Symantec's bugs instead....

/me gave up on Symantec...they can keep my money...but I won't be using their AV....not until Snowshoes are mandatory wear when visiting Mister 666....

Reply #6 Top
.but I won't be using their AV....not until Snowshoes are mandatory wear when visiting Mister 666..


Same here!!
Reply #7 Top
oh well i just use ff i like it its quite fast at loading the pages and stuff, plus you can get cool themes for it as well
Reply #8 Top
Looks like Symantec more and more is looking for a reason to exist.
Reply #9 Top
Firefox have fixed know problems in version 1.0.7
Symantic really should be looking at their own products that increasingly have a larger failing rate.
Reply #11 Top
i've noticed how lots of people comlaining of problems with their products (i myself use mcafee - currently microsoft one care on this computer) i don't. i'm sure some of them still use firefox at home or their kids do lol