Microsoft Says Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure 459
Mark writes "The release of Google Chrome Frame, a new open source plugin that injects Chrome's renderer and JavaScript engine into Microsoft's browser, earlier this week had many web developers happily dancing long through the night. Finally, someone had found a way to get Internet Explorer users up to speed on the Web. Microsoft, on the other hand, is warning IE users that it does not recommend installing the plugin. What does the company have against the plugin? It makes Internet Explorer less secure. 'With Internet Explorer 8, we made significant advancements and updates to make the browser safer for our customers,' a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. 'Given the security issues with plugins in general and Google Chrome in particular, Google Chrome Frame running as a plugin has doubled the attack area for malware and malicious scripts. This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.'"
kettle/black (Score:5, Funny)
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Insightful)
I know. Ho hum. Someone tell Microsoft to wake me up when they get around to actually making a decent browser. How many years has it been? 13 years?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, IE7 and 8 (on Vista and Windows 7) has a bunch of really impressive security features, albeit they're still behind in standards. And "accelerators" are extremely useful.
That said, I still use Firefox (Somebody PLEASE make AdBlock Plus for Chrome and IE please! )
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you don't remember, but IE 5 was LIGHTYEARS ahead of Netscape.
Great, that happened *ten* years ago [wikipedia.org]. What has happened since? They've been chasing the Fox for past *five* years.
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Insightful)
you're one of the rarest groups of all the fish in the pond, so to speak, per-se.
Most of us like companies that patch vulnerabilities much faster/make browsers that are standards compliant, both from a legal perspective (meaning our employers are happier -not for me personally), and also from a safety/update perspective.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course it would. But people have been asking for that since *IE 6* and/or earlier, I kid you not. If they allowed extensions people could do things such as : patch vulnerabilities themselves, allow things such as noscript, enable standards compliance. We're not talking about in modified versions of IE, it should be in the standard IE8 for the average non-techie user.
you know, all the stuff that we've been asking for to be provided in Internet Explorer for years. I don't suspect that to ever happen, since
Re:kettle/black (Score:4, Funny)
IE already has extensions, it has for AGES. At least since IE 5.5.
How do you think Google Toolbar runs in IE? Magic? Powdered unicorn horn? Hell, THIS VERY SLASHDOT STORY is about an IE extension.
What the hell drug did Mozilla give everybody to make them think IE doesn't have extensions? I feel like I'm the last human left and everybody else has been replaced by body-snatchers!!
Re:kettle/black (Score:4, Interesting)
IE8 is terrible. It is 2x slower than every other browser and it has no HTML5 features. It's only good when compared to IE6 from 2001. Also, IE8 is over 25 megabytes and runs only on Wintel. For comparison, WebKit is 5 megabytes and runs on Windows, Mac, Linux and on x32, x64, PowerPC, and ARM.
There is just no excuse for the low quality of Internet Explorer. Microsoft has been at this longer than any other browser maker. Safari is from early 2003, Firefox from late 2004, Chrome from 2008, but IE is from 1995. That is a dramatic head start and yet IE8 is way, way behind the other browsers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, IE7 and 8 (on Vista and Windows 7) has a bunch of really impressive security features...
And even more impressive bloat, *especially* with regards to screen real estate, even with all the bars disabled. It's as if IE is parodying itself. [j-walkblog.com] Ever try using IE8 on a netbook? It doesn't work, you have to enter kiosk mode for it to be remotely useful. There's no thought to form or function, they just barfed menus all over the place and called it "progress".
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe we should just start over completely. Make a new standard that doesn't rely on the rigid and inflexible concept of tags and use a scripting language and have a standard API. Leave HTML for TEXT formatting, and return it back to a document formatting language, leaving dynamic content to a totally separate system....
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Interesting)
gee, and it really helps your case when the Microsoft rep on the HTML5 was one of the key people delaying the standard, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Somebody PLEASE make AdBlock Plus for Chrome and IE please!
IE8 has it built in with Inprivate filtering. You can also import lists to filter URL's similar to AdBlockPlus. Although it's not as conveniently automatic or as seamless, it works pretty well.
There's a good amount of info in this thread at DSLReports.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22124619-IE8-InPrivate-filter-from-adblock-plus-list [dslreports.com]
Re:kettle/black (Score:4, Insightful)
And where are these supposed vulnerabilities, anyway? If Microsoft wanted IE to be secure they'd abandon hActive-X and drop j-script in favor of javascript.
I don't know why anyone but the ignorant would run IE. It (and all of Microsoft's offerings) have always been less secure than just about everyone else's.
Re: (Score:3)
And where are these supposed vulnerabilities, anyway? If Microsoft wanted IE to be secure they'd abandon hActive-X and drop j-script in favor of javascript.
I don't know why anyone but the ignorant would run IE. It (and all of Microsoft's offerings) have always been less secure than just about everyone else's.
I see no trolling here... Slashdot is going to die if the corporation that owns it doesn't start dealing with the horrible mod problem.
Active-X is and always has been a huge problem and Microsoft products in general have shown themselves to be less secure. Why that might be is open to debate but anyone who ever works on a "normal" persons computer should have noticed that people who us IE always have mind blowing amounts of spyware and those that have been forced to use some other browser (by me) never have
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dimitri martin's standup doesn't transfer well to text ;)
Re:kettle/black (Score:4, Funny)
Wrong. People in glass houses shouldn't undress.
Re:kettle/black (Score:4, Funny)
>>Wrong. People in glass houses shouldn't undress.
No - people in glass houses should undress... but people shouldn't buy glass houses unless they're hot 21-year-old nurses.
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Funny)
Even if that person is Bree Olson?
Gah, knew I shouldn't have googled her at work.
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Funny)
You misspelled "ogled."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bah, If I wanted to see that, I'd just undress a Barbie doll.
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Funny)
Making IE less secure is like making water more wet.
Actually MS is right. (Score:5, Insightful)
By running this plugin, you would be exposing yourself to not only Possible IE exploits, but possible Chrome Exploits as well. It would be much safer to run the Chrome browser standalone since it reduces the attack surface. It would probably be faster standalone too.
Re:Actually MS is right. (Score:5, Informative)
+1.
I actually got one of my systems pwned (for the first time in > 10 years) via Chrome, in incognito mode no less. Not saying that any other browser would have stopped it, least of all IE; it was a Java -- not javascript -- vulnerability... http://blog.cr0.org/2009/05/write-once-own-everyone.html [cr0.org]. This vulnerability allowed an applet to escape both Chrome's and Java's sandboxing. The point is just that no browser is by itself a silver bullet of invulnerability, especially when plugins and external runtimes are involved.
Now I run Chrome standalone with the -disable-java command line switch to cut the attack surface down a bit. It's not as versatile as NoScript in FF, but you can run Chrome instances with javascript, plugins, etc. disabled on an individual basis. A list is at http://www.chromeplugins.org/tips-tricks/chrome-command-line-switches/ [chromeplugins.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually got one of my systems pwned (for the first time in > 10 years) via Chrome, in incognito mode no less. Not saying that any other browser would have stopped it, least of all IE; it was a Java -- not javascript -- vulnerability... http://blog.cr0.org/2009/05/write-once-own-everyone.html [cr0.org] [cr0.org]. This vulnerability allowed an applet to escape both Chrome's and Java's sandboxing.
... and the fact that this happened while you were using Chrome's "incognito mode" is a good indication of the types of sites that you were visiting when this happened.
Look - wearing a bullet-proof vest does offer a degree of protection greater than normal clothing, but that doesn't mean that you should be walking around the red-light district of Oakland, CA after dark. You can still get knifed, kidnapped, or shot in the head. It also won't protect you from the impact of hitting the ground after jumping out
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft Says Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure
Of course they do! Disregard the fact that they provide no evidence at all, and that they use this:
Google Chrome Frame running as a plugin has doubled the attack area for malware and malicious scripts.
as an argument to prove their point (???), but really, this is Googles way of taking over the MS userbase as explained here [slashdot.org], and MS knows it. If Google wave becomes a hit, people will remember this move as the first important joust won by Google. IE with its crippled javascript hopes to prevent the popularity of Google wave by using scorched earth policy. [wikipedia.org]
Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually... no.
1 - IE's renderer has holes.
2 - Chrome's renderer has (I believe) fewer holes (because it is not as tied to the OS).
3 - Only 1 renderer will be used to render a malicious page.
If 2 and 3 are true, then it follows that when Chrome's renderer is used, the browser is actually more secure.
Of course this is highly dependent upon the level of communication between the browser and the renderer. I suspect that it is very minimal ( button clicks, bookmarks, etc.) as tight integration would be unneces
Friends? (Score:5, Funny)
Friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer anyway.
Re:Friends? (Score:5, Funny)
'This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.'
They have friends, much less family?
Re:Friends? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read a fantastic interview with one of the lead IE developers as they were prepping the launch of IE 7. He said his daughter came home from school one day and asked him if he was responsible for breaking the web.
In the interview, he seemed to imply the current IE team feels guilty and responsible for previous versions being so poor in standards compliance, and that the new developers were pushing to make IE more complaint in the future.
Technically, they have succeeded. IE 7 and 8 are more complaint. They still however are not very compliant on the whole.
So yes, they have families. And even their beloved daughters call them out for IE's problems.
Re:Friends? (Score:5, Funny)
...the new developers were pushing to make IE more complaint in the future.
Technically, they have succeeded. IE 7 and 8 are more complaint.
Feel the delicious irony from an incorrect vowel transposition!
Re:Friends? (Score:4, Informative)
There are standards for HTML? Who knew?
FWIW, as of this morning, the W3C Validator [http://validator.w3.org] reports
www.google.com ------------ 39 Errors, 2 warning(s)
www.microsoft.com -------- 300 Errors, 31 warning(s)
www.apple.com -------------- 6 Errors, 1 warning(s)
www.bing.com -------------- 12 Errors
http://validator.w3.org/ [w3.org] ------ Sorry! This document can not be checked
www.slashdot.org ---------- 64 Errors, 2 warning(s)
And don't those web page designers who are "dancing for joy" deserve a bit of credit for this shambles? I'd like to believe that they won't immediately start using features that work in chrome, but not IE because "all the user has to do is download a plugin." But if past experience is any guide, that is exactly what many of them will do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For www.google.com the validator says:
I think it's kind of unfair to cite statistics without being clear about the limitations of the tools used.
Re:Friends? (Score:5, Funny)
I find the lack of mention of children and terrorists disturbing.
Well yes (Score:5, Funny)
Ofcourse it makes it less secure, it lets you run Javascript faster, so that all those drive-by malware installers can execute faster!
Re:Well yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on implementation (for some time, Flash installed an exemption for itself that let it use a broker process to get out of Protected Mode without letting the user know) but by default, yes, IE plugins have the same sandboxing as the browser itself.
Well they would say that wouldn't they (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well they would say that wouldn't they (Score:5, Insightful)
Security issues with Google Chrome? (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Microsoft:
Citation please. Evidence. Facts. Or retract.
'k thanks,
Google
Re:Security issues with Google Chrome? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, technically, they may be right. It does lead to more attack surface, and many plugins have permissions the browser doesn't allow itself. And Microsoft product security has increased, to the point where I'm fairly confident that the security risks of their Javascript interpreter are comparable with other major browsers. And unless Google *forces* updates to the plugin, security patches will never be applied; few people run Windows Update, but even fewer update non-MS products.
Of course, those arguments mostly argue for rejecting the *plugin*. *Replacing* IE8 with Chrome (or your browser of choice) means you have only one program's attack surface to worry about again. I'm guessing this is the unspoken part of MS's argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Security issues with Google Chrome? (Score:5, Informative)
Citation please.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/security_flaw_in_google_chrome.php [readwriteweb.com]
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10226578-83.html [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Security issues with Google Chrome? (Score:5, Insightful)
Inciteful as the statement is, it's true... There's no way it can be false. A browser containing IE's engine *and* WebKit has all the security holes from both, and all the security holes gained in pushing one into the other.
So yes, microsoft is right, but rather missing the point... If you're using a chrome frame, you're probably not using IE frames, which means that you're as secure as WebKit's security flaws.
Why you'd do that rather than just using chrome I have no idea though.
Re:Security issues with Google Chrome? (Score:5, Insightful)
Inciteful as the statement is, it's true... There's no way it can be false. A browser containing IE's engine *and* WebKit has all the security holes from both, and all the security holes gained in pushing one into the other.
It's also true for any plug in you use in IE. I'm curious if MS would say the same about Flash, Java, etc? Because they all introduce their own security problems in IE in a similar way as Chrome Frame. The fact that MS is singling out Chrome Frame says more about how MS feels about Google than it does about the security of their browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Microsoft,
ActiveX.
I told you back in the 90's it was a bad idea. So did the rest of us. But did you listen... No.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is essentially the same thing as an ActiveX component, with the exception that it doesn't use the COM+OLE framework to "plug in." This exception isn't very meaningful. The fact is that in both cases you are downloading a binary which then gets conditionally executed based on commands given in an HTML document.
My beef with google here is that it looks like they are poised to lock in their own lack of standards compliance on us all (no rendering engine is 100% standards compliant, the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Security issues with Google Chrome? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every 6 months to a year it seems there is yet another goof up that lets users access other users email (gmail) or data (google docs).
While this is still better than the track record on many MS products, it still leads me to suspect the security of Google. Face it, they are good at distributing information, not hiding it... Now, unless *EVERY* Google security hole is already in IE, new holes will be added.
Re:Security issues with Google Chrome? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every 6 months to a year it seems there is yet another goof up that lets users access other users email (gmail) or data (google docs).
Unless I'm missing something, most of this revolves around users accessing their data through HTTP over insecure wireless, neither of which is required by Google.
It can be as simple as using https://mail.google.com/
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every 6 months to a year it seems there is yet another goof up that lets users access other users email (gmail) or data (google docs).
Unless I'm missing something, most of this revolves around users accessing their data through HTTP over insecure wireless, neither of which is required by Google.
It can be as simple as using https://mail.google.com/ [google.com]
There's even a handy little checkbox in the Gmail options to always use HTTPS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And one which can be applied domain-wide, if you've got apps for your domain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every 6 months to a year it seems there is yet another goof up that lets users access other users email (gmail) or data (google docs).
Your premise is wrong, hence your argument is wrong. All those goof-ups were not with the gmail you use, or the google docs you use. They were with contractual installations in colleges, etc. It's really like saying "Oh, hey, MS Exchange in X college got hacked, MS's security sucks!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Oh, hey, MS Exchange in X college got hacked, MS's security sucks!"
...but...we do say that around here...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's really like saying "Oh, hey, MS Exchange in X college got hacked, MS's security sucks!"
Err... what's wrong with saying that? If MS Exchange is hacked because of a vulnerability in Exchange, then there's nothing wrong with saying that MS's security sucks. Likewise, if Google's service shares your emails with more people than you had in mind (whether or not it's a vulnerability with the public gmail or their private email service--and there have been problems with both), then what's wrong with saying Google's security sucks? Nothing, unless there's some sort of double-standard your are tryin
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "sarcasm"...
Re:Security issues with Google Chrome? (Score:5, Funny)
News: Vulnerability in google chrome
News: Vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox
News: Some part of Internet explorer is safe!
See? :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that this is IE6, I think any talk about security is somewhat moot. Unless I don't understand it, this should make IE6 more secure - Chrome after all is a "modern" browser, and the page will be run inside that, and not actually touch the rest of IE6's feature set. I really don't see this at all, it strikes me that this is FUD. Maybe I'm missing the point here.
Anyway, if users actually cared about security they'd not be running IE6 - even Microsoft see the upgrade from that as "critical".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Humor: (Noun)
1. a comic, absurd, or incongruous quality causing amusement: the humor of a situation.
2. the faculty of perceiving what is amusing or comical: He is completely without humor. (Something you seem to lack yourself...)
I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . which is why one should run Firefox, konqueror, Mozilla, or Opera on Linux, Solaris, or BSD instead.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
crossover office will run MS office, the Adobe creative suite, and so forth very, very well. I no longer use MS Office at all, but I do use Photoshop and Illustrator on occasion, and I use esword on Linux all the time. The only things I cannot run that I need on Linux are embroidery applications (need "real" USB support for the machine) and I cannot run some games. At the office I can't run Quickbooks on Linux.
Many proprietary commercial apps DO run on Linux through WINE or one of the commercial variants.
It's alright (Score:5, Funny)
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, Microsoft has said that Moores Law is a security risk, because viruses can install themselves twice as fast every 18 months.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Attack surface not attack rate..
Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
You just made one of the most important arguments against Silverlight official.
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
Not only an argument directly from Microsoft against Silverlight but also against Flash!
Why is Microsoft helping us like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep...I'm betting that they realize this, but are hoping the unwashed masses won't twig onto what they just said there.
Textbook FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
"Given the security issues with plugins in general and Google Chrome in particular"
O RLY?
I'm happy to believe that IE8 actually has a good security model. I'm happy to believe that Chrome is not without flaws. But, really, Google have gone through fairly considerable pain and implemented quite strict sandboxing techniques for Chrome, to contain any problems in the renderer. It's pretty solid. Maybe it's better than IE8, maybe not. But just hand waving and going "Oh yes, *especially* Chrome" as if it's common knowledge that it's insecure is simply FUD.
The point about increasing the attack surface area seems more valid, perhaps, though it really depends on how this plugin works. If there are really twice as many places available at once then yes, that is a worry. If you'd have to get through Chrome's security and then through IE8's security, that actually sounds quite good. Possibly the biggest security worry I see is in encouraging users to think that installing a large, scary plugin that basically replaces the guts of their browser is a normal occurrence that will make their internet experience better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I realise that's the risk they're referring to. But whether it works like that really depends on how it's architected.
If Chrome is using IE facilities to interact with the outside world, then that's exposing you to bugs in those IE facilities. If Chrome was using its own HTTP implementation, etc and basically just acting as an independent browser that happens to be embedded in an IE window then Chrome is going to be the one exposing bugs to the outside world.
I assume that it is somehow using IE facilities
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't add security, you can only add insecurity. A system is as secure as the weakest point of entry.
That having been said, all plug-ins reduce security, including Flash and Silverlight, this is no different.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh... Since the general user population on Windows will install damned near any sort of crap on their box because it's "nifty", "cool", etc. along with at least prior versions of IE gleefully doing it for them whether they wanted it or not- why would it be any different now?
Re:Textbook FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm happy to believe that IE8 actually has a good security model.
And I thought that included sandboxing plugins? How can any plugin be a serious security threat with MS went through such pains to make IE bulletproof?
Double Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
So... forcing the .NET plug-in on Firefox users was OK, but a voluntary add-on from Google is a security risk? Good to know.
Re:Double Standards (Score:5, Informative)
I thought I had a virus the first time I noticed it. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/05/microsoft_update_quietly_insta.html [washingtonpost.com]
Ingrates! (Score:4, Funny)
a new open source plugin that injects Chrome's renderer and JavaScript engine into Microsoft's browser, earlier this week had many web developers happily dancing long through the night.
Dancing Developers?? Get back to developing webs, like you're supposed to be doing! Didn't anybody tell you that you are no good at dancing?
Revisit this in a year's time (Score:2)
Ralph (Score:2, Funny)
As Ralph Wiggum would say:
That's unpossible!
By that logic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually for some of those I think you'd get a loud cheer if they were banned..
This is just Microsoft saying that the sandboxing in IE8 doesn't work and a browser plugin can compromise the system. That's how I read it, anyway.
Risk? I'll give you risk... (Score:2, Funny)
Families (Score:5, Funny)
This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.
Especially the children. Think of the children!
He should have used "mortal danger" instead of simply "risk". Also, change "would recommend" for "let". And add some exclamations, for god's sake, this is serious.
Thus, the closing sentence should be:
"This is not a mortal danger we let our children take!"
However, once you've decided to push factless crap with fear mongering, at least do it with style.
I recommend:
"If you allow your children to install the google demon, your entire family will suffer an eternity of pain, in HELL!"
My family disowned me after I installed it. (Score:4, Funny)
What about Flash? (Score:2, Insightful)
".... has doubled the attack area for malware and malicious scripts."
Can't the same thing be said about the Flash Player Plugin?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nop, the multiplier would be much bigger than double.
Oh please (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks Microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard about this but I wasn't going to install it yet. I don't use a lot of I.E. stuff, but what I do is Javascript intensive, so now that I know that your don't like it at Microsoft I have now installed it. Thanks for the heads up... since you don't like it there must be a reason to give it a look.
I can't believe it (Score:2)
It's simply not possible for IE to be less secure, even if they stuck giant yellow landing stripes with a big blinking arrow visible from space with the label "ATTACK ME" on it.
First Question that Comes to Mind (Score:2)
Why even bother using IE in the first place? The tab structure of Chrome is way better in my opinion. I'm not sure if IE8 supports tab dragging, but in Chrome, I love the ability to drag individual tabs out of the main window so that the tab becomes its own independent window. Often I'll have some code reference up on my main monitor, and I'll drag a hello world (or some test equivalent) page as a tab out of the main application. In IE, you'd have to r
Sounds to me that Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
So Microsoft, how does it feel? How does it feel to have a big bad company with a near monopoly in one market (Google in search) threaten your stake in a different market (browsers)?
Mistaken market. (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is not in the business of providing searches. Google is in the business of selling ads. It just happens that having the best search gives you more eyeballs on your ads. They leverage that advantage to gain share in other markets. It does sound like another company I've heard about.
But you're on target here, this is obviously not comfortable for Microsoft. Five years ago they wouldn't have even bothered to issue a response. This is the kind of press release that is pure fear.
Someone has made a plug-in for your browser that makes it 8X faster.
It's something I said a long long long time ago. What can kill Microsoft? Something free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes... because Microsoft makes piles of money off of Internet Explorer.
In the low billions of dollars, at least. I know plenty of corporate types who are locked into Windows solely because of internal web apps that are hardcoded against IE6 or older. Unsurprisingly, IT doesn't want to pay for a beefier desktop machine for them to run their OS of choice plus a licensed copy of Windows in a VM just so they can access a certain site plus having to support twice the software for each person using such a system.
I have great respect for Google (Score:4, Funny)
But I doubt that even they could make IE less secure than it already is.
Hey! (Score:2, Funny)
>Microsoft Says Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure
Everyone knows Microsoft Is What Makes IE Less Secure!
~ there...fixed that for you.
Friends and family (Score:4, Insightful)
Well of course Microsoft "doesn't recommend" their friends and family use the Chrome plugin. If they did, next thing you know their friends and family are down at the T-Mobile shop eying Android phones, or over at the Apple Store snapping up an iPhone. As long as those friends and family are only exposed to Microsoft products, they'll never realize that the grass, indeed, really is greener on the other side of that fence - because those other guys actually feed and water their lawn!
Re:I'm Taking Notes (Score:4, Funny)