Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Internet Explorer The Internet IT

IE7 Leaked 408

Posted by CmdrTaco from the hate-when-that-happens dept.
lju writes "IE7 has been leaked according to pcpro. From the article: '...last Friday it was revealed that a build of the new browser - version 5299 - along with numerous screenshots, was available online.' "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IE7 Leaked More

IE7 Leaked

Comments Filter:

  • also (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:43AM (#14539992)
    So has the first exploit been leaked too?

    • Re:also (Score:5, Funny)

      by AutopsyReport ( 856852 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:58AM (#14540180)
      Yes, hence the 5299th version. How many exploits can they go through before it's even released? :)

    • Re:also (Score:4, Funny)

      by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) * <fidelcatsro AT gmail DOT com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:05PM (#14541047) Journal
      I will get murdered for a variation of a Soviet Russia joke .. but here goes.
      At Microsoft You leak IE
      In rest of World , IE leaks (information about) You

    • Re:also (Score:3, Interesting)

      by luna69 ( 529007 ) *
      > So has the first exploit been leaked too?

      More importantly, does anyone outside of the legal department in Redmond actually care that it's been leaked?

      I mean, it might be good for a laugh before going back to real browsing in Opera and FF, but why in the world would anyone who is actually paying attention to browsers want to a) dwnload this, and b) actually install it?
      • I wasn't aware that IE could be 'released' - previous versions were so spaghetti-string coded and tied into Windows that all you could do was try to 'integrate' it into your system and PRAY that it didn't render your OS inoperable.

        It's hard for me to imagine that there's an IE7 package out there that has all the files and configuration required to run it and doesn't choke every system it's installed on. If there is, MS has come a long way.

    • Re:also (Score:3, Funny)

      by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) *
      Dude - IE7 is so advanced, it is its own exploit! How's that for innovation?
  • I know it's trolling, but considering the security of IE6 WHICH HAS BEEN OUT FOR YEARS, I don't think I will be standing in line to try this "beta".

    • Re:Obligatory Troll... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Of course most of those security problems (with IE or Moz) required the user to do something stupid such as allow a malicious ActiveX install or go to a malicious website. That's still the case today.

      Do you really not trust yourself that much?
      • If look at the security hole listings for IE, there are exactly 3 buffer overflow problems found in the entire history of the browser. Not exactly indicative of insecure coding. Look at Firefox for comparison.

        Most of the IE security holes are cross-site scripting BS and things that require stupid users to work properly. And of course when running as non-admin, all the security exploits are irrelavent.
        • Do you know that ActiveX is?

        • Re:Obligatory Troll... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:42PM (#14541442) Homepage Journal

          And of course when running as non-admin, all the security exploits are irrelavent.

          This is such an ignorant statement. I hate seeing it, and I see it over and over again on slashdot.

          First, it assumes that there are no local privilege escalation exploits. This is a poor assumption, especially on Windows, but really on any OS with privilege levels.

          Second, it assumes that your personal data is not worth anything. Yours might not be, but mine is.

          Third, it assumes that there isn't some way to muck with the system to get Administrator to run something when they log in. This is not a safe assumption either. Hell, there's still people running FAT32 on Windows XP. They have no protection.

        • Re:Obligatory Troll... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Crazyscottie ( 947072 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:46PM (#14541488)
          If look at the security hole listings for IE, there are exactly 3 buffer overflow problems found in the entire history of the browser.

          Three documented buffer overflow problems. Keep in mind that Microsoft is well known for its lack of documentation in both bugs and operating system "features." Also remember that buffer overflows aren't the only kind of "non-stupid-user" vulnerability in any application (e.g. heap overflows).

          And of course when running as non-admin, all the security exploits are irrelavent.

          Disregarding the fact that "irrelavent" is not an English word, how many Windows users do you know who actually run as a non-admin? I don't; I know I should, but it's a pain in the ass, and I consider myself knowledgeable enough to know how to prevent most issues and to fix any that should happen to come up as a result of vulnerabilities.

      • Re:Obligatory Troll... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by undeadly ( 941339 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:34PM (#14540677)
        Of course most of those security problems (with IE or Moz) required the user to do something stupid such as allow a malicious ActiveX install or go to a malicious website. That's still the case today.

        The whole point of using a web browser is to browse the web, and that seems to be forgotten when someone is talking about how stupid it is to browse malicious sites. How are you to determine that a site is malicious? Use Google and click on more links to unknown sites? However, a browser that you only can use to browse "safe" sites is basically non-functional.

  • I'm certain... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrother@optonline . n et> on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:44AM (#14540002) Journal
    ...that IE7 leaks all right. Anyone want to place bets on how secure it is?

    IE7 Screenshots [jcxp.net]

  • Download a copy (Score:5, Funny)

    by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:44AM (#14540006)
    http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ [mozilla.com]

  • Double meaning? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:45AM (#14540028)
    IE7 Leaked, as in memory? :]

  • Has been available for some time. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by THESuperShawn ( 764971 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:46AM (#14540031)
    IE7, almost every revision, has been available in Usenet for some time now.

    Honestly, I really don't see how this is such a bad thing. It is not commercial (pay) software. By 'leaking' the browser, more people are using it/talking about it.

    I don;t see where this is such a big deal.

  • Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mayhem178 ( 920970 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:46AM (#14540032)
    "Tabbed browsing" and "ability to delete browsing history"? This story must be a duped, because this browser was leaked to the public years ago. At the time, I think they called it "Firefox."

  • Browser stagnation? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xusr ( 947781 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:47AM (#14540051)
    It seems that the web browser landscape has been pretty tranquil for quite some time. Firefox 1.5 and Safari 2.0 both seemed like fairly inconsequential updates. For Firefox, I want hot-key accessible favorites like I have in Safari. For Safari, I want type-ahead searching. The first to give me that will have my browser vote....at least for now.

    • browser maturity (Score:3, Interesting)

      by karzan ( 132637 )
      doesn't it seem likely that we're reaching a point at which there are just not very many new things that can be done with browsers? most of what the web is about, including user interfaces, has now been integrated into the content of web pages themselves. the job of the browser is fairly straightforward, and browsers have been around long enough to learn to do that job well. i think to call it 'stagnation' implies that we should always expect constant innovation. but maybe browsers are just a tool that

    • Re:Browser stagnation? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by warith ( 121181 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:04PM (#14541040)
      For Firefox, I want it to stop becoming ridiculously slow after intensive usage, and continue to use 140MB in the background after I close all of its windows...

      Seriously, what's with the memory leak?

  • Linked article title appropriate (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:48AM (#14540053)
    The linked article is titled "Internet Explorer 7 leaks onto Internet".

    Yeah, I can't think of a more apt analogy than Microsoft taking a big leak all over the internet. They've been pissing on us for years.

  • Come back next Tuesday (Score:4, Funny)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:48AM (#14540057)
    IE7 has been leaked according to pcpro.

    Microsoft announced that a patch for this leak will be coming out the 2nd Tuesday of next month.

  • Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:49AM (#14540068) Homepage
    IE7 can't possibly leak as much as Firefox. That browser is a memory pig! But I guess that's the price for security and "standards compliance"

    • IE tied into the OS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mindaktiviti ( 630001 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:21PM (#14540498)

      I wonder how big and clunky Internet Explorer would be if it wasn't tied into the Operating System.

    • IE7 can't possibly leak as much as Firefox. That browser is a memory pig! But I guess that's the price for security and "standards compliance"

      Right now on my system Firefox is using 77MB of RAM, which is a pretty huge amount of memory! However, I'm not sure that's it's "leaking" as I am guessing that it is happily using all of it.

    • "But I guess that's the price for security and "standards compliance""

      No, that's the price for using a largely un-optimized application. Compared with IE, Firefox is like the 'new kid on the block'. Around for some time now, but not as long as IE. And probably a lot less men-hours of development effort, compared to what must have been poured into IE over the years. Firefox has reached 'feature-complete stage', but it's not heavily optimized or in a 'mature' state, where there's only small improvements lef

  • big f-ing deal (Score:2, Insightful)

    by crimethinker ( 721591 )
    I'm trying to imagine why anyone in their right mind would want this. First off, it's IE, and therefore an excellent tool for spreading worms and viruses. Then consider that it is not a release version, and so will have many more bugs than a regular release of IE, many of them probably very exploitable.

    I suppose you could say I'm trolling or trying to start a flamewar, but really, do you want MS's latest bit of bugware on your desktop? And who knows what some L337 HAX0R might have managed to graft into

    • Well, somebody should at least run it and let us know which CSS bugs we should start learning work-arounds for :D
    • I won't use a leaked version, but I will download the next IE7 Beta from MSDN. Why? Our software uses embedded IE (MSHTML ActiveX control) and it needs to be tested in time before IE7 is released.

  • pity.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by dotpavan ( 829804 )
    that they could not secure even the release.. sigh!

  • Leaked? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:51AM (#14540101) Homepage
    It's been available for some time now legally. I believe you have to be a member of MSDN. I'm using it right now on my work PC. It's like IE 6 with tabs and with some rough edges. The build I'm using doesn't add "http://" for you, which is a bit annoying but might not be a bad security precaution. Tabs pretty much work like FF.

    • Re:Leaked? (Score:2, Informative)

      by superdaver9999 ( 182281 )
      What build are you using? I'm using 7.0.5112.0 on XP (legally from MSDN) and it adds "http://" for me.
      • Weird. Exact same build. I just tried it again and it still doesn't work. Try like "google.com" and then hit enter.

        • Re:Leaked? (Score:2, Informative)

          by dkh2 ( 29130 )
          Standard ID behavior since 5.5. It will assume http:/// [http] for .com sites but other TLDs get ignored. Thus, if you're looking for a .net, .edu, .cc, .uk, etc. you may be screwed by that 'feature.'

    • Re:Leaked? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sockonafish ( 228678 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:33PM (#14540659)
      The build I'm using doesn't add "http://" for you, which is a bit annoying but might not be a bad security precaution.


      How could that be a good thing? It's entirely redundant to have to type in http:/// [http] in a web browser. That's like being required to write MAIL: on every envelope you send out.

  • How can something publicly available be "leaked" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:53AM (#14540130) Homepage Journal
    Last I checked, MSIE 7 is available via MSDN subscriptions, Action Pack subscriptions, and even Microsoft's own web site [microsoft.com] . It's not like anyone outside of M$ has not seen MSIE 7.0 already. So a single build got leaked a little early -- this is a) nothing unusual and b) not anything significantly different from what was previously made available through legitimate. This strikes me as: "Oh boy, screenshots of a beta everyone has been able to download for months. Oh wait, this is DIFFERENT because the build number in help-> about is different."

    Now if the SOURCE were leaked, that would actually be something newsworthy.
    • Hmm, jumped the gun, now that I RTFA again. It seems this "leaked" build includes page zooming, where released builds do not, plus a couple of toolbar icons have been updated to be more flashy. Sorry, my bad. This is definitely earth-shattering news that will change our computing world.

  • Yay, Slashdot! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BarryNorton ( 778694 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:57AM (#14540175)
    Where there's no irony to berating Microsoft for copying Firefox features in Internet Explorer, nor talking about security flaws in Internet Explorer while praising Firefox.

    Grow up!

    Yes, Firefox is my default browser too... but I try not to let that make me a hypocrite!

    • Re:Yay, Slashdot! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Salsaman ( 141471 )
      Why would it be ironic ? Microsoft with all it's billions SHOULD be leading the pack, not playing catch up to other browsers.

      And as regards security, IE is widely know to be the most insecure browser. It should be the most secure, considering all the resources Microsoft has available to throw at it, and considering the relative length of time it's been in development.

      I don't get your point.

      • Re:Yay, Slashdot! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BarryNorton ( 778694 )
        Microsoft with all it's billions SHOULD be leading the pack, not playing catch up to other browsers
        Yes, just like you go to McDonald's for varied and experimental cuisine, and to small independent restaurants for a bog standard burger...

  • I'm surprised as hell (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:00PM (#14540212) Journal
    I'm surprised as hell that anyone would download a 'leaked' copy of IE 7.xx no matter how secure it is supposed to be when released. First, there is the problem of being a beta tester when you don't want to be, and SECOND, there is the problem that it might contain DRM that is equally bad or worse than the Sony 'rootkit' DRM.

    AFAIK, 'leaked' software doesn't come with warnings, EULAs, and any other such agreements. I'm willing to bet that 'leaked' or copy-able software in the future will have DRM all over it. That is to say that license keys in the future, if not so already, will have a dual purpose of enabling use of the application AND disabling 'rootkit' type DRM/Spyware easter eggs in the application(s).

  • Leak? Water broken? (Score:3, Funny)

    by moria ( 829831 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:02PM (#14540247)
    So MSFT's water is broken, and the IE7 will be born [wikipedia.org] soon? I guess it is still at the contraction stage.
  • "some Windows fans took matters into their own hands when"

    Windows having fans? I believe the term is microsoft employees and fanboys

  • it was leaked on friday (Score:4, Informative)

    by madnuke ( 948229 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:04PM (#14540273)
    Wow it sure does take long for news to filter through, I would stay clear of it though as I nearly had to reformat as it broke AVG and numerous other things. Even when its released I will stick with firefox.

  • This browser is important (Score:4, Insightful)

    by alnya ( 513364 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:04PM (#14540278)
    Everyone seems to be making "isn't this firefox" jokes, and yes, some of the features are rather familiar, but this browser is important.

    In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser market share. This browser will be the majority's portal onto the web.
    Web developers should care about this browser - how your pages look on it, what CSS version (or subset) it supports. Security experts should care about this browser - what security issues does it throw up, what 'helpful' workarounds does it impliment for Phishing and the like.

    I'm sorry, and you may not like, but this browser will be the standard.
    • How will that happen? As of now, Windows XP (a prerequisite for this browser) does not even have 60% market share in our website logs...

      I agree it will be important to test websites in this new browser; that is why I don't understand why they limit their betas to Microsoft developers.
      I would like to check that our company website looks OK in MSIE 7 (it renders OK in a standards-compliant browser and has special workarounds for MSIE 5 and 6 bugs). But I am not a Microsoft developer. How do I get a test ve

    • In a year or so, this browser will have > 70% of the online browser market share.

      I wouldn't bet on it, W3Schools' stats show that they're seeing IE having the lowest share of their traffic for over THREE YEARS [w3schools.com] - it's been dropping for the past five months.

      (Quite where Safari goes in their figures, I'm not sure...)

    • Heart disease is also important. But I'm not going to download it.
  • The goal is to move beyond Windows, Explorer, Outlook, etc. and have people stop using them. An intentional leak like this is just a way to take mind share away from alternate technologies. I'm sure the strategy will work yet again.

  • Problems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Feneric ( 765069 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:14PM (#14540421) Homepage

    Not fully standards compliant. Doesn't run on Mac OS X, Linux, or Solaris. Lame.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:21PM (#14540496)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Nearly 100 comments.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Slashcrap ( 869349 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:27PM (#14540576)
    ...and not one single request for a link to a torrent.

    Come on guys, everyone's going to think we're not interested at this rate.
  • maybe you'll get a couple hours of clear driving, but you and I know you will get infected.

    but it will be awesome, because it's on windows, the most popular computer in the world!!
  • Sadly, I don't think Firefox is any more secure than IE - there are just more published exploits for IE because it's the largest user base. I'd bet we'll start seeing more and more of Firefox's security issues as it becomes more popular. I shouldn't need to post this, it should be common knowledge.
    In fact because there will be even less users using IE7 than Firefox, one could stand to reason that IE7 is more secure than Firefox because there sure aren't any published bug exploits for IE7 yet.

    I had IE7 insta

  • Translation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by beforewisdom ( 729725 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:57PM (#14540964)
    "IE7 has been leaked according to pcpro. From the article: '...last Friday it was revealed that a build of the new browser - version 5299 - along with numerous screenshots, was available online.' "

    Translation:

    Companies pretend to have details about a new or upgraded product "leaked" to generate anticipation/excitement for the release of the aforementioned product. Somebody in Microsoft's marketing department is not aware that most people have caught on this.

  • Meanwhile... (Score:4, Funny)

    by BlueScreenOfTOM ( 939766 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:04PM (#14541035)
    Meanwhile, Steve Ballmer has vowed to Fucking Kill(TM) any unauthorized person who comes in contact with the IE7 beta. After speaking with the development team, he decided to save his energy to help Fucking Kill(TM) the next threat that comes along, as the buggy code is expected to (regular) Kill anyone who installs it anyway.

  • oops... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MikeTheMan ( 944825 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:07PM (#14541071)
    "some Windows fans took matters into their own hands"

    I think they misspelled captives

  • Did it get out... (Score:3, Funny)

    by TimTheFoolMan ( 656432 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:07PM (#14541074) Homepage Journal
    ...via the WMF Backdoor?

    Tim

  • Information and programs does not leak! (Score:3, Funny)

    by julie-h ( 530222 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:17PM (#14541165) Homepage
    I am an engineer for a very large mobile company, and take it from me. Programs and information does NOT leak. Everybody knows what each workers knows, and if anything should leak, the source is know before the day is over. If such case should happen, the person will get fired, and every competitor will know about this person. Eventhought a competitor could profit greatly from the leak caused by this person, even they would NEVER hire this person. Because, they know they can't trust him. So telling it had leaked is plain PR to make it more interesting. Leaks does NOT happen.
    • Well, I suppose you are mostly correct.

      BUT, that being said, sometimes leaks aren't from within the company. Sometimes they are from partners, reviewers, or beta testers who've been given early access to the product, but who have no legal right to give it to anyone else. . . but do anyhow.

  • Usability (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Blink Tag ( 944716 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:32PM (#14541996) Homepage
    It's a little thing, but indicative of a larger usability problem:

    In the "Tabbed Browsing Settings" (from one of the screenshots), is the phrase: "Do not warn me when closing multiple tabs."

    It's a check box--checked means "do", unchecked means "don't". Even the most cursory usability review would likely suggest the label be reworded to have the negative removed. It's simpler for the user, and it might make things clearer for the programmers too. (Avoid messy code like "!dontDoIt")

    Like I said it's a little thing, ... but one of many that when combined give the feeling of a poor product.

Slashdot Top Deals

Brain off-line, please wait.

Close