# IE9 The Safest, Most Secure Browser



## Elvandil

The long-running myth of other browsers' supposed security superiority has finally been challenged with field tests. IE has has a pretty good record for a few years now, even as Firefox was releasing new versions that the authors knew contained security flaws, releasing them anyway.

Admittedly, IE has had a spotted history, but things change and have been changing now for many years, a fact that the myth-mongers seem to choose to ignore.

These tests show that other browsers are not even close. Over 99% caught by IE, Chrome 13.2, and FF at a pitiful 7.6.

Internet Explorer 9 Tops All Browsers in Malware Test

Is Internet Explorer 9 Now the Safest Web Browser?


----------



## TheShooter93

Very interesting post.

I've used Firefox since Windows XP because of the speed and security differences.

Now that IE9 has FF beat with security and the speed has improved, the only things left as a perk are the add-ons.


----------



## tomdkat

TheShooter93 said:


> Now that IE9 has FF beat with security and the speed has improved, the only things left as a perk are the add-ons.


Not true. Firefox 4 and 5 still have better web standards support than IE9. What performance tests have you run to conclude IE9 is faster than Firefox?

Firefox's extensions have always been one of the more attractive features of Firefox.

What I want to know is Mozilla's, Apple's, and Google's responses to the NSS Labs test. 

EDIT: Well, I found my answer. In a nutshell, the Firefox *community*, not necessarily the Mozilla Foundation, and the Opera *community* both question the objectivity of the NSS Labs test. Apparently, when NSS Labs tested IE8 against "the rest", they came to similar conclusions as they did in the IE9 test. However, it was discovered that Microsoft funded the IE8 test. You can read about it here:

http://www.thetechherald.com/articl...e-NSS-Labs-report-touting-the-benefits-of-IE8

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...rs-two-nss-reports-ie8-is-the-most-secure.ars

Those articles *do not* talk about the IE9 test being discussed here. However, it makes me wonder if the response from the competition will be the same as it basically was to the IE8 test.

Lastly, I found that Firefox (at least 3.x and probably 4) uses Google's malicious site list to determine if any given site being visited is malicious or not. I don't know if or how that changed in Firefox 5 or the recently released Firefox 6.

Peace...


----------



## TheShooter93

My exact words were "the speed has improved."

I know the speed of IE9 doesn't match let alone exceed FF or Chrome.


----------



## Stoner

tomdkat said:


> ................
> 
> Firefox's extensions have always been one of the more attractive features of Firefox.
> ....................


Indeed.

For me, tabs were the initial draw as a user followed closely by security extensions.
It's been so long since I've used IE as a browser, I'd have to learn all over again how to optimize it's security.

BTW....was the testing done in a default mode ( no extensions ) or optimized?
Since FF does improve as security extensions are added, the comparison would be incomplete with out those facts.


----------



## aka Brett

I will test them in a couple days..my bandwidth usage is up right now and I dont want to go over.
I will crank up xp in a virtual machine..turn off Av product
Use IE go hit the first 30 listed zero day sites ...Then scan with Malwarebytes 
Revert snapshot
Then do the same with FF
Then chrome

They will all fail miserably IMO,,,,Every time a new version of a browser comes out its supposed to be safe...Has yet to have happened though


----------



## Sharma7

Even though IE9 may be more "secure", Chrome is still the fastest.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10030888-92.html
It pwns pretty much all other browsers at speed and loading times and such.
I've noticed that people almost always root for the browsers they have. For example, you never see someone with Firefox rooting for IE..
Oh and how secure is IE8 vs IE9?


----------



## aka Brett

I have pipe lining enabled with FF...something I am not able to accomplish with Chrome
The difference is tremendous


----------



## SevenUp132

always funny to hear about ff fanboys and/or ie haters! makes me lol! well anyways, i think its just different styles that fits everyone, i mean its like windows/mac/linux
Gamer-->Windows
programer,custom user-->linux
computer newbe, photoshop-->mac
...and i pass...
like ie/ff/chrome....
speed-->chrome
security, usability-->IE
fancy thing-->FF
personnally i use the three of them and i dont care whats going on, i just wanna shop,search or download a few things!!
and thats what most of the people do i think.


----------



## jamwaky

I second SevenUp132's post!

Although I'll still continue to use FF, my opinion... looks better!


----------



## aka Brett

aka Brett said:


> I will test them in a couple days..my bandwidth usage is up right now and I dont want to go over.
> I will crank up xp in a virtual machine..turn off Av product
> Use IE go hit the first 30 listed zero day sites ...Then scan with Malwarebytes
> Revert snapshot
> Then do the same with FF
> Then chrome
> 
> They will all fail miserably IMO,,,,Every time a new version of a browser comes out its supposed to be safe...Has yet to have happened though


Still crowded on bandwidth usage here...will wait a couple more days


----------



## jiml8

The IE9 claims will lead to a false sense of security. If indeed IE9 is now that good at catching malware sites and downloads, then that is obviously a good thing, and I won't say anything against it. But it is not complete.

Beyond malware there is the data collection and theft that is routinely going on sponsored by many of the ad-content websites. None of these sites will show up as malware sites, therefore the browser will take no action to block these sites. Arguably, these sites are a greater threat - at least over the long term - than the malware sites.

Firefox with noscript almost eliminates that threat, and makes it manageable. Also, that combination simply won't run the malware even when/if firefox doesn't detect it as malware in advance. Firefox with noscript working through Privoxy is nearly immune to attack.

I would like to see a noscript plugin for IE9. If that was available, then maybe IE9 would be worth using. IE9 with noscript working through Privoxy would be quite safe, I think. That is...if I was browsing using Windows, which I am not doing...


----------



## Ent

Let's see, I have a web filter installed on my machine which blocks blacklisted malware sites. I also have an antivirus (Avast) installed that has a web guard to block malware sites. Do I care which browser has access to the biggest list of potential infection sites, most of which will already be covered by at least one of those? A truely secure browser would be one that isn't hit by the exploit in the first place!

The way I see it IE is boasting in merecat security; a complex sentry mesh devoted to identifying and warning about danger, apparently not realizing why everything is so dangerous to them. When they give evidence that they have rhinocerous style security I'll consider it!


----------



## aka Brett

Ent said:


> A truely secure browser would be one that isn't hit by the exploit in the first place!
> 
> !


Exactly
Blocking addresses is hardly "fixing" the problem


----------



## SevenUp132

jiml8 said:


> Firefox with noscript almost eliminates that threat, and makes it manageable. Also, that combination simply won't run the malware even when/if firefox doesn't detect it as malware in advance. Firefox with noscript working through Privoxy is nearly immune to attack.


I guess you're right, but still the greatest threat is password/bank info/personnal info theft! but unfortunately there is no such message as "do NOT share or give ANY personnal informations on the internet" when you open a browser, anyway,careless people would still continue throwing their personnal away on every not trusted site!!
the best security begin with youself?
never use the same password, prevent a hacker who find your windows password for exemple will not have acces to your bank account at the same time!
a lot of easy tricks can be used to increase security, but please do not rely to much on the browsers supposed to be "security improved" it does'nt help in any way with theft...it only prevent your computer from being infected by malware that can slow down your computer and /or try lure you(in case of trojan)to buy false product! then again if you threw your credit card number its your fault!
making sure a site is trustable or not is the big deal!


----------



## aka Brett

I went ahead and did a fast test using xp
Zero day links{latest malware}
On the 3rd link with IE..xp was hosed rather well...I was greeted by a porn screen with a timer to enter some kind of info..I couldn't navigate anywhere else with xp ..control alt del did not work either
However it did give me a warning on the second link

I restored my snap shot and tried chrome it hosed xp on the 3rd link as well...failed to warn me of the second link
Same for chrome

I then decided to try a few more...IE was actually catching a few...the others didnt catch anything

Note...I used IE8 rather than 9...as I didnt want to download 9

Malware scanning would have been useless..as IE would have won as it did offer some protection...for me it blocked about 20 percent{roughly}...chrome and FF zero.

IE8
Latest Chrome
FF 3.6

IE8 does have an advantage...If IE9 has more of an advantage than IE8...this could be a substantial safety advantage while surfing the net.

Attached is the warnings I was receiving.
Note...I was not blocked from the domains...but could not run the files
Thumbs up


----------



## jp1203

My two cents:

I've used Firefox for 6+ years, and before that I used Netscape (remember that!?). Never been a huge IE fan, mainly because virtually any other browser seems to render pages quicker.

However, Firefox can be a huge memory hog. I've seen it use well over 500 MB of RAM after it's been open for a while...and that doesn't even count the "plugin container" service that it starts for plugins. A simple open-close of the browser solves it, but it still shouldn't happen. 

Never liked Chrome--it's lean, mean, and fast, but I just don't like the simplicity of it. Same with FF 6, I had to switch the menus back on.

The only thing I use IE for is accessing my work e-mail from home...it's through MS Exchange, and only the bare bones interface will run on FF. ...and actually, I use IE Tab for that, I just set a rule for the URL so it always opens in IE.


----------



## dotty999

I use FF and sometimes Chrome as it's fast and simple which suits, don't bother with IE, it appears quite slow in comparison


----------



## aka Brett

JStergis said:


> My two cents:
> 
> I've used Firefox for 6+ years, and before that I used Netscape (remember that!?). Never been a huge IE fan, mainly because virtually any other browser seems to render pages quicker.
> 
> However, Firefox can be a huge memory hog. I've seen it use well over 500 MB of RAM after it's been open for a while...and that doesn't even count the "plugin container" service that it starts for plugins. A simple open-close of the browser solves it, but it still shouldn't happen.
> 
> Never liked Chrome--it's lean, mean, and fast, but I just don't like the simplicity of it. Same with FF 6, I had to switch the menus back on.
> 
> The only thing I use IE for is accessing my work e-mail from home...it's through MS Exchange, and only the bare bones interface will run on FF. ...and actually, I use IE Tab for that, I just set a rule for the URL so it always opens in IE.


I have used FF for several years myself...due to a few add ons I like really well.
I also suffer High usage of ram at times..its not usual for me to be in excess of 400 MB
I am at 153 MB at the moment..only because its only been on a few minutes
I do like chrome..just doesnt have the add ons I like...they are adding though all the time as we speak



dotty999 said:


> I use FF and sometimes Chrome as it's fast and simple which suits, don't bother with IE, it appears quite slow in comparison


IE actually runs decent for me...as I dont use it much which would have it accumulating its own add ons ...large history etc
On an older machine I use though IE runs terribly slow on it..it s has 384 MB of ram..so chrome gets mainly used on it

IF they ever start having the add ons I want/ I would use IE...I didnt expect it to protect at all...but it does offer some protection..enough worth being a consideration..I was surprised..What is odd was it was blocking downloads..rather than a warning about the website.
I would hit a website ..then would click on the download that would pop up {I done it that way as that is what many would have done}..it then said they were unsafe in a very noticeable manner...and allowed me to cancel.

When my data usage goes down..I will put on 9 and give it a workout..and maybe run more links for FF and chrome.
Its only fair to try it more than once...as things change so fast it may not excel next time and one of the other browsers may.
But for the first run...I have to eat my words,as I thought it would be just like the rest
MS is making pretty good strides with keeping our machines safe..A free decent AV {MSE} and a good browser..User Account Control and various other features.

But....I still use FF due to some add ons I really like...will be hard to get me to switch..the others have a long way to go to catch up with the customabilty of FF


----------



## jp1203

For instance, I've had Firefox open for about an hour, with three tabs and one window. The memory use is high even now! Around 300 MB counting the plugin services. 

I don't think there's any excuse for a web browser to use more resources almost immediately than Photoshop CS5 Extended and ITunes combined.

...but, I have 4 GB of RAM and have never managed to use more than 3, so I guess I shouldn't get too concerned with it.


----------



## aka Brett

aka Brett said:


> When my data usage goes down..I will put on 9 and give it a workout..and maybe run more links for FF and chrome.
> Its only fair to try it more than once...as things change so fast it may not excel next time and one of the other browsers may.
> But for the first run...I have to eat my words,as I thought it would be just like the rest


I cant install 9 on xp..so I cant test IE9 as I planned...MS doesnt support 9 with XP
I did run a few more links on IE8 and did manage to have a website blocked.
So at least with 8 there is a certain level of protection...I wouldnt rely on it very much...but if a person wants to implement all the safety they can on their PC...IE is worth using


----------

