<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Digital Trends - Latest Comments in Firefox Now The Most Vulnerable Browser?</title><link>http://digitaltrends.disqus.com/</link><description>Digital Trends is your source for technology news, product reviews, buying guides and free software downloads</description><atom:link href="https://digitaltrends.disqus.com/firefox_now_the_most_vulnerable_browser/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:23:49 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Firefox Now The Most Vulnerable Browser?</title><link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/firefox-now-the-most-vulnerable-browser/#comment-24680323</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Of course the Firefox and Apple apologists will come out in force on this. When IE was consistantly the least secure browser NOBODY question the data. BUt now that FF and Apple topthe list, of course the data is false, misleading, and the result of shady security companies. The facts are this: Criminals will exploit anything. So it only makes sense that as FF and Safari usage grows so will the number of cyber criminals that target them. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">The Ides of December</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 07:23:49 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Firefox Now The Most Vulnerable Browser?</title><link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/firefox-now-the-most-vulnerable-browser/#comment-22477833</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It made sense to me. Vulnerable doesn't mean it's the least secure. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ian Bell</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:26:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Firefox Now The Most Vulnerable Browser?</title><link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/firefox-now-the-most-vulnerable-browser/#comment-22477798</link><description>&lt;p&gt;These security firms are shady, they expose leaks and then ask the companies to hire them to fix them. MY questions: Were they really leaks in the first place, or were they just simply hacked?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ian Bell</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:26:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Firefox Now The Most Vulnerable Browser?</title><link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/firefox-now-the-most-vulnerable-browser/#comment-22474704</link><description>&lt;p&gt;All the document contains are a list of percentages with no explanation of what they consider a vulnerability. Are extensions included for instance?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's better to go to their security center rather than enlist the help of this scammer like company.&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.mozilla.org/security/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.mozilla.org/security/"&gt;http://www.mozilla.org/secu...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Veri</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:29:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Firefox Now The Most Vulnerable Browser?</title><link>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/firefox-now-the-most-vulnerable-browser/#comment-22454686</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"which means that although Firefox had the most vulnerabilities reported, that doesn’t actually mean its the least secure browser". If that's true, then why the title of "Firefox Now The Most Vulnerable Browser?" Comeon guys, how about learning to come up with titles like real reporters?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">TamaracGuy</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:40:22 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>