Mozilla Downloads Rise Following US-CERT Recommendation to Drop IE

Friday July 2nd, 2004

Wired News is reporting that Mozilla downloads have surged following advice from the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) to avoid Internet Explorer for security reasons. Download numbers approximately doubled in the days following the US-CERT recommendation, which was made in the form of an update to an earlier vulnerability note and comments to the press. US-CERT is a partnership between the United States Department of Homeland Security — the government organisation set up in the wake of September 11th to prevent terrorist attacks — and the public and private sectors.

US-CERT's advice follows last week's outbreak of the Download.Ject virus, which exploited a number of holes in Microsoft's IIS Web server and Internet Explorer to install a password-stealing trojan horse on Web surfers' computers. Microsoft patched some of the flaws before the outbreak occurred and today released another update that protects against the vulnerability by way of a configuration change (though the underlying problem has not been fixed). Windows users should hotstep it to Windows Update (must be visited using IE) to install the patch, regardless of whether they use Internet Explorer as their default browser.

#38 Re: Re: Re: Privacy Settings

by tono

Saturday July 3rd, 2004 5:13 PM

You are replying to this message

>People can still change the settings back even if they chose the increased privacy installation

The point of a default setting is that the vast majority of users won't want to change it. If you disable the function of many websites the average user will think there's something wrong with Firefox. While, we clearly know that this isn't the case, most people don't know what "session only cookies" are. Most people don't even know what cookies are at all, except that you eat them and they taste good. No, I'm sorry but this is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. I'm sure every single person that you know that wants this feature on by default, also know how to change it to suit your preferences.

>Why should it be wrong to do some good and block those sites.

Do two wrongs make a right? Ethically it's just as bad for you to block them as it is for them to block you. At least according to Kant. However, I feel this feature would be far more work than needed when the people who want it already have software to do just this. It's a webbrowser, not a damn nanny.

>A list of public anonyms proxies is good as a start.

Can you provide a list? And if you're going to provide all these as install time options, you're going to frighten a lot of people into thinking your program is too complicated for them to use. And if you just put it in the "custom" install field, noone will ever know these options exist because 99% of the population just clicks "standard." Also, it's a webbrowser, not a nanny, there's already software that exists that does this much better than Firefox ever could.