Netscape 6.2.3 Released

Wednesday May 15th, 2002

Netscape today released a new version of its Mozilla-based browser. Netscape 6.2.3 is a minor update that fixes the recently discovered XMLHttpRequest security vulnerability. Like the other Netscape 6.2 releases, this latest version is based on the Mozilla 0.9.4 branch. You can download the release from Netscape's web site or FTP server.

#1 A small Question

by MozSaysAloha

Wednesday May 15th, 2002 1:15 PM

Since this was a big security fix, why didn't Netscape just update the branch to anywere between 0.9.5-0.9.9 and make it a 6.3?

#4 A small Question

by AlexBishop

Wednesday May 15th, 2002 1:48 PM

"Since this was a big security fix, why didn't Netscape just update the branch to anywere between 0.9.5-0.9.9 and make it a 6.3?"

This was an unplanned release. Netscape's next planned release was (and still is) MachV. They only released 6.2.3 because of the security hole. Adding in additional features and enhancements would have required extra testing and would have delayed the release.


#9 Re: Great!

by Wildcard

Thursday May 16th, 2002 1:30 AM

Also it would break Theme compatibility with the themes on the Theme Park

#5 Next major Netscape will be Netscape 7.0 (-)

by ezh

Wednesday May 15th, 2002 2:42 PM


#11 New Netscape Themes Approach....

by chrisc

Thursday May 16th, 2002 3:11 AM

Judging by the recent netscape homepage overhaul I reckon there will be a new theme in the next major netscape release, a slick looking number with green buttons by the looks of it..

#2 0.9.4

by wtmcgee

Wednesday May 15th, 2002 1:36 PM

suprised it's still based on the .9.4 branch........

#3 Re: A small Question

by orrin

Wednesday May 15th, 2002 1:39 PM

That way they can tout new features and speed improvements in the upcomming 1.0 based release.

#6 Typical

by tomgilder

Wednesday May 15th, 2002 3:56 PM

And NS release an 8Mb security patch.

#13 Re: Typical

by wvw

Thursday May 16th, 2002 4:00 AM

That's a bit stupid, indeed. The 1kk question is: why?

#14 Re: Typical

by wvw

Thursday May 16th, 2002 4:01 AM

That's a bit stupid, indeed. The 1kk question is: why?

#7 It would be 100% Netscape 7.0!

by ezh

Wednesday May 15th, 2002 4:46 PM

From bug

From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020506 Netscape/7.0b1 BuildID: 2002050606

#8 Whatever

by Tanyel

Wednesday May 15th, 2002 11:41 PM

I do not think anybody gets excited about Netscape upgrades anymore. All of my attempts to get friends to use Mozilla failed due to crashing or its appearance. I think I finally have a chance to get one person to use it because he has two new favorite sites whose big annoyances are popup ads. I am very concerned about these release candidates because they have numbers. That creates the possibility that the Mozilla project will reach RC50 and still be incomplete. I think it was bad to change the name to "release candidate" in order to gain temporary publicity. That will lessen the appeal of an actual release candidate.

#12 Release Candidates

by tottori

Thursday May 16th, 2002 3:41 AM

Umm... they're called "release candidates" because they are, in fact, release candidates. They have numbers so you can tell them apart, as you don't know in advance which one you are going to release (if you did, there'd be no point in having release candidates at all!). In principle, the final release should be identical in all but version number to the final release candidate. I don't know if are going to do it that way in practice. The temptation to fix "one last bug" may be too strong.

Personally, I'd be happy to see a couple more release candidates, but at some point they have to call it a day. There's always 1.0.1, anyway.

#15 Re: Release Candidates

by wvw

Thursday May 16th, 2002 4:05 AM

Maybe they shouldn't be adding features anymore, though. Like http pipelining (which is great, but gave me problems) and mail-cookies.

#17 Branch Features

by SubtleRebel

Thursday May 16th, 2002 4:42 AM

I have not noticed new features being checked in to the 1.0 branch. The two items that you mention are not new features.

HTTP pipelining support was added to Mozilla over a year ago (see There have been some recent bug fixes related to pipelining, but pipelining is not new.

"Mail-cookies" is not a feature; I believe what you are referrin to is a security fix.

#18 Not release candidates

by leafdigital

Thursday May 16th, 2002 4:46 AM

RC1 was definitely not a release candidate, in other words, there was no possibility that the final release version would be identical to RC1, so RC1 was not a candidate for being the final release. This information was clearly available (on this site when RC1 was first posted) and I don't know why you're confused about it.

They may turn into release candidates (I think everyone knew that some fixes would be needed after RC2 as well, but maybe 3 will be a genuine RC), I don't know what the thinking is on that.

(Of course the complaint about 'release candidates' being numbered is pretty silly... and it's clearly *not* going to drag on forever, I agree on that part.)


(noticing that this text box appears to be screwed [I'm using RC2].... very strange, haven't seen textarea problems for a while....)

#16 Re: Whatever

by darinf

Thursday May 16th, 2002 4:06 AM

<< due to crashing >>

Well that's not surprising with pre-release software. RC2 now crashes and locks up less often than IE for me.

<< or its appearance >>

Can you elaborate? What is it about Mozilla's appearance that made your friends not want to use it?

#10 Re: Great!

by Wildcard

Thursday May 16th, 2002 1:32 AM

1.0 is planned after RC2 and should be released by the end of theis month. Besides the 1.0 Party is in the beginning of June and Mozilla can't miss its own party can it :)

#19 known IE security hole ?

by dipa

Thursday May 16th, 2002 6:31 AM

I'm posting here because the topic is related to security. Go there

With IE5/6 for Windows, it uses an iframe from where you browse the contents of your root directory. With Mozilla, the iframe is empty.

Is it possible to send this information to the other side or it is just a silly trick for scaring IE users ? (the site promotes an internet security application).

#20 Re: known IE security hole ?

by chrisc

Thursday May 16th, 2002 7:11 AM

The iframe is just point to file://c:/ which in IE will list your folders/files but it basically harmless, this is just a scam and I would avoid their software, which is probably just advert junk.

#21 Re: Re: known IE security hole ?

by dipa

Thursday May 16th, 2002 4:00 PM

Thank you for the respose. I was aware of the "file:" trick but I was wondering if there is a way for a site (using js, not a simple iframe) to get the result of the directory listing.

#22 Re: Re: Re: known IE security hole ?

by zontar

Sunday May 19th, 2002 8:14 AM

You can't script between frames (or iframes) that are from different domains or that use different protocols (http://, https:// and file:// at least -- dunno about ftp://, gopher://, etc.).

#23 Re: Re: Re: known IE security hole ?

by zontar

Sunday May 19th, 2002 8:18 AM

Can somebody PLEASE do something about that boneheaded URL filter dingus? -- or at least enable editing of posts so we can fix it when it does stupid things like that? That's getting really *really* damned annoying.

#24 Netscape 6.2.3 doesn't connect to secured site

by bskk

Wednesday June 4th, 2003 1:40 AM

I have Netscape 6.2.3 on windows NT. I get the following error "The connection was refused when attempting to contact ..." when I try to borwse secured site. But there is no problem with other browser like IE5.X, NS 7.0.

How can I overcome this problem.