Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities
From: "Bruce Ediger" <eballen1 () qwest net>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:10:05 -0700 (MST)
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Frank Knobbe wrote:
Maybe one solution for MS could be to unhook IE from the OS, slowly distance itself from it and instead add a different browser, one that is more secure, with less bells'n'whistles perhaps. They have abandoned and replaced products in the past, perhaps it's time to do that with IE. (I know I have -- exchanged IE for a different browser... for the most part at least).
What did Steve Ballmer say about integration, Windows and a Ham Sandwich? Microsoft *cannot* do what you propose: they swore in US Federal Court that IE constituted an integral part of the Windows operating system. There's more than The Law going on with that, too. MSFT upper management apparently firmly believes that IE is Windows is IE: try explaining to your wife why her computer really is connected to the Internet when IE wants to dial AOL every 3rd or 4th page it downloads. Unhooking IE will never, ever happen. In fact, IE will get further integrated into Windows. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities Thor Larholm (Dec 01)
- Re: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities Frank Knobbe (Dec 01)
- Re: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities Bruce Ediger (Dec 01)
- Re: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities Cael Abal (Dec 01)
- Re: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 04)
- Re: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities Jelmer (Dec 02)
- Re: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities Georgi Guninski (Dec 02)
- Re: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities John Sage (Dec 02)
- Re: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities Frank Knobbe (Dec 01)