Report: Internet Explorer 9 Doesn't Suck

[-Dragmire-]

NSS labs is the same company that said internet explorer 8 stopped 2 to 4 times as many viruses as other browsers back in 2009. I think this report needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt.


Edit for clarification: The 2009 IE8 study was found to be grossly skewed in IE's favor and they wouldn't release specific data for peer review about the study, only the results.

Was looking for the info you were talking about and found this:

Independent testing company NSS Labs just published a report on the ability of popular browsers to block socially engineered malware attack URLs. The test, funded by Microsoft, reported a 99 percent detection rate by Internet Explorer 9 beta, 90 percent by Internet Explorer 8, and 3 percent by Google Chrome. Google doesn't entirely approve of this report's focus and conclusions.

While NSS Labs tested the very latest versions of Internet Explorer, it initially appears that it compared these with an older version of Chrome. Chrome 8 is the current version while the test used version 6. However, Chrome 6 was actually current at the time the test was conducted in September. It's not clear why Microsoft and NSS Labs waited until December to release the results. Many looking at this report won't realize that the version of Chrome tested is not the version they're using.

Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2374344,00.asp
dateec 15, 2010

I guess they do this every year...
^
^

A study run by NSS Labs called "Web Browser Security: Socially-Engineered Malware Protection" compared Safari 5, Chrome 12, Internet Explorer 9, Firefox 4 and Opera 11.

Hold up. I just checked and my up-to-date version of Chrome is version 13. And I checked Firefox for updates (don't use it much anymore) and it's now on version 6. I can't really take this study seriously if they're going to use older versions of other browsers for this test. Of course older browser versions aren't as protected, they don't get as many updates as the newest version if they get any at all. This study reeks of "we just wanted to make Internet Explorer look good".

yeah, pretty much.

 

[Aeshi]

Does this study take moddability into account? I mean Firefox alone has several dozen security add-ons, I'm pretty sure NoScript alone would close the gap quite a bit.

Can't really speak for the others as I've never used them.

 

[Outlaw Torn]

Maybe this is because circa 99% of IE users believe that they have won yachts from the internet fairies in competitions they had no idea they had entered? Everyone else has common sense.

Even thought they say that they are independant the fact that there is such a huge gap between IE and everything else is suspicious considering that most people who use various browsers every day haven't announced their own applause for how much safer IE became. And that they supposably used old versions of the other browsers is sort of like comparing the performance of a current day Ferrari and a Ford Model T...

 

[esperandote]

Finally being reluctant to change pays off.

Also, 13 versions of chrome in about two year, that's a version every less than two months, wow.

 

[Broax]

It's just too bad it fails to load html5 and css3 properly... -.-'

 

[Tharwen]

Maybe I'll accept it if they make it more responsive. Opening a new tab in IE8 always takes a few seconds as it waits for the page to start loading. It shouldn't really do that...

 

[Daemascus]

I hate IE9. They moved my buttons around, hided my menus, and it crashs way too damn often, saying its protecting me!!!! And all the other browsers look the same, so thats no help to me. But atleast they dont crash.

 

[theheroofaction]

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit, user reviews always rate IE as the Least secure browser and honestly, I'd rather trust 2 million reviews over one unreliable study.

As well, I've run into exactly 12 malware warnings and had exactly zero malwares get past the radar using firefox.

I'm sure chrome and opera users have had similar results. (as you don't hear people whining about the security on those)

 

[mParadox]

I dunno. My firefox has been getting kind of hinky lately. I still use it for work because I'm something of a plugin junky, but in my spare time I find myself looking more and more to Google Chrome.

I like Chrome for the elegant and shiny design it sports. :3 Thankfully, that particular theme is also available for Firefox so my FF looks like Chrome and works like FF.

I don't use that many add-ons to begin with. Too many add-ons can eat up memory and clutter up the program. 3:

 

[CardinalPiggles]

The difference in speed, accessibility and convenience are far too great to warrant me giving up Google Chrome.

And my anit-virus does the job so I'm pretty good thanks.

EDIT: Although I do remember having a major problem with Chrome before, where it simply refused to load anything but my new tab page. No one could figure out what it was, but they fixed it eventually.

 

[crepesack]

Does this study take moddability into account? I mean Firefox alone has several dozen security add-ons, I'm pretty sure NoScript alone would close the gap quite a bit.

Can't really speak for the others as I've never used them.

This is exactly what I'm thinking. I'm using FF6 Beta and Aurora right now anyways.... Also chrome has the same add ons as firefox.


EDIT: Read through the case study a bit. This is the most bullshit test I've ever seen. Looking at it, it seems each of the other browsers were used as they were downloaded: no changes in anything including no "no script" and no "ad block plus". While on the other hand IE9 received:

It became obvious from this worldwide test and our recent European and Asia-Pacific tests, in comparison to our earlier global tests, that Microsoft continues to improve their IE malware protection in Internet Explorer 9 through its SmartScreen® Filter technology and with the addition of SmartScreen Application Reputation technology. With SmartScreen enabled and Application Reputation disabled, IE9 achieved a unique URL blocking score of 89.5% and over-time protection rating of 96%. Enabling Application Reputation on top of SmartScreen increased the unique URL block rate of Internet Explorer 9 by 10.4% (to 99.9%) as well as the over-time protection by 3.2% (to99.2%). Internet Explorer 9 was by far the best at protecting against socially-engineered malware, even before App Rep?s protection is layered on top of SmartScreen.
The significance of Microsoft?s new application reputation technology

Not only did it have its settings toggled with, they turned on all the security settings making it probably 100% unuseable for casual browsing. When you block 99% of internet traffic no shit you're going to have 99% of things blocked. We can ignore this "study". Nice try microsoft.

 

[Ewyx]

I for one, hope it's true. Microsoft needs to get back into the game. The more competition, the better the user experience.

 

[JoJo]

I've never understood why people hate IE. I like IE. Especially 8. 8 was very conventient, and I kinda miss it

I like IE too, personally I think a lot of the hate is just people trying to be "cool" by being alternative and not using the mainstream browser. I have IE, Firefox and Chrome installed on my computer and there's no noticeable difference in speed between them, and IE has the best layout for me so I use that.

 

[ultimateownage]

I guess I can stop bugging my idiotic friend to switch to a different browser for a while then, even though practically everything else about it is done better in other ones. Knowing him he probably still uses IE6, though.

Does this study take moddability into account? I mean Firefox alone has several dozen security add-ons, I'm pretty sure NoScript alone would close the gap quite a bit.

Can't really speak for the others as I've never used them.

This is exactly what I'm thinking. I'm using FF6 Beta and Aurora right now anyways.... Also chrome has the same add ons as firefox.


EDIT: Read through the case study a bit. This is the most bullshit test I've ever seen. Looking at it, it seems each of the other browsers were used as they were downloaded: no changes in anything including no "no script" and no "ad block plus". While on the other hand IE9 received:

It became obvious from this worldwide test and our recent European and Asia-Pacific tests, in comparison to our earlier global tests, that Microsoft continues to improve their IE malware protection in Internet Explorer 9 through its SmartScreen® Filter technology and with the addition of SmartScreen Application Reputation technology. With SmartScreen enabled and Application Reputation disabled, IE9 achieved a unique URL blocking score of 89.5% and over-time protection rating of 96%. Enabling Application Reputation on top of SmartScreen increased the unique URL block rate of Internet Explorer 9 by 10.4% (to 99.9%) as well as the over-time protection by 3.2% (to99.2%). Internet Explorer 9 was by far the best at protecting against socially-engineered malware, even before App Rep?s protection is layered on top of SmartScreen.
The significance of Microsoft?s new application reputation technology

Not only did it have its settings toggled with, they turned on all the security settings making it probably 100% unuseable for casual browsing. When you block 99% of internet traffic no shit you're going to have 99% of things blocked. We can ignore this "study". Nice try microsoft.

Nevermind, ignore what I said. Gonna continue bugging my friend to switch, like usual.

 

[mjc0961]

EDIT: Read through the case study a bit. This is the most bullshit test I've ever seen. Looking at it, it seems each of the other browsers were used as they were downloaded: no changes in anything including no "no script" and no "ad block plus". While on the other hand IE9 received:

It became obvious from this worldwide test and our recent European and Asia-Pacific tests, in comparison to our earlier global tests, that Microsoft continues to improve their IE malware protection in Internet Explorer 9 through its SmartScreen® Filter technology and with the addition of SmartScreen Application Reputation technology. With SmartScreen enabled and Application Reputation disabled, IE9 achieved a unique URL blocking score of 89.5% and over-time protection rating of 96%. Enabling Application Reputation on top of SmartScreen increased the unique URL block rate of Internet Explorer 9 by 10.4% (to 99.9%) as well as the over-time protection by 3.2% (to99.2%). Internet Explorer 9 was by far the best at protecting against socially-engineered malware, even before App Rep?s protection is layered on top of SmartScreen.
The significance of Microsoft?s new application reputation technology

Not only did it have its settings toggled with, they turned on all the security settings making it probably 100% unuseable for casual browsing. When you block 99% of internet traffic no shit you're going to have 99% of things blocked. We can ignore this "study". Nice try microsoft.

Figured as much. Extra settings enabled for IE9 plus old versions of other browsers with no extra settings enabled = of course IE9 blocks more stuff.

Hey guys, I have a computer running Windows 7 with no antivirus, firewall, or Windows Updates and a computer running Windows Vista with an up to date antivirus, firewall, and all the proper OS updates. I bet my study will show that Windows 7 sucks and Windows Vista is the best thing ever!

 

[ResonanceSD]

So you're saying that unless I click on links that any idiot can recognise for malware, I'm better off using the faster, moddable browsers that don't have such a bad legacy? Amazing.