Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 08.08.2015 um 02:14 schrieb Kevin Kofler: >> Kevin Kofler wrote: >> >>> Mustafa Muhammad wrote: >>>> Some of my points were: >>>> >>>> 1) Almost dead upstream for Konq, vs thriving upstream for Firefox, >>>> Konq may have undiscovered security vulnerabilities, but the limited >>>> number of users is hiding them. >>> >>> The limited number of users also means nobody will be targeting >>> Konqueror with attacks. IMHO, this is actually an advantage. >> >> PS: A Firefox 0-day exploited in the wild: >> https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/08/06/firefox-exploit-found-in-the-wild/ >> Do we really want to expose our users to such risks? > > sorry, but *that* is nonsense > > while i am firefox user and don't like it as default on live-media just > because there was a security bug is nonsense as argument, given that we > would need to kill nearly any package out of Fedora because all software > in the past few years had more or less critical security bugs The point is, as I wrote, Konqueror is very unlikely to get targeted by an attack. Firefox, on the other hand, is an attractive target and does get exploited in the wild (as the example has shown). All software has security holes. But only software with a high market share is an interesting attack target. Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
