On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 02:06:11PM -0400, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 07:13:48PM +0200, Mathias Brodala wrote: > > Douglas Allan Tutty, 26.07.2007 18:23: > > > It seems that the mozilla-derived browsers have security issues > > > requiring updates far more frequently than other browsers like Konqueror > > > or links2. > > > > Aside from the fact that one software really can be more secure than > > another one > > is this the result of an increased usage. The more people use Gecko > > browsers, > > the more bugs can be found willingly or unwillingly. And the more people use > > Gecko browsers, the more lucrative is it to find security holes and damage > > systems this way. > > So this suggests that its a tradeoff: more users of Gecko means more > people reporting bugs and therefore more bug fixes but also a more > lucrative target for security threats; Konq may have more undiscovered > security holes but they are undiscovered both by bug fixers and security > threats? > > Is this the gist of the situation?
yes, but it amounts to security by obscurity... IOW, don't count on a smaller user base to provide security simply because its a less lucrative target... nothing prevents someone from looking for the security holes that are surely there even if its less lucrative. A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
