unixman Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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. 1
Hightower Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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$, being a 'unixman' and all. 1
webman Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Standard marketing practice if you ask me. Can't see any BS in there. But maybe that's your biased opinion of M$, 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. Edited October 12, 2011 by webman 2
tommej Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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. 4
cromertech Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited October 12, 2011 by localzuk
MK-2 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 It is unreliable, unscientific and borders on false advertising. Haven't Apple and other companies thrived for years doing this?
SYNACK Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 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 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Maybe this is just me being naive, but I class this as perfectly acceptable marketing practice.
elsiegee40 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 I don't know about 'perfectly acceptable' marketing practice, but it's certainly standard practice... it's no better or worse than the claim that "9 out of 10 cats prefer..." Although a report to trading standards for investigation might yield interesting results. Is anyone a member of Which?
Heebeejeebee Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Doesn't the fact that browsers can be told to act like others mean that somewhere along the line standards are not being stuck to? The sooner everyone creates something that works exactly to the rules the better and we can all stop bickering about which one works best and just go on to assess added features rather than what should be base functionality. My 2p worth. HBJB
SYNACK Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Doesn't the fact that browsers can be told to act like others mean that somewhere along the line standards are not being stuck to? The sooner everyone creates something that works exactly to the rules the better and we can all stop bickering about which one works best and just go on to assess added features rather than what should be base functionality. My 2p worth. HBJB Agreed, the main issue is that they refuse to agree on the 'rules' to start with, HTML5 is still a mess of competing proposals supported differently by different browsers/interests all supporting their own way of doing things that for the most part would give them an advantage or degrade the quality of the end product. When the rules are actually finalized we'll be on HTML6 and the same rubbish bickering will be happening with that.
CyberNerd Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Some browsers are just more compliant with standards than others - whats IE9 score on an acid test these days? The Acid3 Test
SYNACK Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Some browsers are just more compliant with standards than others - whats IE9 score on an acid test these days? The Acid3 Test 100/100 according to my machine just now, the mobile version is even quite good, comparable or better than most other smartphone browsers.
CyberNerd Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 100/100 according to my machine just now, the mobile version is even quite good, comparable or better than most other smartphone browsers. Thats not bad at all. last time i looked IE8 was around 20/100 lagging behind virtually everything. I do like it when MS stick to the rules.
mthomas08 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Haven't Apple and other companies thrived for years doing this? Was thinking that. I just did the test got 3/4 (IE8) then I looked around on that site had a compatibility issue it refreshed it self had the compatible pop up appear (at the top) now I get 1/4...
SYNACK Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Was thinking that. I just did the test got 3/4 (IE8) then I looked around on that site had a compatibility issue it refreshed it self had the compatible pop up appear (at the top) now I get 1/4... Compatibility mode is pretty much IE7 hence the drop as people have discovered above it just checks the browser identifyer otherwise they would get into all sorts of trouble in all sorts of duristictions for compromising the security of people's browsers even if they made it painfully clear someone would get stroppy and sue them again. This is what happens when you sue people for including features or doing things.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now