Comparatively Speaking...

Monday July 1st, 2002

Linux Online recently compared the major Linux browsers, including the Mozilla-based trio of Mozilla 1.0, Netscape 6.2 and Galeon. Reviewer Michael J Jordan praises Mozilla's stability, tabbed browsing, rendering and customisation.

As mentioned by fondacio on our forums, the International Herald and Tribune took a look at Mozilla, Opera and NeoPlanet (note that the site doesn't seem to work in some builds of Mozilla). Reviewer Lee Dembart says that "Mozilla is impressive and has it all over Opera." He especially likes the ability to block pop-ups, tabbed browsing and pipelining.

UPDATE! tuxracer writes: "I've put up a browser comparison list, comparing various features that affect usability and W3C standards compliance. It compares Mozilla 1.0, Netcaptor 7.01, Internet Explorer 6.0 (Windows), and Internet Explorer 5.x (Mac)."

#68 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not my experience

by SubtleRebel <>

Sunday July 7th, 2002 12:16 PM

You are replying to this message

First of all, Klez (<>) and Nimda (<>) are both triggered by simply viewing/previewing an email with Outlook or viewing a web page with IE. It is not necessary for the user to click on anything or execute any attachment. These threats did indeed top the charts left and right.

Also MS IE's buffer overrun vulnerability (<>) is triggered by simply viewing a web page.

As for Help.Dropper, it is just an example of the recently discovered flaw. It is rather naive to think that you would find an exploit in the wild by doing a search for Help.Dropper in Google. Anyone maliciously using that method would be stupid to advertise it by referencing the name Help.Dropper in their code or on their website. Also due to how this vulnerability works, most users would not be likely to trace an infection back to the source. The sample given does not show itself until you reboot the computer, so why would users think that it was related to an email or webpage that they had viewed sometime during a previous Internet session?