Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/17/2008 12:45 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: > Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: >> On 12/13/2008 10:47 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: >>> Taken from >>> * >>> SANS NewsBites December 12, 2008 Vol. 10, Num. 97 >>> ***

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/17/2008 05:41 AM, Robert Kaiser wrote: > NoOp wrote: >> It's OK, I read the methods& also tested with the expanded >> explainations turned on. I'm just hoping for a 'developer' (Ping >> Robert?) to test and provide feedback. > > Sorry, I have no clue on those issues. Probably best to hand t

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 12/13/2008 10:47 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Taken from * SANS NewsBites December 12, 2008 Vol. 10, Num. 97 * --Firefox

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

NoOp wrote: It's OK, I read the methods& also tested with the expanded explainations turned on. I'm just hoping for a 'developer' (Ping Robert?) to test and provide feedback. Sorry, I have no clue on those issues. Probably best to hand this to Firefox security people and ask them, as we're us

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/13/2008 10:47 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Taken from * SANS NewsBites December 12, 2008 Vol. 10, Num. 97 * --Firefox Tops List of Most Known Vuln

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/16/2008 04:45 PM, Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote: > Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote: >> NoOp wrote: >>> On 12/15/2008 08:34 PM, Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote: >>> NoOp wrote: > On 12/15/2008 02:58 PM, NoOp wrote: > > >> On 12/13/2008 08:34 PM, Justin Wood (Callek)

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote: NoOp wrote: On 12/15/2008 08:34 PM, Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote: NoOp wrote: On 12/15/2008 02:58 PM, NoOp wrote: On 12/13/2008 08:34 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote:

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

NoOp wrote: On 12/15/2008 08:34 PM, Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote: NoOp wrote: On 12/15/2008 02:58 PM, NoOp wrote: On 12/13/2008 08:34 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: Of note to everyone here is that Mozilla (

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/15/2008 08:34 PM, Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote: > NoOp wrote: >> On 12/15/2008 02:58 PM, NoOp wrote: >> >>> On 12/13/2008 08:34 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: >>> >>> Of note to everyone here is that Mozilla (SeaMonkey, Firefox etc.) report EVERY security bug once fixed and

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

NoOp wrote: On 12/15/2008 06:05 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: NoOp wrote: Along these lines, this might be of interest to try with SeaMonkey... http://www.info-svc.com/news/2008/12-12/ [Google Chrome Receives Lowest Password Security Score] http://www.info-svc.com/news/2008/12-12/pm-evalua

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

NoOp wrote: On 12/15/2008 02:58 PM, NoOp wrote: On 12/13/2008 08:34 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: Of note to everyone here is that Mozilla (SeaMonkey, Firefox etc.) report EVERY security bug once fixed and what it was. Some companies like IE, Apple, and possibly even Google (for ch

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/15/2008 06:05 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: > NoOp wrote: >>> Along these lines, this might be of interest to try with SeaMonkey... >>> >>> http://www.info-svc.com/news/2008/12-12/ >>> [Google Chrome Receives Lowest Password Security Score] >>> http://www.info-svc.com/news/2008/12-12/pm-ev

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

NoOp wrote: On 12/15/2008 02:58 PM, NoOp wrote: On 12/13/2008 08:34 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: Of note to everyone here is that Mozilla (SeaMonkey, Firefox etc.) report EVERY security bug once fixed and what it was. Some companies like IE, Apple, and possibly even Google (for chrome -- n

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

John Boyle wrote: NoOp wrote: If I get some time later I'll try it with SM 1.1.14 and 2.0a3pre to see what the results are. 1.1.14: To ALL: There is a question that comes to my mind, as I see a SM 1.1.14 is mentioned, but cannot find that anywhere. Is there really a version 1.1.14 or is

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:58:15 -0800 John Boyle wrote: > To ALL: There is a question that comes to my mind, as I see a SM > 1.1.14 is mentioned, but cannot find that anywhere. Is there really a > version 1.1.14 or is that a typo? :-[ There are only candidates for 1.1.14. It should be out fairly s

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/15/2008 03:58 PM, John Boyle wrote: >> > To ALL: There is a question that comes to my mind, as I see a SM 1.1.14 > is mentioned, but cannot find that anywhere. Is there really a version > 1.1.14 or is that a typo? :-[ > Tomorrow, or at least within a few days hopefully. I'm using a pre-

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

NoOp wrote: > On 12/15/2008 02:58 PM, NoOp wrote: > >> On 12/13/2008 08:34 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: >> >> >>> Of note to everyone here is that Mozilla (SeaMonkey, Firefox etc.) >>> report EVERY security bug once fixed and what it was. Some companies >>> like IE, Apple, and possibly

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/15/2008 02:58 PM, NoOp wrote: > On 12/13/2008 08:34 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: > >> Of note to everyone here is that Mozilla (SeaMonkey, Firefox etc.) >> report EVERY security bug once fixed and what it was. Some companies >> like IE, Apple, and possibly even Google (for chrome -- no

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/13/2008 08:34 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: > Of note to everyone here is that Mozilla (SeaMonkey, Firefox etc.) > report EVERY security bug once fixed and what it was. Some companies > like IE, Apple, and possibly even Google (for chrome -- no data), if a > security bug is only ever fo

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Robert Kaiser wrote: Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Mozilla's Firefox web browser versions 2 and 3 top the list with 40 reported flaws. The real interesting part is how many users out there (absolute or percentage) are using products with unfixed security flaws? How many

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

Robert Kaiser wrote: Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Mozilla's Firefox web browser versions 2 and 3 top the list with 40 reported flaws. The real interesting part is how many users out there (absolute or percentage) are using products with unfixed security flaws? How many days of having no fix for

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Mozilla's Firefox web browser versions 2 and 3 top the list with 40 reported flaws. The real interesting part is how many users out there (absolute or percentage) are using products with unfixed security flaws? How many days of having no fix for a known security vuln

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

In , Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: > Taken from > * > SANS NewsBites December 12, 2008Vol. 10, Num. 97 >

Re: Concerning Firefox and presumably SeaMonkey security

On 12/13/2008 10:47 PM, Rostyslaw Lewyckyj wrote: Taken from * SANS NewsBites December 12, 2008 Vol. 10, Num. 97 * --Firefox Tops List of Most Known Vuln