Microsoft: October 2004 Archives
Back in June, The Register screamed that US-CERT recommends not using Internet Explorer. Why in the face of a never ending cycle of patches would someone continue to use Microsoft Internet Explorer? Here's what I've been able to put together.
1. Business Use Case
Internet Explorer is the best browser for use with our intranet which uses Sharepoint and our future use of Microsoft Project. Alternative browsers do not have the same feature rich experience when dealing with Sharepoint and OWA. Additionally the integrated windows authentication would not be available with other browsers.
2. Ease of updates
Currently updates for Internet Explorer are performed using the SMS SUS FP. Its rather easy. Operating System patches and Internet Explorer patches can be done at one time. Third party browsers often require an install of a new version rather than a patch.
3. Vulnerabilities in alternative browsers are increasing in occurrence and severity.
4. User Education
Switching browsers doesn't address the true problem, the educated user.
5. Usability
Internet Explorer as the dominant browser works on most sites.
6. Manageability
Internet Explorer is enterprise ready. It can be configured via Group Policy. How will you centrally manage a third party browser.
7. Support
Who supports the third party browser? We would go from being Microsoft Premier customers to relying on newsgroups for help.
I was standing in line for lunch at the company cafeteria when someone commented to me that their Windows 98 system was more secure than their Windows 2000 system because it required less patching at Windows Update.
I'm not all that sure that number of patches is really a reliable metric for the security of a computer. Windows 98 was not designed with security in mind. There is just so much that you can do with it security wise. There is one patch for Windows 98. Its comes on a CD labeled Windows XP. I'm not sure if Windows 98 is even supported anymore.
Microsoft Monitor is a weblog by Juniper research group. Today's article attacks the FUD surrounding the JPEG vulnerability.
Good article all in all. The author praises Microsoft for limiting vulnerability by blocking the automatic display of images in Outlook 2003. This is good, but I do believe images included in the message itself (rather than just links to a website image) are displayed. Of course they have the chance to be scanned by SMTP antivirus.
Another important point of the article is to double check your antivirus. You really should be scanning all files. If you're scanning program files only, you need to add jpg and jpeg to that file extension list. There have also been reports that tiff uses the same interpreter. You're really better off scanning all files. I think most companies have caught on to that.
