A serious vulnerability that causes Internet Explorer to launch Firefox and execute a malicious payload is sparking debate about exactly who is responsible for the flaw. The vulnerability, which was widely reported on security blogs, allows an attacker to remotely execute malicious code on a machine that is running IE but also has the Mozilla browser installed. By luring an IE user to a malevolently crafted site, the attacker can cause Firefox to execute the code without first vetting it for security. [Not surprisingly, Microsoft claims it's a Firefox issue. But. . .] Roger Thompson, CTO of Exploit Prevention Labs, says Microsoft shares culpability because IE fails to properly validate the input before passing it along. "I think it's an IE issue mostly, because if you access the exploit directly with Firefox, FF warns you that something bad is happening and advises you to not do it." FULL STORY

This reminds me so much of the -- Border Patrol vs Employers' lapse -- issue that (of late) has been generating so much bipartisan haraguing in Congress. No need to waste time or resources. Rather than bicker back & forth over who is liable: they both should simply reasses their MO, so as to appropriately fix flaws across the board.

Sabertooth, I could not agree with you more. However, part of the problem - for both our elected representatives and we ourselves as citizens - is the accurate use of language. I realize Computing.net is not a political forum. But with Justin's permission, I'll explain. Very often, through the use of politically correct buzzwords, the real meaning of a subject is obscured. For example, take the phrase 'undocumented workers.' It's become a favorite description in even supposedly balanced newspapers and periodicals. At best, it's deceptive. At worst, it's a lie. Permit me an example. Recently, I read a tragic story in a major newspaper. A young girl had been sexually abused by an adult. Thankfully, the offender was caught quickly. He was charged with 'inappropriate contact with a minor.' Inappropriate? Giving her a beer would have been inappropriate. No, the offender is a child molester. He is what he is. Calling his act 'inappropriate' masks the true nature of his crime. It's the same as calling illegal aliens 'undocumented workers.' Certainly they're undocumented - being in the country illegally, they could not be otherwise. What's lost is the true nature of an unlawful act. Those who prefer 'undocumented workers' to 'illegal aliens' want to occlude the fact that these immigrants are here unlawfully. And they break the law in other ways. Recent FBI statistics show that 25% of those in prison are illegal aliens. Think about that: 1 in 4. These aliens have not been imprisoned for illegal immigration; their offenses run the full spectrum of violent crime against society (robbery, assault, murder, et al). Clearly, these are not the kind of people who deserve amnesty of any kind. This fact is rarely addressed by either Democrats or Republicans, charged with dealing with America's immigration problem. First, both parties want the Hispanic voting bloc and are loathe to offend it. Second, to refer to some illegal aliens as criminals - even with the facts to support it - would open up these same politicians to charges of racism. In today's culture (such as it is), a politician would rather be called a murderer than a racist. And they'd rather call illegal aliens 'undocumented workers' - rather than confront and express the truth. IronMan

IronMan you are correct, this is NOT a political forum.