Symantec: Mozilla browsers more vulnerable than IE

Mozilla Web browsers are potentially more vulnerable to attack than Microsoft's Internet Explorer, according to a Symantec report.

But the report, as reported earlier, also found that hackers are still focusing their efforts on IE.

The open-source Mozilla Foundation browsers, such as the popular Firefox, have typically been seen as more secure than IE, which has suffered many security problems in the past. Mitchell Baker, president of the foundation, said earlier this year that its browsers were fundamentally more secure than IE. She also predicted that Mozilla Foundation browsers would not face as many problems as IE, even as their market share grows.

Symantec's Internet Security Threat Report Volume VIII contains data for the first six months of this year that may contradict this perception.

According to the report, 25 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for the Mozilla browsers during the first half of 2005, "the most of any browser studied," the report's authors stated. Eighteen of these flaws were classified as high severity.

"During the same period, 13 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for IE, eight of which were high severity," the report noted.

The average severity rating of the vulnerabilities associated with both IE and Mozilla browsers in this period was classified as "high", which Symantec defined as "resulting in a compromise of the entire system if exploited."

The Mozilla Foundation did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Symantec reported that the gap between vulnerabilities being reported and exploit code being released has dropped to six days on average. However, it's not clear from the report how quickly Microsoft and Mozilla released patches for their respective vulnerabilities, or how many of the vulnerabilities were targeted by hackers, though Microsoft generally releases patches only on a monthly basis.

Symantec admitted that "at the time of writing, no widespread exploitation of any browser except Microsoft Internet Explorer has occurred," but added that it "expects this to change as alternative browsers become increasingly widely deployed."

There is one caveat: Symantec counts only those security flaws that have been confirmed by the vendor. According to security monitoring company Secunia, there are 19 security issues that Microsoft still has to deal with for Internet Explorer, while there are only three for Firefox.

The report also highlighted a trend away from the focus of security being on "servers, firewalls, and other systems with external exposure." Instead, "client-side systems -- primarily end-user systems -- (are) becoming increasingly prominent targets of malicious activity."

Web browser vulnerabilities are becoming a preferred entry point into systems, the report stated. It also highlighted the trend of hackers operating for financial gain rather than recognition, increased potential exposure of confidential information, and a "dramatic increase in malicious code variants".

Tom Espiner of ZDNet UK reported from London. CNET News.com's Joris Evers contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Talkback 5 comments

    Surprised? Anonymous -- 20/09/05 (in reply to #120121224)

    Of course Symantec are going to focus on the Mac, Firefox and Mozilla - their business depends on there being a massive volume of computers with poorly secured OSes and browsers. As more and more desktops sport Linux or OSX, Symantec have to spread their FUD to these platforms to keep their stakeholders happy!

    Compromise my whole system? Anonymous -- 20/09/05

    <P>To quote the article: "...classified as 'high', which Symantec defined as 'resulting in a compromise of the entire system if exploited.'".

    <P>Yet more Symantec FUD. Sorry guys, but the worst thing that could happen on my Linux and/or FreeBSD boxes is that Firefox <STRONG>might</STRONG> be able to hose my user data. The underlying OS would be safe because I don't do day-to-day tasks as a privileged user!

    <P>Oh wait, doesn't a standard WinXP install add all users to the <EM>Administrators</EM> group by default? Yep - that's Mozilla's fault too I guess.

    Maybe Symantec need to fix their own products first Anonymous -- 21/09/05

    Like getting an installer/uninstaller that does not require manual intervention if something goes wrong (which it often does). Or activation that doesn't work properly. Or a sub standard spyware scanner. Or being a resource hog.
    Then again if they fixed all that I'd have nothing to do at work.

    Mitchell Baker ??? Frank Rizzo -- 21/09/05

    This is the best joke of the day, I will remember Mitchell Baker forever

    Totally unfair criteria Anonymous -- 22/09/05

    This is such a load of moldy old bollocks.

    They are comparing a product which only came out of beta a year ago with one which has been around for a few years, and has already sufferred from repeated, targeted attacks, for which countless patches have been issued.

    A better comparison would be how many security warnings IE6 caused during the first 12 months of release. A quick look at these pages:

    http://www.securitytracker.com/archives/target/49.html

    And you may (not) be surprised.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • David Braue All I want for Xmas is Telstra pricing
    Five consecutive days without broadband has led me to what seemed at the time to be an act of desperation: contemplating signing up for Telstra's 100Mbps cable modem service.
  • Array Sick of broken tender sites
    Some of the state governments desperately need to invest in more user-friendly tender sites so that looking for information on government tenders doesn't have to be a game of blind man's bluff.
  • Array Cyberwar: What is it good for?
    In this week's episode, Cyberwar. What is Australia's place in the world of digital warfare? What are the implications for the NBN?
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured