Researchers have identified a major – and potentially unfixable – security flaw with Microsoft Internet Explorer. This means that someone can link to what appears to be legitimate web address that is in fact a different site and give you what looks like a benign file that is in fact a virus.
There is no excuse for these kind of security faults – which is why I highly recommend using a non-Microsoft browser like Mozilla Firebird. Firebird’s open-source construction means that major security faults like this are many, many times less likely, and if they appear can be fixed in hours.
If you’re currently using IE, I cannot stress enough that you are opening your computer to any number of attacks and keeping up-to-date with patches may no longer be enough to protect you.
You know, if I designed a car that had a number of security faults so bad that anybody with the right knowledge could gain access and take my car, I’d be open to all kinds of suits. Especially if they could show that I had knowledge of these faults before the attacks began to occur.
Why isn’t Microsoft liable for the same suits? Their shoddy security costs billions every year. Why aren’t they being reamed with lawsuits?
There’s a reason for this – it’s because when you install a piece of software, you accept a license that says the manufacturer is not liable for any damages than may come from using that piece of software. In essence, you’ve said that if that piece of software blows up your computer, steals your girlfriend, or summons Cthulhu to devour your pets, you can’t blame Microsoft for it.
It’s yet another reason why I use open-source products whenever possible – I don’t have a warranty for them, but at least I know what goes into them and know that if there is a flaw like the ones with IE they will be fixed.
There’s a reason for this – it’s because when you install a piece of software, you accept a license that says the manufacturer is not liable for any damages than may come from using that piece of software.
Yeah, but I think most laywers would agree that a contract that you can’t read before you agree to it (ala when you pay for the software) and can’t reject (you can’t get your money back for software after you open it) wouldn’t hold up in court.
The last think Microsoft wants is for End-User Liscense Agreements to be tested in court – there’s no way they could hold up. I would think therefore that they’d be scared to death of provoking any kind of legal action against their software.
Open-source rocks, but the usability of OS’s like Linux has a long way to go. But there’s no reason to opt for IE and Outlook when Firebird kicks so much ass. 🙂
True, although I’d imagine that there would be other issues of indemnity they could use to avoid lawsuits. Usually the only time you get guarantees of liability are in mission-critical systems – and you pay through the nose for it.
Plus, you’d have to prove that Microsoft was being intentially negligent, which would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
Plus, you’d have to prove that Microsoft was being intentially negligent, which would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
I dunno if that would be so hard to prove. There’s plenty of IE and Outlook viruses that are exploiting problems that everybody has known about for months. Sometimes even the DMCA is invoked against people who are trying to bring these problems to light. It’d bepretty hard to argue that Microsoft is ignorant of a certain security flaw if they’re taking civil action to prevent its dissemination.