• subscribe
July 06, 2004 12:00 AM

Browser Wars II? Alternative Browser Downloads Surge in Wake of IE Exploits

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #43172

The long-stagnant Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) might command about 95 percent of the Web browser market but a recent spate of security vulnerabilities seems to be finally helping IE's competitors make some inroads into the market. Even the usually staid United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) has taken the unusual step of advising users to switch to a different browser because of IE's many attacks. The result has been a bonanza for safer browser alternatives such as Mozilla and Opera.
  
The Mozilla Foundation reports that daily downloads of its Mozilla browser suite and Firefox Web browser have doubled since US-CERT's recommendation; on the day of the US-CERT announcement, the foundation says that users downloaded the products more than 200,000 times. "More people seem to have reached their threshold level of frustration dealing with problems with IE and Windows and have found the Mozilla software a good solution to solving those problems," Chris Hofmann, The Mozilla Foundation's director of engineering, said. "US-CERT's recommendation is just a reflection of the trend we have seen for quite some time."
  
Experts point to several obvious problems with IE. First, the browser is so widely used that it's a natural attack point. Second, IE is integrated directly into the Windows OS, a curious and ultimately damaging decision that made a previously secure Windows NT-based system vulnerable to new types of attacks. Third, IE technologies such as ActiveX have proven to be highly insecure, and many IE attacks exploit ActiveX-related vulnerabilities. Microsoft will address the latter concern in Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) but the company has no plans to provide this functionality in other Windows versions or to completely decouple the browser from its OSs.
  
The Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software say that they have solutions for the first problem. If the current download rates continue, the browser alternatives might soon be nibbling away at IE's massive market share. If that happens, Web designers will have to take those browsers into account more often when they design Web sites. And because Mozilla and Opera adhere more closely to Web standards than IE does, that situation could eventually lead to dramatic changes on the Web in general. Perhaps future IE versions would also be more standards-compliant as a result, which would make the process of developing Web sites much easier because developers could simply target one standard. Today, IE's market share causes Web developers to target IE's nonstandard technical idiosyncrasies first.



ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • wendy
    8 years ago
    Jul 09, 2004

    "Everything that Microsoft does they submit as a standard and like it or not if it had not been for Microsoft we would still be in a text based web world."

    What's this guy smoking? 'cuz the rest of us could use some! Microsoft was late to the party, pal. They almost missed the web train. This kind of revisionist history would be funny if it weren't so obvious that the writer is suffering from the worst form of intentional ignorance possible.

    As far as "standards" are concerned, IE is one of the least standards-compliant browsers out there. The fact that 90+ % of the public uses it has no bearing on that. I guess that's what you can get away with when you're a convicted abusive monopolist. But that doesn't make it right. I'll give Microsoft its due, though: Their swiss-cheese software has been a boon for spyware and virus authors.

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

  • Dan Bush
    8 years ago
    Jul 09, 2004

    IE may be the most prevelant, but it's very poor, inaccurate and incomplete support of basic web standards such as CSS1 and 2 and XHTML, along with a slew of just plain wrong interpretations of those standards means that IE "is" the problem. As a web designer, my attitude is to write to the standards first ( since they work in Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, etc. ) and then fix all of the IE-related issues later. THis always works out better than writing to non-standard MS extensions and then trying to make the pages look right afterwards. IE is the lowest common denominator - what a shame.

  • Pit
    8 years ago
    Jul 09, 2004

    @William O'Malley
    "First of all let me just say that Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is THE reason that the web is what it is today."

    Your absolutely right. IE is the ONE reason that compatibility on the net is a problem. The harmful "embrace and extend strategy" and idiots which are not able to see the value of open standards..

    "I would have no problem with programming to different browsers if there were a standard"
    Good for you. Look at www.w3c.org Standards have been around long before MS could spell "internet".

    "Everything that Microsoft does they submit as a standard"

    Oh. Sorry. I just realize that you were joking. Better use irony tags next time ...


    @Mike Dimmick
    "This simply isn't true. Internet Explorer is just another user-mode process"
    So you can fully deinstall IE and all its components (e. g. by deleting the dlls used) without changing the OS? No? Well, then it is part of the OS, isn't it?

    "IE's security model is stronger."

    *LOL*
    The security model does not matter as long as there are ways to circumvent it.

    "It's only a matter of time before some extension is exploited"
    You're forgetting that Mozilla et. al runs on other plattforms. It should be way more difficult to make a general exploits, so you can expect to see "Mozilla exploits on Windows" (such as the current "shell:") but not Mozilla exploits as such. How can Mozilla be secure when the underlying OS is not. Oh, well, they could rewrite the windows whole API and bundle it with the browser... :-)

  • NOT SO FAST!
    8 years ago
    Jul 08, 2004

    http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4960

  • Travis Walls
    8 years ago
    Jul 08, 2004

    Each browser has their own strengths and weaknesses. IE offers ease of use and integration into Windows. Safari is a simple and lightweight default option for Mac users. Firefox is a modular and powerful browser that aims to be consistent across all major computing platforms. Many people complain about designing for several browsers but fail to realize that if you actually comply with the standards that are already in place (and have been for some time), your page will look great in any browser. It is only when you use the off-the-wall proprietary functions like CSS-customized scrollbars that you find inconsistent behavior between IE and other browsers. I've also seen cases where sloppy code loaded fine in IE but was all wrong in Firefox. Is it the browser's job to be "friendly" by guessing how the page was meant to be displayed? No! The designer should make sure they learn how to code before blaming the user for not using the "right" browser. The W3C is a great place to consult when the goal is to make a page that looks great no matter what is used to load it.

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here