Comments on: Microsoft Tells Users Not to Install Google Chrome Frame http://www.searchenginejournal.com/microsoft-google-chrome-frame/13570/ Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:56:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Bob http://www.searchenginejournal.com/microsoft-google-chrome-frame/13570/comment-page-1/#comment-1205030 Bob Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:57:56 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=13570#comment-1205030 Microsoft, while seemingly operating from a position of self-interest, is right. Attaching someone else's software to software of its own enlarges the target for hackers. Everyone admts that IE and other Microsoft products are targets for attacks. That choice is not due to the fact that Microsoft products are intrinsically less secure than others but rather due to the prevalence of its products and the availability of its published standards and documentation. Other software makers such as Apple and Redhat have never really had to probe the depths of their software insecurity because they have not been pressed to the wall by the sheer numbers of cyber sociopaths that Microsoft has had to fend off. They simply don't offer the opportunity for financial gain to hackers that Microsoft does. By exposing IE to additional attacks through Google's Framework whose standards are also published, it does indeed double the exposure area for IE, and at present, it would be an uncontrollable exposure for Microsoft. It is true that any toolbar or add-on to IE offers the same risks IF they allow unchecked data to flow through IE into a system. That is why IE 8 under Windows 7 has undergone some exceptional changes to its processes. IE running on top of earlier Microsoft OSes do not have the benefit of such improvements. I am sure that Google's engineers have worked hard to produce this framework, but bear in mind that Google has never had to test its own limits by deploying software directly to 92% of the world's desktop computers and then living with the consequences. It has operated for the most part as a centralized computing resource accessible through the web. If it succeeds in moving its framework to the desktops of the world, it will find that it, too, will be as big a target for cyber crime as that of Microsoft, and the chickens that accompany such actions will come home to roost. Microsoft, while seemingly operating from a position of self-interest, is right. Attaching someone else’s software to software of its own enlarges the target for hackers. Everyone admts that IE and other Microsoft products are targets for attacks. That choice is not due to the fact that Microsoft products are intrinsically less secure than others but rather due to the prevalence of its products and the availability of its published standards and documentation. Other software makers such as Apple and Redhat have never really had to probe the depths of their software insecurity because they have not been pressed to the wall by the sheer numbers of cyber sociopaths that Microsoft has had to fend off. They simply don’t offer the opportunity for financial gain to hackers that Microsoft does.

By exposing IE to additional attacks through Google’s Framework whose standards are also published, it does indeed double the exposure area for IE, and at present, it would be an uncontrollable exposure for Microsoft. It is true that any toolbar or add-on to IE offers the same risks IF they allow unchecked data to flow through IE into a system. That is why IE 8 under Windows 7 has undergone some exceptional changes to its processes. IE running on top of earlier Microsoft OSes do not have the benefit of such improvements.

I am sure that Google’s engineers have worked hard to produce this framework, but bear in mind that Google has never had to test its own limits by deploying software directly to 92% of the world’s desktop computers and then living with the consequences. It has operated for the most part as a centralized computing resource accessible through the web. If it succeeds in moving its framework to the desktops of the world, it will find that it, too, will be as big a target for cyber crime as that of Microsoft, and the chickens that accompany such actions will come home to roost.

]]> By: Chris http://www.searchenginejournal.com/microsoft-google-chrome-frame/13570/comment-page-1/#comment-1117936 Chris Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:17:57 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=13570#comment-1117936 Lol! Can't wait to see how this Microsoft vs Google debate is going to unfold further! Lol! Can’t wait to see how this Microsoft vs Google debate is going to unfold further!

]]> By: Nik http://www.searchenginejournal.com/microsoft-google-chrome-frame/13570/comment-page-1/#comment-1117107 Nik Sat, 26 Sep 2009 08:19:04 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=13570#comment-1117107 So are Microsoft saying that all plugins used in IE are potentially dangerous? Does this include those written using Microsfot approved APIs? Surely it would be better for Microsoft to not allow ANY plugins or extenstion. Then it can guarnatee the security of it browser completely. Or is it only Goolge plugins it has problems with? So are Microsoft saying that all plugins used in IE are potentially dangerous?
Does this include those written using Microsfot approved APIs?

Surely it would be better for Microsoft to not allow ANY plugins or extenstion. Then it can guarnatee the security of it browser completely.

Or is it only Goolge plugins it has problems with?

]]> By: Tanner Powell http://www.searchenginejournal.com/microsoft-google-chrome-frame/13570/comment-page-1/#comment-1116887 Tanner Powell Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:25:57 +0000 http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=13570#comment-1116887 Haha, I love how they resorted to fear-mongering at the end. Good luck, Microsoft. Haha, I love how they resorted to fear-mongering at the end. Good luck, Microsoft.

]]>