<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Microsoft makes Firefox vulnerable; Mozilla responds ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T04:03:13-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Unix, Linux, or go with a mainframe and use IBM.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3187104]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[or even write your own, plenty of options. Hell, you could go back to DOS too.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3187104]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:26:46 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You could try Unix, been around a lot longer than Windows]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3187102]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[or you could use Linux, or you could, shock, horror, write your own.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3187102]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:25:32 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I'm equating court issues with deliberate coding by MS]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3187101]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[to cause troubles for others. The inclusion of Internet Explorer was intentional, to reduce the number of Netscape navigator users by pushing IE on people. The MS code to stuff up FF was done intentionally, that sort of thing could not have happened by accident, just too much to have happen.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3187101]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:24:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Symantec?...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3186506]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I had the same problem sourced to Symantec. After disabling the Norton driver in device manager(even after using Norton's uninstaller), I still ended up using Macecrafts excellent registry tool to cleanup the mess!Never went back to 2.0 again!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3186506]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JCitizen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:00:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Getting Rid of .NET]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3186324]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hopefully, I will have time during next week or the week after to make a completely clean &quot;nuke and re-install it all from fresh&quot; of Windows XP and the applications that I use.  I won't re-install .NET if I can prevent it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3186324]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ocie3]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:56:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[If only we could be shot of this sh**]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3186017]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It is unmovable, like faeces on a blanket.Last year a .NET security patch could NOT install.  M.S. Tech Support had me un-install so I could re-installFirst I removed .NET 3.0.Then I tried and repeatedly failed to remove .NET 2.0There was some error that Catalog information was missing so XP did not know the order in which components were installed so it refused to uninstall them..NET 2 is NOT installed, it is incorporated and I cannot be shot of it.Since then XP has gone up from SP2 to SP3 and the missing Security Patch is now incorporated - or is that another M.$. lie ?Alan]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3186017]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[alan@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:18:26 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[nope]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185978]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I figure you wait to see if Mozilla can prove anything.  Then if they do, take that court decision and any huge law firm would take it and run with it.I wonder what a security compromise is worth?$10?  $100?  $10,000?It gets into 6 figures, I'll sign up for it.  I've used Firefox for years, and avoid IE.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185978]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jck]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:04:57 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Good luck not letting updates install...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185675]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I've hidden updates and even shut update down completely and some of my clients get IE 8 anyway whether they wan't it of not. It tries to install, every time I manually update whether I've unhidden it or not.Many older computers just can't run with it installed. However my old DELL won't run without .NET 1.1 latest update.I just can't win for losing.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185675]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JCitizen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:59:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I imagine MS got it's hide singed]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185671]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[by the mass migration of people to FireFox. Looks like they decided for &quot;get even time&quot;, if you ask me!The percentage of people changing browsers in just the last three months(including me), pretty much shows how we all feel. It may accelerate now! HA!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185671]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JCitizen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:47:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Example?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185586]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Please post the URL for a page where that happens and I/we will see whether it also occurs when I/we access that page.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185586]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ocie3]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:04:09 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Loading links from emails]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185542]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Lots of pages load with the links at the topand the text lower down.  This started a fewmonths ago.  Does anyone have an answer?jgarret9@bellsouth.netIs Microsoft at it again?My next computer will be an Apple.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185542]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jgarret9]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:22:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Do you want to]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185534]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[finance a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft for committing fraud??  We would have to prove actual damages, I believe.(No, I Am Not A Lawyer.)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185534]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ocie3]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:55:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Should we remove .NET ??]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185517]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Should we remove .NET and not allow Windows Update or Microsoft Update to install it??  There is only one program that is installed on my computer which requires .NET ver. 2 and it is not an essential program.  If Microsoft is going to use .NET as a wedge for installing insecure software and anti-competitive software on my computer, then I don't want it.Edit: I removed the Firefox .NET extension last Spring, shortly after it was installed, after I learned that it introduced Microsoft's &quot;Click Once&quot; technology that allows websites to install software in the background without the user's prior knowledge and consent.  I knew that the Windows Presentation Foundation plug-in was installed, but could not recall whether I chose to install it.  After Patch Tuesay last week Firefox 3.5.3 displayed the notice that Mr. Perrin describes.  The plug-in is currently disabled.  If experience serves, a disabled plug-in is removed when Firefox is next updated.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185517]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ocie3]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:45:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Unintentional?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185390]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I don't see anyway in which this could have been unintentional. Someone programmed a couple of plugins/add-ons for Firefox which deliberately introduce 'features' which even MS admits are major security problems. Then they shove those two add-ons into a Windows update that silently installs them as a privileged user (without including that 'feature' into the update description). For all of that to take place accidentally there would have to be some combination of mass selective amnesia and a collapse in communication to rival the Tower of Babel.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185390]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[bpsull]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:24:42 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes, Microsoft should be criminally prosecuted]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185371]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I agree.  This is malicious and knowingly puts people in harms way.  In this current environment of cybercrime and ID thief, where is the DOJ in policing this criminal activity?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185371]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dgbell]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:05:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Popular obscurity is not security.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185285]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The chief reason other OS's are less of a security problem is because less people utilize them and so they are less likely to be a hacker target. Incorrect.  In fact, that's probably the  least  important reason for a difference in practical security.  I said more about that in  response to another comment of yours.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185285]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:01:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Please read the article.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185282]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Read some other articles about the same thing, if you like.  Do  something  to educate yourself.Microsoft didn't make something &quot;better&quot; and accidentally break something: it changed a third-party application and  tried to hide that fact from users.  It's manipulating users and trying to take control of everything in their computing environments.  That's malicious and wrong.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185282]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:54:10 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&quot;It's just too popular!&quot; is not as good an argument as you think.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185281]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The main reason however that other OS's are less of a security risk is that they do not have the MS market share to make them popular targets.  A lack of popularity is not the main reason other OSes are more secure.  There's a minimal threshold beyond which it becomes worthwhile to attack a given OS or application, assuming it's easy enough to compromise the security of the OS or application.  Firefox and Chrome, MacOS X and Linux -- they're all popular enough to have crossed that threshold.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185281]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:51:43 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Microsoft should be prosecuted]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185129]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It appears that they knowingly installed the vulnerability and I tend to believe it was with malicious intent against a competitor. I don't believe it was an accident or unintentional. They have used other despicable tactics like this in the past and were prosecuted, and I think they should be prosecuted now. They should be punished!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3185129]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[harrylal]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:29:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Microsoft makes Firefox vulnerable; Mozilla responds]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3184956]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Microsoft has released every OS since 3.0 with tens of thousands of bugs. Their apparent way of debugging is to read angry emails and letters. The main reason other OS's became popular with the IT community is because of this behavior. The chief reason other OS's are less of a security problem is because less people utilize them and so they are less likely to be a hacker target. MS is not going to change their behaviors in these matters. They have too much invested in protecting their adshare and content. They apparently view lawsuits as just a cost of doing business. How sad.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319276-3184956]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[hueta]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:38:01 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

