ie8 fix
madison

Will switching from Internet Explorer make you safer?

By | January 22, 2010, 3:47am PST

Summary: The panic over this month’s wave of targeted, zero-day attacks against Internet Explorer is over. Microsoft has released an emergency security update that patches the underlying vulnerabilities, and everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. But what does this episode say about Internet Explorer? Is it inherently unsafe?

The panic over this month’s wave of targeted, zero-day attacks against Google, Adobe, and other companies is over. Microsoft has released a security update for Internet Explorer that patches the underlying vulnerabilities, and everyone can breathe a sigh of relief.

But what does this episode say about Internet Explorer? I’ve seen several pundits argue that Internet Explorer is inherently unsafe. I think they’re overreacting. Yes, there is a case to be made for using a different browser, especially one with a lower market share that is targeted less frequently than Internet Explorer. (And if you’re too impatient to read this entire post, then skip to the last page for that discussion.) But it’s also true that switching browsers is a small part of a comprehensive, defense-in-depth security strategy.

One thing’s for certain: Changing browsers isn’t a magic bullet, and it might not have made a difference in this case, as I explain in this post.

First things first: How do I protect myself from becoming a victim of this exploit?

Regardless of which version of Internet Explorer or Windows you’re using, you should install today’s Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (described in KB978207 and Microsoft Security Bulletin MS10-002). This update should be delivered automatically via Windows Update or Windows Software Update Services.

You should also turn on Data Execution Prevention, a feature which prevents code execution from data pages in memory (technical details for the Windows XP family are here, for Windows Vista and 7 here). DEP is on by default in Internet Explorer 8. To enable DEP on Windows XP or Windows Vista with IE6 or IE7, use the Fix It tool on the MS10-002 advisory page.

So, exactly what happened in this case?

The public does not know the full details of what happened. Various reports and analysts have published conflicting reports with a lot of speculative analysis. A January 12 report by Verisign’s iDefense security outfit blamed the attacks on an Adobe PDF vulnerability. That report was retracted two days later, although many news stories based on that inaccurate report have not been corrected.

Next page: Unanswered questions –>

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
372
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Will switching from Internet Explorer make you safer?
FAULKNE 13th Oct
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.
0 Votes
+ -
The Apple and the Worm
tburzio 22nd Jan 2010
MACs are immune to viruses, not to worms. You can still launch a program if the program is written poorly, but once you reboot it is clean.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
That's nonsense
Ed Bott 22nd Jan 2010
Do you really believe that? The system magically is aware that a particular program has bad intent and automatically removes it on demand?

Sheesh, that's some strong Kool-aid you got there.
0 Votes
+ -
Seriously ed...
Spiritusindomit@... 22nd Jan 2010
That was one of the more obvious trolls I've read in the past few months. Having a bad day?
0 Votes
+ -
n/t
0 Votes
+ -
Two claims, both wrong
honeymonster 22nd Jan 2010
1) Macs are *not* immune to viruses. Even though Apple has tried to protect the kernel from being changed, there are always vulnerabilities and ways around that. And OS X has had plenty!

2) Reboot does not clean out a Mac. Geez, where did you get that idea?
0 Votes
+ -
Ed has been in damage control mode ...
n0neXn0ne Updated - 22nd Jan 2010
... all week.

PS. The damage has already been done.


^o^

0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
You didn't even read this post, did you?
Ed Bott Updated - 22nd Jan 2010
If you had, you wouldn't call it "damage control."

Read page 5 and let's talk.
0 Votes
+ -
skimming the first page was enough
gfryesc@... 22nd Jan 2010
the rhetorical title-question is best answered
with another zdnet title:

Microsoft knew of IE zero-day flaw since last
September

so yes, switching from Microsoft software after
Microsoft sat on this flaw for almost 4 months
would almost certainly make you safer.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
OK, fine
Ed Bott 22nd Jan 2010
You want to make accusations without even reading what I wrote. PS: I highlighted that same article in my post here.

Welcome to the kill-file.
0 Votes
+ -
In all due fairness to Ed...
Wintel BSOD 22nd Jan 2010
and believe me, I'm no fanboy of his. He did say this...

In my opinion, if you don?t have overriding compatibility or support issues, there are several good reasons to prefer alternative browsers such as Firefox or Google Chrome to any version of Internet Explorer. For starters, both Mozilla and Google have generally been faster at releasing updates to security issues than Microsoft. If it?s true that Microsoft knew about this issue for more than four months before delivering a fix, that?s a big argument against trusting IE.
0 Votes
+ -
More accurately it is a form of spin, and you are a clever spin doctor.

But, as the previous poster stated, the damage's done and not even clever wording such as "lesser market share browsers", "not necessarily", "switching is a personal decision" work in this situations.

Any probable damage is just probable, not fact.

Also, you give conflicting arguments such as:
...if you don't have overriding compatibility or support issues...
then you state that people should migrate to IE7 or IE8, when in fact those same reasons prevent people from doing that.

Most sites are either IE6 exclusive or universal/IE6 crashers. You can't have both. IE7 was a mess and IE8 is too much a memory hog. IE6 works fine in XP, but Microsoft has been lazy updating the browser used by 50% of the market.

So spin it the way you want. People aren't gonna magically switch to Win7/IE8. What they are gonna do is ditch IE6 and push Firefox or Chrome on Windows XP to feel secure.
0 Votes
+ -
Missing the point.
jeremychappell 25th Jan 2010
Browser are more important than you realise. Often companies have
deployed "web applications" that depend on IE6 weirdness. Yes, I
agree that if it depends on IE6 then it's hardly a "web application" -
that's why I used the quote marks. But this is a fact, a sad fact. Should
it have been like this? No, of course not, but we have to deal with what
we have. For a lot of folks these "IE6 apps" are vital, they are what they
have computers for, they are "line of business" and "mission critical".
No matter what, these users can't dump IE6, not without rewriting
those "IE6 apps" to be proper "web apps". That's often a major
problem, the original developers are long gone, and they have huge
sprawling amounts of difficult to understand code with many
dependancies.

Ed makes a good case for moving off IE6, but this is tempered with an
understanding that the real world is often more nuanced than simple
"dump IE6" advice allows.

If you're on IE6, and you can get off, you should - now. The further
away you can get from IE6 (especially on XP) the better.

But getting off IE6 isn't a "Silver Bullet", you still have to make sure
your OS is patched, and your plugins are up to date (Flash for
example). Even then, you need to think about what you're doing. Don't
just download stuff and run it, be careful about what files you share,
and stay on top of the latest threats.

I use Mac OS X (most of the time) as well as Linux, XP, and Windows 7.
I'm cautious in all of them, keeping up with patches for both OS and
applications in all of them. I don't think just because I'm not running
XP: "OK I'm totally safe now, I can switch my brain off and not worry
about anything". By the same token, I still use XP when needed.
0 Votes
+ -
noneXnone, that is so right!
Ron Bergundy 22nd Jan 2010
The damage was done years ago, the moment M$ decided that they weren't going to go open source with their crappy products.

The smart people like us understood for years that there's no place in this world for Windoze, instead going with the bug free, unhackable Linux is the only real option, being that its the only real OS out there.

Now if you need something to play games on, that's different - get Windoze if you have to, but playstaition is the safest bet.

But if you HAVE to use Windoze (maybe because your boss tells you you have to) then get Firefox because they don't put out buggy software.

When's the last time you heard of a security problem with Firefox? In version 1 maybe, but not after that.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Bug Free and Unhackable
bobiroc 22nd Jan 2010
OMG!! Thanks for the laugh. You also may want to check your facts... Firefox patches for security too and has issued bug fixes. No software is Bug Free and/or unhackable.
  • Flagged
Unfortunately, new users don't learn the basics
like not staying logged in as 'root'. Any system
can be compromised by its users.
0 Votes
+ -
That can go for any OS
bobiroc 24th Jan 2010
Too many people let their entire family run as admins and I always recommend that one parent runs as admins and monitors everything being installed. Microsoft has done many good things to counteract the fact that their OS is the most targeted but nothing can 100% the human factor and no operating system can do that.
0 Votes
+ -
and being "the most forced upon people" O/S is no excuse for that.

In fact I'd argue that if you must illegally tie up distribution channels then your software had better be ten times better than the competition rather than ten times worse.
  • Flagged
Thousands of titles written poorly for Microsoft forced MS to default users to admins.
Programmers wrote them as and for admin permissions so there was no alternative, except leave the entire breadth of otherwise really great software out and have nothing for the OS to run.
0 Votes
+ -
Ed gave you an answer... If you had read the article..
Galactica Actual Updated - 22nd Jan 2010
"Mozilla has issued multiple security updates for Firefox 3.5 addressing memory corruption vulnerabilities similar to those used in this case (two examples are here). Mozilla Security reported 34 Critical security advisories in 2009, defining Critical as those that ?can be used to run attacker code and install software, requiring no user interaction beyond normal browsing.?"

http://secunia.com/advisories/35798/


Please read.
0 Votes
+ -
Why would someone use IE
prof123 22nd Jan 2010
Unless you are forced to use IE in a corporate environment, why would anyone use it at home?

Yes, all browser may be hacked, except that Firefox and Chrome are safer. I use Firefox with Noscript and I never got any malware.

One time a got a new computer (from Best Buy), turned it on and started IE to get Windows Update. I was infected with some mallware within seconds... Had to change some settings in IE. Great user experience.... MS is ruled by people with propeller hats.
...system became infected with it?
0 Votes
+ -
Because the first site he went to
bobiroc 22nd Jan 2010
was probably some warez or torrent site or maybe he is into the porn thing. Doubtful Windows update did that. I work on countless computers and I run all updates and probably install most software before installing an antivirus and never once have I seen an infection sneak on a machine by going to safe sites and with adequate protection (available for the low cost of FREE) you one of the many people that are just click happy and have no regard for security.

"Wow, I would love to get a good deal on prescription drugs.. let me just click this link"

"What do you mean my Bank of America account has been compromised. I better log in and change my stuff even though I don't bank there"

"Let me just browse this site or use this program to download loads of free music, software or porn. I can't be that bad right, after all it is free"

Should I go on?
0 Votes
+ -
He's using an argument that was valid over 5 1/2 years ago but went away with the release of XP SP2. But I thought I would give him a chance to show otherwise.

I don't expect to ever get the name of the malware. Every time I ask for the name of the malware someone claims infected their system they can never provide it.

Furthermore I tire of reading about infections with an eight year old OS and browser given Microsoft has released two newer versions of each. They're grasping at straws by focusing on an outdated OS and browser.
0 Votes
+ -
You still didn't answer his question
Wintel BSOD 22nd Jan 2010
Unless you are forced to use IE in a corporate environment, why would anyone use it at home?

Yeah. Why?
0 Votes
+ -
...
evilkillerwhale@... 22nd Jan 2010
If you got malware, you didn't have an AV.
That means you didn't have a way to detect the
malware. Furthermore, if you go to microsoft.com,
or google.com to find your updates then it's
ridiculous to think you got malware from it. What
were YOU looking at, hmm?
0 Votes
+ -
He got a popup that *told* him...
fairportfan 25th Jan 2010
...that he was infected and that he could only get healed if he bought their wonderful anti-virus, of course.
0 Votes
+ -
Which could have happened under any browser browsing the web. I have seen such infections on computers that exclusively use Firefox for their browsing or more specifically anything but IE. Just further proves the point that you cannot account for human error and safety has to be in the hands of the computer user most importantly.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
That might have happened in 2003
Ed Bott 22nd Jan 2010
Code Red was able to infect a system that was joined to a network without any user intervention.

Beginning with Windows XP Service Pack 2 in 2004, the Windows Firewall was turned on by default, so exploitation within seconds was simply not possible without your active assistance.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually it's possible.
stuffinator@... 22nd Jan 2010
He said he got a new PC, but he didn't say he dumped all of his files.

It's possible that he's had a big bomb in one of his files somewhere, so that as soon as he copied them over to his unpatched and unprotected OS, he infected the whole thing.

In fact this happened to me just the other day. I'm still in the process of scanning my whole file collection in that other OS (it's several hundred gig, so I don't expect to be done soon) before I reattempt to reinstall my Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Nice BS there
JamesDoyle 22nd Jan 2010
so you claim that you fresh installed windows, opened ie to go to windows update and got infected within seconds? I'm sorry but thats pure BS, or you are a complete moron that barely knows how to power on a computer, much less use it.
0 Votes
+ -
Yep -
pkrdk 22nd Jan 2010
and like MS they sat on their fat asses for months without doing anything?

Actually there are hacker-free OS's out there. Ever heard of an IBM AS/440, iSeries or mainframe being hacked?

MS have never produced one single piece of SW not having serious problems when released to the unknowing public. With all the issues from the launch of IE, have you ever thought of how the first version really was? Unsafe at any speed, probably wide open.
0 Votes
+ -
"Now if you need something to play games on, that's different - get Windoze if you have to, but playstaition is the safest bet."

If I wanted to do something serious, with 90% of the professionally written, paid-for apps out there, I'd be using Windows too. I certainly wouldn't be using some shareware OS with shovelware free-apps, that's for sure.

But hey, that's why you're an amateur computer user, with a geek OS, browsing the web, and why I'm a professional developer, using an OS that fits the bill, writing professional software.

You're the perfect example of why Linux won't be taken seriously by professional developers, if the users are a joke, there's a good bet the OS is "made to fit".

What's even worse is that you list something by Sony (them of rootkit fame) as being safe. There are probably more hacks and exploits on the PS3 thanks to Linux than any other console... oh the pure irony of it all.
0 Votes
+ -
Now, hold on a minute...
supermadman 22nd Jan 2010
Like 5 years ago, all I'd ever here about Linux was
that it's difficult for anyone of a lower rank than
l33t and only geeks and Linux developers would use it.

Now you're saying it's used by morons and that,
therefore, it must be an OS for morons.

... wha?!
0 Votes
+ -
its always been easy to use
JamesDoyle 22nd Jan 2010
the problem that its a huge pita to fix without just reinstalling.

so long as everything is going fine, and the basic user is ok with the current settings they will be fine on it.

the problem arises when basic users start tinkering with settings and then something goes wrong. its a huge mess by comparison to OS X and windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh, stop it already
nevthaman 22nd Jan 2010
I'm a professional developer too, in the world of Linux.
If'n I wasn't, would I be able to produce all those nice , low-cost solutions that don't cost an arm and a leg and homage to Microsoft???? happy
0 Votes
+ -
Yes you would
ITLeader 22nd Jan 2010
You know that to be true.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, it's amateur time
pkrdk 22nd Jan 2010
this time confirmed by someone who calls himself professional. Move, it's NOT 1997 anymore.
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks
10W1V1 22nd Jan 2010
I agree..
I develop as well and I find it amusing how every time something happens it is time to switch to something else. Yeah, that is great if you are developing/managing 1,2,3... machines, but when that turns to thousands of machines you cannot just switch every time something happens! (well at least, and still be employed) I guess that is the difference between a small scale and large scale mentality.
Just switching browser versions, (if done correctly) can be a daunting task, since it has to be tested against every internal/external app, every operating system and hardware platform, etc.. multply that times a few thousand machines, a couple hundred thousand users it is not quite so simple.
I have also seen numerous layout issues on upgrading from IE6 to IE7 and up, so you cannot update your entire organization's browser version until the backend applications support it, UAT is completed and then change controls are submitted for the upgrade.
So I guess those with one and two machines, switch at will.. those of us who handle national enterprises will still do things the safe and thorough way.
Also amusing if anyone has done coding, then you definately understand how difficult it can be to try to give what users want, code securely and meet budget and time restraints. I think anyone that codes deserves all the money they can get, even MS. You will pay McD 7 bux for a burger meal but won't spend that same 7 bux for code that took someone months or years to develop, test and support and it will last you for a far greater time than that burger.
0 Votes
+ -
very well said
Aussie_Troll 22nd Jan 2010
it's so amusing that these amateurs just "dont get it". as much as the likes of you try to spell it out for them. Simply and clearly.

But the lights are on but no one is home.
0 Votes
+ -
Cos amateurs
Agnostic_OS 24th Jan 2010
"dont get it". Yes everything is too technical and too difficult for amateurs

http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/Hamsats/HamsatsBasics.html

Only the weak "professional" has to hide what he knows.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Two facts seem to be missing from your idea of reality.

1.) NO software, not even Linux is 100% bug free. IF that were the case, there would never be a need for patches and sorry to say, mate, but there are plenty of patches for Linux.

2.) Firefox - as nice as it may be - is far from perfect. It, like any other software product, has bugs. If you're reality were the case, Firefox 3.0 would still be on it's 3.0.1 version - NOT 3.0.17. Seems that's it's 17th update since it was released. Newer versions also have been patched.

So much for Mozilla not putting out buggy software.

Your fanboi post just makes you look like a Lintard.
0 Votes
+ -
I Agree!!!
elCharles 22nd Jan 2010
They are truly hurting themselves by not open sourcing IE, some of My
favorite things about Safari, Chrome, and Firefox are how they are made
better by open sourcing. And the features added to these browsers from
the open source community, are ones that I rely on.

Seriously MS, y'all paying mad money for programmers to develop an
inferior browser, open that code up and let the world take a crack at it,
they WILL make it better as Firefox and Chrome have pretty much proven.
0 Votes
+ -
i'm sorry, but...
Dave32265 22nd Jan 2010
I'm strictly Linux myself and that one made me cringe :/
0 Votes
+ -
RE: noneXnone, that is so right!
codefisher 23rd Jan 2010
I don't beleive I read that!!

Ok first I will say, I am using Ubuntu 9.10. And I am a huge fan of Firefox, which is why I write extensions for it (got a user base of 250K if your interested).

But your comments are just laughable.
0 Votes
+ -
You gotta be kidding...
SupraGuy 22nd Jan 2010
Okay, I'm not the first to chim in on this. If you seriously believe that, you'd better do some checking.

A virus is a program which exists to replicate itself from executeable file to executeable file. Therefore any computer capable of executing program code and having programs, particularly core programs on a writeable media is susceptible to viruses. About the only computer that I can think of off the top of my head which would be guaranteed clean on reboot would be a Commodore 64, since the entirety of it's system programs are stored in ROM. (Even its contemporary, the Apple II loaded it's disk software from the disk itself.)

Since when I last checked, the core of OSX is still potentially writeable files on a hard disk, this means that it is indeed completely vulnerable to viruses, once the target code is executed by a parent process with a suficiently elevated security level. Therefore the only reason why there are not the same number of security compromises for Mac is simply that it doesn't seem to be worth the time for the malware writers to do so.

At some point in time, someone WILL write such an application, and my prediction is that it will spread like the proverbial wildfire through the Mac community simply because of the attitude that "Macs cannot get viruses."

I feel that this attitude is dangerous, and it is unfortunate that I've seen Macs sold on this basis.
0 Votes
+ -
lolwut
Bonesnap 22nd Jan 2010
Macs are not immune to viruses. Viruses are just programs coded to do something maliciously (or at least cause undesired behaviour), hence why they're grouped under malware. I can't believe there are people in this day and age who truly believe Macs are immune to viruses.
0 Votes
+ -
UGH. How embarassing.
lostarchitect 22nd Jan 2010
Seriously, are you just a troll, trying to make
mac users look dumb? Because if not, you are embarrassing the rest of us mac users.
0 Votes
+ -
No Mac virii here yet (though my antivirus program did find a windows virus dormant on one of the files I transferred when emigrating from windows)...

And it's clean only so long as there's no reference to have the malware launch on system startup (for local user or the admin account 'root').


I will say this: When IE gets NoScript and AdBlock, I still won't go back to it. Windows itself is a hole-filled mess with the omnipresent registry. They can fix everything else, but they are stuck with the registry and all the problems therein. (And if Microsoft is capable, they certainly don't seem willing to fix it since it's been over a decade people have had to live with it and testing Win7 right now, nothing will EVER be fixed... assuming it wasn't meant to be broken in the first place, but then my life in IT goes back to the IBM/MS battle with OS/2 and Win32s... and before even then...)
Thanks very much! happy Chanel Tote Bags
Good day to confirm this comment I would appreciate T h e b e s t o f Z D N e t d e l i v e r e d your website very nice to everyone Yes, Oracle is the only one with shared-disk architecture, but that is there advantage. It means you can add or remove nodes and the database lives on. In a shared nothing architecture, if you lose a node, you lose the system. I'm sure Oracle appreciates EMC highlighting their advantage.I also desire to signal in your RSS feeds. Thank you as soon as once again and maintain up the great operate Awesome post! Thank you very much || thanks for nice content this is really benefit to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix