On 28/02/15 17:01, Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote:
Philip Chee wrote on 28/02/15 13:39:
On 28/02/2015 02:18, Robert Kaiser wrote:
Paul Bergsagel schrieb:
Surprisingly SeaMonkey has been rated as more secure than Firefox
Please scroll down to the second table:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/mac-os-x-is-the-most-vulnerable-os-claims-security-firm/?tag=nl.e539&s_cid=e539&ttag=e539&ftag=TRE17cfd61
Thank you SeaMonkey developers!!!
This just confirms that a count of fixed vulnerabilities is a very
bad measure for security. It just means that Firefox developers are
more vigilant in finding and fixing security issues, while the small
SeaMonkey team has no time to even look for any and just inherits
platform fixes.
For your information, I've been keeping a eye out that I've been
monitoring front end security patches landing in Firefox
(mozilla-central/browser) for more than a year and a half. I've been
porting these changes as they come in. Front end Firefox vulnerabilities
are pretty rare compared to backend problems. It is possible that I've
missed one or two, but I believe I've either fixed all known (front-end)
security issues or confirmed that they don't affect SeaMonkey.
Phil
Phil, Most of us are not in a position to financially thank you, for
your massive work in keeping SeaMonkey afloat, but we can still thank
you verbally. Much appreciated.
(or should that be Barry thanks you textually?? ;-) )
Plus one from me to you guys as well.
Ta
--
Daniel
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.32 Build identifier: 20141218225909
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.33 Build identifier: 20150215202114
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
