full-disclosure - Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: eballen1 at qwest.net (Bruce Ediger)
Subject: Comments on 5 IE vulnerabilities

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.