Re: Where is the notificiation about IE zero day vulnerablity?

From: Imhotep (imhotep_at_nospam.com)
Date: 11/28/05 

Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:46:21 -0500

fluidly unsure wrote:

> Imhotep wrote:
>> fluidly unsure wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Imhotep wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>Again, then why are you wasting my time? I am just looking for the
>>>>answer to a question I have stated how many times? Even to logically
>>>>discuss it would be a good start...
>>>>
>>>>Imhotep
>>>
>>>I've seen it addressed/answered many times in this thread. The problem
>>>seems to be that they are not to your liking. You want people to jump
>>>through a bunch of hoops for you? Well ok, we all have our little
>>>fetishes. Just don't expect people to not get tired of it all.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I believe that you answered that it is not being reported because people
>> have not been infected yet. This does not follow logic since Firefox's
>> IDN did not have a single attack on it. Or did you reply that the news
>> media wrote the Firefox article because they wanted to shot down the myth
>> of Firefox's superior security? Again, does not follow the logic, since
>> why would CNN, Yahoo, etc even care which browser is more secure?
>
> No, but over 2 hours ago I did say that a break in FF security would
> have a high profile (hense more press) because of previous claims about
> FF security.

The problem I have with that is why would Yahoo, CNN or MSNBC care about
"shooting" down any browser perceptions about security. Really, why would
Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC even care? Really this is what Microsoft and he Mozilla
foundation care about....
 
>> I am just looking for a logical answer to a simple question in a sea of
>> crap, it seems. If you have a logical answer please enlighten me, I am
>> open to a logical discussion...
>>
>
> So far, I'm not so sure.
>
> But try this:
>
> Given:
>
> - FF has been sold as the solution to IE's security problems.
> - FF has gotten bad press when a low priority break occurs.
>
> Therefore:
> The type of press may be a result of the methods previously used.
>
> In other words:
> This is an example of why to avoid FUD-like marketing that uses fear to
> sell or change a persons behavior.
>
> definitions used:
> SOLD, v.tr.
> ...
> 6. To persuade (another) to recognize the worth or desirability of
> something: They sold me on the idea.
> v.intr.
> -- tfd.com
>
> FUD
> An acronym invented by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own
> company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people
> instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering
> [Amdahl] products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with
> safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit
> coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things
> would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over
> the future of competitors' equipment or software.
> -- tfd.com
>
>

Again, why would Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC even care about shooting down whatever
browser's security perception? I just do not see the logic in that. I
really do not even see any of them even caring...the only people who care
are the companies behind the browsers...

Imhotep

Relevant Pages