I wonder how many Firefox users have cursed Symantec for their report, which says that Internet Explorer is much safer than their beloved open source browser.
Since Firefox has recorded 90 million downloads, we can only assume that the number was pretty high...
But is the number
of vulnerabilities really a criterion to assess a browser's security? Certainly not, and it would have been a better idea if Symantec had counted the number of exploits for Internet Explorer and Firefox. Not to mention that patching rate has been completely disregarded. As we know, the Firefox patches are released at a much faster rate than Internet Explorer's.
And if you are curious to find out the number of exploits, all you have to do is search on Google the expression 'Exploits for Firefox' and 'Exploits for Internet Explorer'. The first returned 1,520,000 results, while the latter returned 16,700,000 results.
It's true that 60% were (in both cases) news about the vulnerabilities, but, as you can easily see for yourselves, 60% of 1,240,000 is significantly less than 60% of 16,700,000.
Do you still feel like talking about browser security?
