More marketing BS from M$

[unixman]

Your Browser Matters

Billy boy is trying to spread more FUD by rating your web browser's "security" rating.

My results are (all tested on windows)
Opera - We can't give you a score for your browser
SeaMonkey 2.0.13 - We can't give you a score for your browser
Konqueror 4.7.0 - We can't give you a score for your browser (are you starting to detect a theme?)
Safari 5.0.4 - We can't give you a score for your browser
Lynx - We can't give you a score for your browser
Firefox 7.0 - 2/4
Chrome - 2.5/4
IE7 - 1/4
IE8 - 3/4

Apparently, if you test it on IE9 you get a perfect 4/4, but I haven't bothered to download IE9 yet. However, Opera pretending to be IE - 4/4 - Result! My browser passes the Microsoft test - so I'm safe after all.

[Hightower]

Would like to know what's 'BS' about it? Microsoft has defined some standards that it feels browsers should meet in terms of security, and then has tested a few browsers to see how they compare. I'm sorry, but if I have a product worth sell you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be comparing it to competitors to show how mine stands out.

Standard marketing practice if you ask me. Can't see any BS in there. But maybe that's your biased opinion of M$, being a 'unixman' and all.

[webman]

Standard marketing practice if you ask me. Can't see any BS in there. But maybe that's your biased opinion of M$, being a 'unixman' and all.

The BS is that if you tell your "insecure" browser (Opera) to pretend it's IE9, then it miraculously passes the test.

So it's not actually testing the security of the browser. It's looking at the User Agent string and telling you that non-IE9 browsers are less secure than IE9.

Additionally, I reckon there are other numerous security features that Opera, Firefox and Chrome have that IE don't, which MS aren't bothering to include.

[tommej]

The problem is they have created these standards which then cannot be tested against other current browsers and are then somehow suggesting their browser is superior.

[SYNACK]

Whatever the rest of your post says is kind of offset by your claims about 'Billy boy' or more politely Bill Gates who has not been in control of the company for ages. If you can't even get your insults right it throws up questions regarding the rest of your statments. At least insult Balmer with the standard vitriole about throwing chairs, keep your insults up with the times otherwise you'll have to give up your trolling badge.

[cromertech]

That seems to be a good comparison site to me. If you look at the detailed breakdown, IE does not score a perfect 4/4, there are some crosses in there. What is convenient however is the way they've grouped the items to get the 4/4. This is marketing but not BS marketing.

[Hightower]

The BS is that if you tell your "insecure" browser (Opera) to pretend it's IE9, then it miraculously passes the test.

So it's not actually testing the security of the browser. It's looking at the User Agent string and telling you that non-IE9 browsers are less secure than IE9.

Additionally, I reckon there are other numerous security features that Opera, Firefox and Chrome have that IE don't, which MS aren't bothering to include.

So just because the site doesn't actually test the browser (would you be happy if it did?!) it's BS? Perhaps M$ hasn't included features held by other browsers. Perhaps M$ doesn't class those features as important. But I fail to see the BS here - it's just good marketing.

[CyberNerd]

So just because the site doesn't actually test the browser (would you be happy if it did?!) it's BS? Perhaps M$ hasn't included features held by other browsers. Perhaps M$ doesn't class those features as important. But I fail to see the BS here - it's just good marketing.

If it doesn't actually test the browser it is proof that it is just a marketing tool and that the site doesn't test the browsers at all.
Besides -the score is largely irrelevant anyway:

Of note in the Windows Team post is that the latest Microsoft Security Intelligence Report discovered that 0-day exploits account for a mere tenth of a percent of all intrusions. Holes in outdated software and social engineering account for the majority of successful attacks.

Microsoft Says IE9 Blocks More Malware Than Chrome - Slashdot

[Hightower]

If it doesn't actually test the browser it is proof that it is just a marketing tool and that the site doesn't test the browsers at all.

This might not test the browser, but I'd be pretty miffed if M$ tested it. What they have done though is tested these browsers themselves and then are linking the results to what your browser claims to be. I'm not saying it's not a marketing tool. I'm saying it's marketing, and good marketing at that.

[pete]

Even were it a proper test that accurately assesses browsers it fails the impartiality test - they have a vested interest in a certain browser succeeding.

[CyberNerd]

This might not test the browser, but I'd be pretty miffed if M$ tested it. What they have done though is tested these browsers themselves and then are linking the results to what your browser claims to be. I'm not saying it's not a marketing tool. I'm saying it's marketing, and good marketing at that.

They don't even provide evidence that they tested the browser at all?!!? Perhaps I just have a low BS threshold, if I came up with my own site and claimed the opposite then there would be plenty of people here claiming it was BS. I this case it is clearly BS because Microsoft themselves say that 1/10th of a percent of intrusions are actually browser holes, so the difference between a hypothetical 'score' of 2 or 4 is meaningless.

[localzuk]

So just because the site doesn't actually test the browser (would you be happy if it did?!) it's BS? Perhaps M$ hasn't included features held by other browsers. Perhaps M$ doesn't class those features as important. But I fail to see the BS here - it's just good marketing.

The BS is this - Microsoft define their standard of what is 'secure'. That's the first red flag. Then they simply check User Agent strings to compare with a limited database, meaning that they don't actually check to be sure that their tests are relevant to the end user looked at their site, they just assume the browser is completely the same as their test model - an assumption you shouldn't make on the net.

They also don't make their meteorology or provide proof of their claims.

Finally, they have grouped things in such a way as to promote their own browser over the competition.

All of those things make it BS. It is unreliable, unscientific and borders on false advertising.

[MK-2]

It is unreliable, unscientific and borders on false advertising.

Haven't Apple and other companies thrived for years doing this?

[SYNACK]

Haven't Apple and other companies thrived for years doing this?

I thought he was describing any and all current news items, is this not simply the status quo in the post moral, all profit, all the time world.

[Hightower]

Maybe this is just me being naive, but I class this as perfectly acceptable marketing practice.