InsideTech

Bit9 is in bed with M$, and I have never been infected with Firefox. total and complete rubbish! IE7 isn't much better either if you remember, Day 1, IE7 was hacked. Hello, let's get some perspective!

complete rubbish. I've only ever been infected twice on this machine, both were trojans exploiting Flash via Opera as a browser. this whitelist needs to be re-evaluated.

try "Google Chrome" much better and faster then Internet Explorer or Firefox

This entire article is bullshit, plain and simple. I'd not be surprised to find Bit9 either on the M$ payroll, or in some sort of agreement or contract negotiation with Microsoft, in return for producing marketing fluff such as this. It certainly wouldn't be unlike Microsoft' behavior in its past business practices to attempt something like this, to secure a foothold by slandering their largest competition. It's been done before, in other words. I'd take this article with a grain of salt, and forget about it 5 minutes later, settle back in my comfy chair, and happily surf the web with Firefox and/or Opera, both of which I use, on multiple OS platforms. OH, and by the way, 'Popularity' doesn't .... NEVER means 'Security,' which means that this Bit9 'study' was flawed from the beginning. Anyone who isn't a moron could see by their study's description that, out of the gate, they were dead set on favoring a Microsoft product over anything else. Let's not take little jokes like this too seriously.

I think that its funny that Adobe and Java are on here when its pretty much vital to have those to be able to look at just about anything on the internet. Also Firefox I'm sure is a lot more secure then IE...if you noticed the latest breach in security in IE and they suggested that everyone switch to another browser Firefox being one of the main ones.
Ive never had any issues with Yahoo and MSN Live, yes maybe the assistant is a little annoying but i haven't picked up any viruses.

Seriously people think!

Internet browsers, other applications and all operating system and network communications software needs to be periodically updated by those technical organizations who use them. In the case of home users it's up to the individual to do the updates.

Once a software vendor provides quick response times to patching known vulnerabilities and a quick notification and update service to users, then the onus falls on the users themselves to maintain their software properly, which in this case means doing the updates.

The article suggests that rogue software installations and lax update procedures are causing security vulnerabilities in IT organizations, but it fails to place any burden of responsibility on the technical organizations themselves who are tasked with ensuring that these conditions do not exist, so it's inherently unbalanced and it's conclusions are questionable.

The study on which the article was based provides a ranking of based on the various risk factors. That somewhat subjective exercise provides a rough metric for risk analysis and is thus valuable, however IT organizations need to design and implement their systems and maintenance procedures with a high priority on best security practices.

Firefox comes with built-in automated update notification and installation and has been adequately responsive in providing timely security updates. So Mozilla has met it's obligations to the user community.

This has got to be the most skewed article that I have ever read. Browsers don't just run on windows, are not just upgradable through the not so easy to use windows upgrade agent, and should be considered more and more like an actual operating system when it comes to the internet age. Let me just say, anyone who doesn't understand that a stable and secure product is released through vigorous development and Quality Assurance testing. Once you do have a "solid product" you will not need to release daily or weekly updates, which is more of the M$ and Google way of thinking.