<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_11_1626224</id>
	<title>Firefox Most Vulnerable Browser, Safari Close</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1257961500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Cenzic released its report revealing the most prominent types of Web application vulnerabilities for the first half of 2009. The report identified over 3,100 total vulnerabilities, which is a 10 percent increase in Web application vulnerabilities compared to the second half of 2008. Among Web browsers, <a href="http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=8489">Mozilla Firefox had the largest percentage of Web vulnerabilities</a>, followed by Apple Safari, whose browser showed a vast increase in exploits, due to vulnerabilities reported in the Safari iPhone browser."</i>  It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15\% of vulnerabilities are in IE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Cenzic released its report revealing the most prominent types of Web application vulnerabilities for the first half of 2009 .
The report identified over 3,100 total vulnerabilities , which is a 10 percent increase in Web application vulnerabilities compared to the second half of 2008 .
Among Web browsers , Mozilla Firefox had the largest percentage of Web vulnerabilities , followed by Apple Safari , whose browser showed a vast increase in exploits , due to vulnerabilities reported in the Safari iPhone browser .
" It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15 \ % of vulnerabilities are in IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Cenzic released its report revealing the most prominent types of Web application vulnerabilities for the first half of 2009.
The report identified over 3,100 total vulnerabilities, which is a 10 percent increase in Web application vulnerabilities compared to the second half of 2008.
Among Web browsers, Mozilla Firefox had the largest percentage of Web vulnerabilities, followed by Apple Safari, whose browser showed a vast increase in exploits, due to vulnerabilities reported in the Safari iPhone browser.
"  It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15\% of vulnerabilities are in IE.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063500</id>
	<title>Re:opera ftw</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1257104460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>/signed</htmltext>
<tokenext>/signed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/signed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063574</id>
	<title>Anyone else notice the Chrome-coloured charts?</title>
	<author>Chris Daniel</author>
	<datestamp>1257104760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Glossy, primary colours, circles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... reminds of the Chrome logo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glossy , primary colours , circles ... reminds of the Chrome logo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glossy, primary colours, circles ... reminds of the Chrome logo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066846</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And then there's this:</p><p><a href="http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/" title="cenzic.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/</a> [cenzic.com]</p></div><p>Oh my. Sweet. Once you see the words 'click' and 'secure' in the same sentence you can guess what it is all about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then there 's this : http : //www.cenzic.com/pr \ _20061011/ [ cenzic.com ] Oh my .
Sweet. Once you see the words 'click ' and 'secure ' in the same sentence you can guess what it is all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then there's this:http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/ [cenzic.com]Oh my.
Sweet. Once you see the words 'click' and 'secure' in the same sentence you can guess what it is all about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30069728</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257100800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really is as simple as filling out a form.  You fill out your profile, agree to sell MS product, wait a few days for 'Approval' and boom your a MCP for a year, at the end of the year, you update your profile and you're renewed for a year.</p><p>There are plenty of things you can do to increase your level in the system, but becoming an MCP really is just a matter of filling out some forms.</p><p>I realize you didn't bother to look into it anymore once you saw the treeview in your browser, but this is slashdot and a halfassed look at a web page and ignorance has never stopped anyone from making a complete ass out of themselves so why should you be any different.</p><p>If you sell pretty much any number of products for Windows you should be a MCP and take advantage of the free crap you can get out of it.  You can go be anti-MS and turn down sales potential all you want.  Enjoy standing in line at the unemployment office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really is as simple as filling out a form .
You fill out your profile , agree to sell MS product , wait a few days for 'Approval ' and boom your a MCP for a year , at the end of the year , you update your profile and you 're renewed for a year.There are plenty of things you can do to increase your level in the system , but becoming an MCP really is just a matter of filling out some forms.I realize you did n't bother to look into it anymore once you saw the treeview in your browser , but this is slashdot and a halfassed look at a web page and ignorance has never stopped anyone from making a complete ass out of themselves so why should you be any different.If you sell pretty much any number of products for Windows you should be a MCP and take advantage of the free crap you can get out of it .
You can go be anti-MS and turn down sales potential all you want .
Enjoy standing in line at the unemployment office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really is as simple as filling out a form.
You fill out your profile, agree to sell MS product, wait a few days for 'Approval' and boom your a MCP for a year, at the end of the year, you update your profile and you're renewed for a year.There are plenty of things you can do to increase your level in the system, but becoming an MCP really is just a matter of filling out some forms.I realize you didn't bother to look into it anymore once you saw the treeview in your browser, but this is slashdot and a halfassed look at a web page and ignorance has never stopped anyone from making a complete ass out of themselves so why should you be any different.If you sell pretty much any number of products for Windows you should be a MCP and take advantage of the free crap you can get out of it.
You can go be anti-MS and turn down sales potential all you want.
Enjoy standing in line at the unemployment office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062762</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just would like to note that this article is not saying that Firefox is the most vulnerable browser overall.  It focuses on web applications and that Firefox is the most vulnerable when it comes to web applications.</p><p>That makes sense.  Firefox and Safari support is something that's usually hastily tacked on after the product is developed for IE.  It also explains Opera's small percentage, because there aren't many web applications out there that even work for Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just would like to note that this article is not saying that Firefox is the most vulnerable browser overall .
It focuses on web applications and that Firefox is the most vulnerable when it comes to web applications.That makes sense .
Firefox and Safari support is something that 's usually hastily tacked on after the product is developed for IE .
It also explains Opera 's small percentage , because there are n't many web applications out there that even work for Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just would like to note that this article is not saying that Firefox is the most vulnerable browser overall.
It focuses on web applications and that Firefox is the most vulnerable when it comes to web applications.That makes sense.
Firefox and Safari support is something that's usually hastily tacked on after the product is developed for IE.
It also explains Opera's small percentage, because there aren't many web applications out there that even work for Opera.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065018</id>
	<title>Fundamental flaw: "PUBLIC vulnerabilities"</title>
	<author>seifried</author>
	<datestamp>1257067020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fundamental flaw of all these studies is that they are NBOT measuring vulnerabilities, they are measuring PUBLIC vulnerabilities. Two very different things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental flaw of all these studies is that they are NBOT measuring vulnerabilities , they are measuring PUBLIC vulnerabilities .
Two very different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental flaw of all these studies is that they are NBOT measuring vulnerabilities, they are measuring PUBLIC vulnerabilities.
Two very different things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065264</id>
	<title>sloppy</title>
	<author>mr.dreadful</author>
	<datestamp>1257068100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Cenzic analyzed all reported vulnerability information from sources including NIST, MITRE, SANS, US-CERT, OSVDB, OWASP, as well as other third party databases for Web application security issues reported during the first half of 2009."

Ah -- the old "count the number of bug reports" technique. I won't even bother ranting about that</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cenzic analyzed all reported vulnerability information from sources including NIST , MITRE , SANS , US-CERT , OSVDB , OWASP , as well as other third party databases for Web application security issues reported during the first half of 2009 .
" Ah -- the old " count the number of bug reports " technique .
I wo n't even bother ranting about that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cenzic analyzed all reported vulnerability information from sources including NIST, MITRE, SANS, US-CERT, OSVDB, OWASP, as well as other third party databases for Web application security issues reported during the first half of 2009.
"

Ah -- the old "count the number of bug reports" technique.
I won't even bother ranting about that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062876</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the report.</p><blockquote><div><p>Popular <b>vendors</b> including Sun, IBM, and Apache continue to be among the top 10 most vulnerable <b>Web applications</b> named.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Wait... so vendors and now applications?<br>They continue to say that Java and PHP are very vulnerable, but it's actually applications written in Java and PHP, not the language+runtime itself. In that case you could say that C++ has the most vulnerabilities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the report.Popular vendors including Sun , IBM , and Apache continue to be among the top 10 most vulnerable Web applications named .
Wait... so vendors and now applications ? They continue to say that Java and PHP are very vulnerable , but it 's actually applications written in Java and PHP , not the language + runtime itself .
In that case you could say that C + + has the most vulnerabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the report.Popular vendors including Sun, IBM, and Apache continue to be among the top 10 most vulnerable Web applications named.
Wait... so vendors and now applications?They continue to say that Java and PHP are very vulnerable, but it's actually applications written in Java and PHP, not the language+runtime itself.
In that case you could say that C++ has the most vulnerabilities.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065322</id>
	<title>Re:who is cenzic?</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1257068280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is 1 download for the Firefox source and 0 for IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is 1 download for the Firefox source and 0 for IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is 1 download for the Firefox source and 0 for IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664</id>
	<title>Certified</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1257101280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15\% of vulnerabilities are in IE.</p> </div><p>There is an explanation for that.

</p><p> <a href="http://www.cenzic.com/pr/20060718/" title="cenzic.com" rel="nofollow">Cenzic Recognized as a Microsoft Certified Partner, Experiences Substantial Momentum in Q2</a> [cenzic.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15 \ % of vulnerabilities are in IE .
There is an explanation for that .
Cenzic Recognized as a Microsoft Certified Partner , Experiences Substantial Momentum in Q2 [ cenzic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15\% of vulnerabilities are in IE.
There is an explanation for that.
Cenzic Recognized as a Microsoft Certified Partner, Experiences Substantial Momentum in Q2 [cenzic.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063880</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another deliberately lying bullshit story!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what did you just do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what did you just do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what did you just do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065074</id>
	<title>Re:who is cenzic?</title>
	<author>Silfax</author>
	<datestamp>1257067260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>hits search<br>
<br>367 <a href="http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+internet+explorer" title="cert.org" rel="nofollow">http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+internet+explorer</a> [cert.org]
<br>89  <a href="http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+netscape" title="cert.org" rel="nofollow">http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+netscape</a> [cert.org]
<br>61  <a href="http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+firefox" title="cert.org" rel="nofollow">http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+firefox</a> [cert.org]
<br>20  <a href="http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+safari" title="cert.org" rel="nofollow">http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+safari</a> [cert.org]
<br>18  <a href="http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+opera" title="cert.org" rel="nofollow">http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+opera</a> [cert.org]
<br>12  <a href="http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+lynx" title="cert.org" rel="nofollow">http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+lynx</a> [cert.org]
<br> <br>
clearly, the fewer number of letters in the name of your browser makes it more secure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>hits search 367 http : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + internet + explorer [ cert.org ] 89 http : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + netscape [ cert.org ] 61 http : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + firefox [ cert.org ] 20 http : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + safari [ cert.org ] 18 http : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + opera [ cert.org ] 12 http : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + lynx [ cert.org ] clearly , the fewer number of letters in the name of your browser makes it more secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hits search
367 http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+internet+explorer [cert.org]
89  http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+netscape [cert.org]
61  http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+firefox [cert.org]
20  http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+safari [cert.org]
18  http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+opera [cert.org]
12  http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+lynx [cert.org]
 
clearly, the fewer number of letters in the name of your browser makes it more secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063506</id>
	<title>While on the subject...</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1257104460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every browser security article gets a few "I use adblock and noscript so doesn't apply to me" posts (not a complaint, just an observation- I do use both). I am assuming that proper use of these extensions avoids most of the vulnerabilities of concern here, but adblock and noscript are FF extensions- what is there for other browsers that is comparable? What is supported for cellphones?<br> <br>

The FF/AB/NS combo has often been stated as the best way to browse securely, but I only see other browsers rated based on their default settings. I guess what I'm getting at is, based on this article, every other browser can claim to be better than FF. Ignoring arguments over proper counting and documentation, FF users could claim they are more secure due to FF having AB/NS- is this a valid claim?<br> <br>

Basically the first question asks for information, the second asks for arguments. I could go try to research, but that would deprive some people of +5 informatives and +5 insightfuls (in addition to -1 trolls).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every browser security article gets a few " I use adblock and noscript so does n't apply to me " posts ( not a complaint , just an observation- I do use both ) .
I am assuming that proper use of these extensions avoids most of the vulnerabilities of concern here , but adblock and noscript are FF extensions- what is there for other browsers that is comparable ?
What is supported for cellphones ?
The FF/AB/NS combo has often been stated as the best way to browse securely , but I only see other browsers rated based on their default settings .
I guess what I 'm getting at is , based on this article , every other browser can claim to be better than FF .
Ignoring arguments over proper counting and documentation , FF users could claim they are more secure due to FF having AB/NS- is this a valid claim ?
Basically the first question asks for information , the second asks for arguments .
I could go try to research , but that would deprive some people of + 5 informatives and + 5 insightfuls ( in addition to -1 trolls ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every browser security article gets a few "I use adblock and noscript so doesn't apply to me" posts (not a complaint, just an observation- I do use both).
I am assuming that proper use of these extensions avoids most of the vulnerabilities of concern here, but adblock and noscript are FF extensions- what is there for other browsers that is comparable?
What is supported for cellphones?
The FF/AB/NS combo has often been stated as the best way to browse securely, but I only see other browsers rated based on their default settings.
I guess what I'm getting at is, based on this article, every other browser can claim to be better than FF.
Ignoring arguments over proper counting and documentation, FF users could claim they are more secure due to FF having AB/NS- is this a valid claim?
Basically the first question asks for information, the second asks for arguments.
I could go try to research, but that would deprive some people of +5 informatives and +5 insightfuls (in addition to -1 trolls).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30093868</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258120560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't a lot of money to be an MCP and it doesn't tie you financially in anyway to MS.  It's a marketing method to promote the fact that you are experienced with MS techonolgies, and just because you're an MCP doesn't mean you can't promote products/technologies other than Microsoft's, I work for an MCP and we promote/sell devices with Linux and we develop Oracle systems too.  Most of the people in this thread are just plain nuts and see MS conspiracies everywhere, it's laughable!  Firefox is a great browser, but it is a fact that a few years ago there were a great number of vulnerabilities in it.  I'm not too up with the latest version, but why is it so hard to accept the fact that Firefox might still have more vulnerabilities than IE?  It's like Oracle guys can't accept that SQL Server is a far more secure database, but it's a fact.  In the end does it really matter?  All the vendors are trying to improve their products, and MS in particular have made huge strides in their product's security and resilience compared to even 5 years ago.  I use Open Source stuff, vendor specific stuff, MS, Sun whatever suits and what I find interesting.  I don't let some out of date zealotry about Open Source blind me to tyeh realities of today's industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't a lot of money to be an MCP and it does n't tie you financially in anyway to MS. It 's a marketing method to promote the fact that you are experienced with MS techonolgies , and just because you 're an MCP does n't mean you ca n't promote products/technologies other than Microsoft 's , I work for an MCP and we promote/sell devices with Linux and we develop Oracle systems too .
Most of the people in this thread are just plain nuts and see MS conspiracies everywhere , it 's laughable !
Firefox is a great browser , but it is a fact that a few years ago there were a great number of vulnerabilities in it .
I 'm not too up with the latest version , but why is it so hard to accept the fact that Firefox might still have more vulnerabilities than IE ?
It 's like Oracle guys ca n't accept that SQL Server is a far more secure database , but it 's a fact .
In the end does it really matter ?
All the vendors are trying to improve their products , and MS in particular have made huge strides in their product 's security and resilience compared to even 5 years ago .
I use Open Source stuff , vendor specific stuff , MS , Sun whatever suits and what I find interesting .
I do n't let some out of date zealotry about Open Source blind me to tyeh realities of today 's industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't a lot of money to be an MCP and it doesn't tie you financially in anyway to MS.  It's a marketing method to promote the fact that you are experienced with MS techonolgies, and just because you're an MCP doesn't mean you can't promote products/technologies other than Microsoft's, I work for an MCP and we promote/sell devices with Linux and we develop Oracle systems too.
Most of the people in this thread are just plain nuts and see MS conspiracies everywhere, it's laughable!
Firefox is a great browser, but it is a fact that a few years ago there were a great number of vulnerabilities in it.
I'm not too up with the latest version, but why is it so hard to accept the fact that Firefox might still have more vulnerabilities than IE?
It's like Oracle guys can't accept that SQL Server is a far more secure database, but it's a fact.
In the end does it really matter?
All the vendors are trying to improve their products, and MS in particular have made huge strides in their product's security and resilience compared to even 5 years ago.
I use Open Source stuff, vendor specific stuff, MS, Sun whatever suits and what I find interesting.
I don't let some out of date zealotry about Open Source blind me to tyeh realities of today's industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064346</id>
	<title>Security Marketing -- Then the real world....</title>
	<author>westyvw</author>
	<datestamp>1257107340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pander fear, but then what do they trust for their web site and blog?<br> <br>
Apache and Centos and Redhat. Nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pander fear , but then what do they trust for their web site and blog ?
Apache and Centos and Redhat .
Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pander fear, but then what do they trust for their web site and blog?
Apache and Centos and Redhat.
Nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065554</id>
	<title>Pure FUD</title>
	<author>emandres</author>
	<datestamp>1257069600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the "report" cited in the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>What do the Swine flu and hacker attacks have in common?</p></div><p>
Yeah, I'd say that's a good foot to start off on, especially when you're a security company fearmongering people into buying your product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the " report " cited in the article : What do the Swine flu and hacker attacks have in common ?
Yeah , I 'd say that 's a good foot to start off on , especially when you 're a security company fearmongering people into buying your product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the "report" cited in the article:What do the Swine flu and hacker attacks have in common?
Yeah, I'd say that's a good foot to start off on, especially when you're a security company fearmongering people into buying your product.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063646</id>
	<title>Brought to you by the fine folks in Marketing</title>
	<author>darthyoshiboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257104940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The project was both lead and edited by one Mandeep Khera, Chief Marketing Officer, Cenzic, Inc.<br>Put together more or less entirely by marketing people at a company that is trying to sell you web security.<br>
I don't know about you guys but I've never known people in marketing to be anything less than the most fine and upstanding sort of the disgusting vile unmitigated cock sucking pustules that ever formed on the unwashed asses of pond scum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The project was both lead and edited by one Mandeep Khera , Chief Marketing Officer , Cenzic , Inc.Put together more or less entirely by marketing people at a company that is trying to sell you web security .
I do n't know about you guys but I 've never known people in marketing to be anything less than the most fine and upstanding sort of the disgusting vile unmitigated cock sucking pustules that ever formed on the unwashed asses of pond scum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The project was both lead and edited by one Mandeep Khera, Chief Marketing Officer, Cenzic, Inc.Put together more or less entirely by marketing people at a company that is trying to sell you web security.
I don't know about you guys but I've never known people in marketing to be anything less than the most fine and upstanding sort of the disgusting vile unmitigated cock sucking pustules that ever formed on the unwashed asses of pond scum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062770</id>
	<title>Scientific Method Done Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite trustworthy. There is enough discussion, but where's the math and the design of the 'study', and method? Bogus... Drawing some diagrams and calling in a few numbers from an unspecified source doesn't make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite trustworthy .
There is enough discussion , but where 's the math and the design of the 'study ' , and method ?
Bogus... Drawing some diagrams and calling in a few numbers from an unspecified source does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite trustworthy.
There is enough discussion, but where's the math and the design of the 'study', and method?
Bogus... Drawing some diagrams and calling in a few numbers from an unspecified source doesn't make sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062860</id>
	<title>Firefox?  Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Follow the money.  Who funded this study.  I find the results disturbing and not believable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Follow the money .
Who funded this study .
I find the results disturbing and not believable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Follow the money.
Who funded this study.
I find the results disturbing and not believable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30069774</id>
	<title>Re:who is cenzic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not at all<br>http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+lynx</p><p>Notice that there are no actual mentions of the browser Chrome<br>http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+chrome</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not at allhttp : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + lynxNotice that there are no actual mentions of the browser Chromehttp : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + chrome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not at allhttp://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+lynxNotice that there are no actual mentions of the browser Chromehttp://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+chrome</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062964</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox IS getting infected in the wild</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its plugins.  Ive seen several machines recently infected, no files were showing as having been downloaded, but based on the temp files used to start the infection it appears that Adobe Reader is being used quite a lot as an avenue for infection</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its plugins .
Ive seen several machines recently infected , no files were showing as having been downloaded , but based on the temp files used to start the infection it appears that Adobe Reader is being used quite a lot as an avenue for infection</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its plugins.
Ive seen several machines recently infected, no files were showing as having been downloaded, but based on the temp files used to start the infection it appears that Adobe Reader is being used quite a lot as an avenue for infection</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063852</id>
	<title>My sources claim the opposite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox 3.5.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/?task=statistics\_2009<br>IE 7.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/?task=statistics\_2009</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox 3.5.x http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/ ? task = statistics \ _2009IE 7.x http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/ ? task = statistics \ _2009</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox 3.5.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/?task=statistics\_2009IE 7.x http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/?task=statistics\_2009</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063192</id>
	<title>Are they severe? Are they fixed?</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1257103320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did not read the whole report but there is absolutely no mention of severity in that press release... nor does it mention how they counted them. Are these defects that have been acknowledged and fixed? From what I can see it's entirely possible that they've counted the THOUSANDS of trivial defects that Firefox discloses and fixes as a matter of course while Microsoft will only disclose the severe ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not read the whole report but there is absolutely no mention of severity in that press release... nor does it mention how they counted them .
Are these defects that have been acknowledged and fixed ?
From what I can see it 's entirely possible that they 've counted the THOUSANDS of trivial defects that Firefox discloses and fixes as a matter of course while Microsoft will only disclose the severe ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not read the whole report but there is absolutely no mention of severity in that press release... nor does it mention how they counted them.
Are these defects that have been acknowledged and fixed?
From what I can see it's entirely possible that they've counted the THOUSANDS of trivial defects that Firefox discloses and fixes as a matter of course while Microsoft will only disclose the severe ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064522</id>
	<title>Re:duration of vulnerability</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1257108000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lots of comments mentioning the lack of taking into account of the severity of the bugs, but what about the duration of the vulnerabilities.</p></div><p>Agreed.  The most accurate way to assess vulnerability based on reported security defects is to categorize them by severity and then total up days of vulnerability by category.  Additional weight should be given to vulnerabilities with a released exploit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of comments mentioning the lack of taking into account of the severity of the bugs , but what about the duration of the vulnerabilities.Agreed .
The most accurate way to assess vulnerability based on reported security defects is to categorize them by severity and then total up days of vulnerability by category .
Additional weight should be given to vulnerabilities with a released exploit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of comments mentioning the lack of taking into account of the severity of the bugs, but what about the duration of the vulnerabilities.Agreed.
The most accurate way to assess vulnerability based on reported security defects is to categorize them by severity and then total up days of vulnerability by category.
Additional weight should be given to vulnerabilities with a released exploit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062760</id>
	<title>I read the report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it has about as much information as the linked summary does. As in, a few charts with ABSOLUTELY no supporting evidence, citations, or anything at all whatsoever. The web browser section consists of this paragraph:</p><p><i>Vulnerabilities in Web browsers were concentrated among four popular technologies - Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, and Safari. The number of browser vulnerabilities in first half of 2009 comprised about 8 percent of total Web vulnerabilities. Mozilla Firefox had the largest percentage at 44 percent. What was surprising was that the Safari browser had a lot more vulnerabilities at 35 percent this time around mainly due to vulnerabilities reported in iPhone Safari. Internet Explorer was third at 15 percent and Opera with six percent of total browser vulnerabilities.</i></p><p>About as substantial as the arguments republitards are using right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it has about as much information as the linked summary does .
As in , a few charts with ABSOLUTELY no supporting evidence , citations , or anything at all whatsoever .
The web browser section consists of this paragraph : Vulnerabilities in Web browsers were concentrated among four popular technologies - Internet Explorer , Mozilla Firefox , Opera , and Safari .
The number of browser vulnerabilities in first half of 2009 comprised about 8 percent of total Web vulnerabilities .
Mozilla Firefox had the largest percentage at 44 percent .
What was surprising was that the Safari browser had a lot more vulnerabilities at 35 percent this time around mainly due to vulnerabilities reported in iPhone Safari .
Internet Explorer was third at 15 percent and Opera with six percent of total browser vulnerabilities.About as substantial as the arguments republitards are using right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it has about as much information as the linked summary does.
As in, a few charts with ABSOLUTELY no supporting evidence, citations, or anything at all whatsoever.
The web browser section consists of this paragraph:Vulnerabilities in Web browsers were concentrated among four popular technologies - Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, and Safari.
The number of browser vulnerabilities in first half of 2009 comprised about 8 percent of total Web vulnerabilities.
Mozilla Firefox had the largest percentage at 44 percent.
What was surprising was that the Safari browser had a lot more vulnerabilities at 35 percent this time around mainly due to vulnerabilities reported in iPhone Safari.
Internet Explorer was third at 15 percent and Opera with six percent of total browser vulnerabilities.About as substantial as the arguments republitards are using right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30075762</id>
	<title>I call bullshit</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1258052520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE is not leader of the pack?  What happened to security through obscurity?  Safari shouldn't even be on the list.  IE should have them all?</p><p>Somehow I doubt this "study" is worth the paper it's printed on (in Redmond).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE is not leader of the pack ?
What happened to security through obscurity ?
Safari should n't even be on the list .
IE should have them all ? Somehow I doubt this " study " is worth the paper it 's printed on ( in Redmond ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE is not leader of the pack?
What happened to security through obscurity?
Safari shouldn't even be on the list.
IE should have them all?Somehow I doubt this "study" is worth the paper it's printed on (in Redmond).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062990</id>
	<title>Re:who is cenzic?</title>
	<author>xgr3gx</author>
	<datestamp>1257102600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Missing this one, the lowest of all:<br><a href="http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+opera" title="cert.org">http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+opera</a> [cert.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Missing this one , the lowest of all : http : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + opera [ cert.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Missing this one, the lowest of all:http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+opera [cert.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063548</id>
	<title>Obviously a Microsoft funded study</title>
	<author>gVibe</author>
	<datestamp>1257104640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no way in hell I would believe that IE has less vulnerabilities than Firefox or Safari (Safari on Windows probable). Web application or not, Firefox will never fall to the likes of IE.<br> <br>

When will these companies ever stop spinning data in favor of who pays them the most?  They have to know we are on to them and don't believe one bit of the hype they are spewing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way in hell I would believe that IE has less vulnerabilities than Firefox or Safari ( Safari on Windows probable ) .
Web application or not , Firefox will never fall to the likes of IE .
When will these companies ever stop spinning data in favor of who pays them the most ?
They have to know we are on to them and do n't believe one bit of the hype they are spewing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way in hell I would believe that IE has less vulnerabilities than Firefox or Safari (Safari on Windows probable).
Web application or not, Firefox will never fall to the likes of IE.
When will these companies ever stop spinning data in favor of who pays them the most?
They have to know we are on to them and don't believe one bit of the hype they are spewing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063090</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox IS getting infected in the wild</title>
	<author>1001011010110101</author>
	<datestamp>1257102960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Define "Infected Firefox installations"</p><p>Maybe you mean "PC with Firefox installed thats infected by a {virus|trojan|keylogger|spyware}" ?</p><p>Still, installing Firefox doesn't prevent you from catching something for running infected software or prevents someone from installing some crap that puts toolbars or BonziBuddy into your PC....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Define " Infected Firefox installations " Maybe you mean " PC with Firefox installed thats infected by a { virus | trojan | keylogger | spyware } " ? Still , installing Firefox does n't prevent you from catching something for running infected software or prevents someone from installing some crap that puts toolbars or BonziBuddy into your PC... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define "Infected Firefox installations"Maybe you mean "PC with Firefox installed thats infected by a {virus|trojan|keylogger|spyware}" ?Still, installing Firefox doesn't prevent you from catching something for running infected software or prevents someone from installing some crap that puts toolbars or BonziBuddy into your PC....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066858</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the most important criteria being: "Meet the minimum sales bar as appropriate."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the most important criteria being : " Meet the minimum sales bar as appropriate .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the most important criteria being: "Meet the minimum sales bar as appropriate.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065432</id>
	<title>Re:I read the report</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1257068820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evidently you missed the most important part of TFA:</p><p><em>"<strong>About Cenzic</strong></em></p><p><em>"Cenzic provides <strong>software</strong> and <strong>SaaS</strong> products to protect Websites against hacker attacks. Unlike network security and SSL solutions, Cenzic tests for security defects at the Web application level where over 75\% of attacks occur. Our dynamic, black box testing of Web applications is built on a non-signature-based technology that enables us to find more &ldquo;real&rdquo; vulnerabilities."</em></p><p>(Also, don't you mean "Republican'ts"?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evidently you missed the most important part of TFA : " About Cenzic " Cenzic provides software and SaaS products to protect Websites against hacker attacks .
Unlike network security and SSL solutions , Cenzic tests for security defects at the Web application level where over 75 \ % of attacks occur .
Our dynamic , black box testing of Web applications is built on a non-signature-based technology that enables us to find more    real    vulnerabilities .
" ( Also , do n't you mean " Republican'ts " ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evidently you missed the most important part of TFA:"About Cenzic"Cenzic provides software and SaaS products to protect Websites against hacker attacks.
Unlike network security and SSL solutions, Cenzic tests for security defects at the Web application level where over 75\% of attacks occur.
Our dynamic, black box testing of Web applications is built on a non-signature-based technology that enables us to find more “real” vulnerabilities.
"(Also, don't you mean "Republican'ts"?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30070868</id>
	<title>From secunia.com:</title>
	<author>Undead NDR</author>
	<datestamp>1258026720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FF 3.0.x: advisories:21, vulnerabilities:133, unpatched:0\% (0 of 21)<br>FF 3.5.x: advisories:5, vulnerabilities:37, unpatched:0\% (0 of 5)<br>IE 8.x: advisories:5, vulnerabilities:16, unpatched:<b>40\%</b> (2 of 5)</p><p>End of story, as far as I'm concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FF 3.0.x : advisories : 21 , vulnerabilities : 133 , unpatched : 0 \ % ( 0 of 21 ) FF 3.5.x : advisories : 5 , vulnerabilities : 37 , unpatched : 0 \ % ( 0 of 5 ) IE 8.x : advisories : 5 , vulnerabilities : 16 , unpatched : 40 \ % ( 2 of 5 ) End of story , as far as I 'm concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FF 3.0.x: advisories:21, vulnerabilities:133, unpatched:0\% (0 of 21)FF 3.5.x: advisories:5, vulnerabilities:37, unpatched:0\% (0 of 5)IE 8.x: advisories:5, vulnerabilities:16, unpatched:40\% (2 of 5)End of story, as far as I'm concerned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You didn't mention <b>how</b> to become an MCP though. Its not just a matter of filling out a form and sending it to Microsoft. These companies go through a rigorous set of <a href="https://partner.microsoft.com/40011230#comp" title="microsoft.com">evaluations</a> [microsoft.com] based specifically around Microsoft products in order to become MCP. So although Microsoft might not control them, their pocket books do and they sure as hell invested a lot of money to become MCP's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't mention how to become an MCP though .
Its not just a matter of filling out a form and sending it to Microsoft .
These companies go through a rigorous set of evaluations [ microsoft.com ] based specifically around Microsoft products in order to become MCP .
So although Microsoft might not control them , their pocket books do and they sure as hell invested a lot of money to become MCP 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't mention how to become an MCP though.
Its not just a matter of filling out a form and sending it to Microsoft.
These companies go through a rigorous set of evaluations [microsoft.com] based specifically around Microsoft products in order to become MCP.
So although Microsoft might not control them, their pocket books do and they sure as hell invested a lot of money to become MCP's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063538</id>
	<title>slogan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This comes from a company whose slogan is</p><p>Let us Hack you,<br>before hackers do!</p><p>sweet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This comes from a company whose slogan isLet us Hack you,before hackers do ! sweet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comes from a company whose slogan isLet us Hack you,before hackers do!sweet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064160</id>
	<title>This thing Screams One thing...</title>
	<author>IAmAMacOSXAddict</author>
	<datestamp>1257106620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are either a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro$oft...<br>They want to be a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro$oft...<br>They are owned by a a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro$oft...<br>Or lastly they want to be owned a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro$oft...<br><br>Basically I consider the whole thing a bunch of FUD...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are either a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro $ oft...They want to be a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro $ oft...They are owned by a a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro $ oft...Or lastly they want to be owned a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro $ oft...Basically I consider the whole thing a bunch of FUD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are either a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro$oft...They want to be a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro$oft...They are owned by a a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro$oft...Or lastly they want to be owned a wholy owned subsidiary of Micro$oft...Basically I consider the whole thing a bunch of FUD...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064214</id>
	<title>QA = win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most uncategorized logged flaws = best tested!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most uncategorized logged flaws = best tested !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most uncategorized logged flaws = best tested!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066724</id>
	<title>Isn't the report sponsored by Microsoft?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if the report is indeed not sponsored by Microsoft or a Microsoft proxy organization or both, which may well be the case, why is it that this fact is/was not publicly proven? I am just asking, not saying it is, but asking. But if it isn't, then the report should be able to prove that they have no association now, before and will not have an association in the future with Microsoft. Because if they can't prove that what good are the numbers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if the report is indeed not sponsored by Microsoft or a Microsoft proxy organization or both , which may well be the case , why is it that this fact is/was not publicly proven ?
I am just asking , not saying it is , but asking .
But if it is n't , then the report should be able to prove that they have no association now , before and will not have an association in the future with Microsoft .
Because if they ca n't prove that what good are the numbers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if the report is indeed not sponsored by Microsoft or a Microsoft proxy organization or both, which may well be the case, why is it that this fact is/was not publicly proven?
I am just asking, not saying it is, but asking.
But if it isn't, then the report should be able to prove that they have no association now, before and will not have an association in the future with Microsoft.
Because if they can't prove that what good are the numbers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063070</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1257102960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but it would have been much more believable had it been from an organization with no appearance of bias, or possibly a board of members made up of representatives from all the browsers being tested to ensure that there was no funny business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but it would have been much more believable had it been from an organization with no appearance of bias , or possibly a board of members made up of representatives from all the browsers being tested to ensure that there was no funny business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but it would have been much more believable had it been from an organization with no appearance of bias, or possibly a board of members made up of representatives from all the browsers being tested to ensure that there was no funny business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eh, being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing. Almost all the development firms I have worked for (from five employees to tens of thousands) are certified partners, it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophy. It doesn't mean Microsoft is controlling you. (They may be controlling Cenzic, but you can't say that just because they are a certified partner).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing .
Almost all the development firms I have worked for ( from five employees to tens of thousands ) are certified partners , it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophy .
It does n't mean Microsoft is controlling you .
( They may be controlling Cenzic , but you ca n't say that just because they are a certified partner ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing.
Almost all the development firms I have worked for (from five employees to tens of thousands) are certified partners, it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophy.
It doesn't mean Microsoft is controlling you.
(They may be controlling Cenzic, but you can't say that just because they are a certified partner).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062652</id>
	<title>I wonder</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1257101220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many of these vulnerabilities were due to Firefox itself, and how many due to plugins?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of these vulnerabilities were due to Firefox itself , and how many due to plugins ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of these vulnerabilities were due to Firefox itself, and how many due to plugins?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068616</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another deliberately lying bullshit story!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Administer!</p><p>Not really trying to be the Spelling Nazi, but "administrate" sounds so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nasty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Administer ! Not really trying to be the Spelling Nazi , but " administrate " sounds so ... nasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Administer!Not really trying to be the Spelling Nazi, but "administrate" sounds so ... nasty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062824</id>
	<title>Maybe he is at fault?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1257101940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the version of firefox he downloaded to do the testing with, was probably a fake to begin with (maybe he was<br>part of a man in the middle attack by M$ who wanted to prove that FF was worst, and fed him an owned version of FF)<br>That would be too obvious, since being a security analyst, he would know to check all checksums of every app, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the version of firefox he downloaded to do the testing with , was probably a fake to begin with ( maybe he waspart of a man in the middle attack by M $ who wanted to prove that FF was worst , and fed him an owned version of FF ) That would be too obvious , since being a security analyst , he would know to check all checksums of every app , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the version of firefox he downloaded to do the testing with, was probably a fake to begin with (maybe he waspart of a man in the middle attack by M$ who wanted to prove that FF was worst, and fed him an owned version of FF)That would be too obvious, since being a security analyst, he would know to check all checksums of every app, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063200</id>
	<title>opera ftw</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1257103380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>been using it since the 90s and from long experience can say it's the safest by far. don't know why or care particularly. whether clever code or minuscule market penetration is academic from this user's pov. truth is the fat lady's song still keeps the bad guys away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>been using it since the 90s and from long experience can say it 's the safest by far .
do n't know why or care particularly .
whether clever code or minuscule market penetration is academic from this user 's pov .
truth is the fat lady 's song still keeps the bad guys away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>been using it since the 90s and from long experience can say it's the safest by far.
don't know why or care particularly.
whether clever code or minuscule market penetration is academic from this user's pov.
truth is the fat lady's song still keeps the bad guys away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30079304</id>
	<title>Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene?  Check!</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1258021800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15\% of<br>&gt; vulnerabilities are in IE.</p><p>This is because your theory is basically, "Microsoft evil and sloppy and lazy."</p><p>My theory, which I have literally been downmodded for, is that IE was targetted because it was far and away the most popular.  Hence hackers, primarily people wanting to compromize your computer for spam or bot purposes, had the most to gain.</p><p>Now Firefox, if I recall, has just passed IE on the browser share market.  Hence it's catching more and more attention.</p><p>So, as Dilbert might say, are you going to admit that you are wrong and bow to my intellectual superiority, or are you going to actively rewrite history in your mind and claim you thought this up all by yourself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15 \ % of &gt; vulnerabilities are in IE.This is because your theory is basically , " Microsoft evil and sloppy and lazy .
" My theory , which I have literally been downmodded for , is that IE was targetted because it was far and away the most popular .
Hence hackers , primarily people wanting to compromize your computer for spam or bot purposes , had the most to gain.Now Firefox , if I recall , has just passed IE on the browser share market .
Hence it 's catching more and more attention.So , as Dilbert might say , are you going to admit that you are wrong and bow to my intellectual superiority , or are you going to actively rewrite history in your mind and claim you thought this up all by yourself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15\% of&gt; vulnerabilities are in IE.This is because your theory is basically, "Microsoft evil and sloppy and lazy.
"My theory, which I have literally been downmodded for, is that IE was targetted because it was far and away the most popular.
Hence hackers, primarily people wanting to compromize your computer for spam or bot purposes, had the most to gain.Now Firefox, if I recall, has just passed IE on the browser share market.
Hence it's catching more and more attention.So, as Dilbert might say, are you going to admit that you are wrong and bow to my intellectual superiority, or are you going to actively rewrite history in your mind and claim you thought this up all by yourself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063972</id>
	<title>Right from their own website....</title>
	<author>Dare978Devil</author>
	<datestamp>1257106020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Cenzic's acceptance to the SecureIT Alliance alongside our recent designation as a Microsoft Certified Partner highlights our expertise and experience in working with Microsoft technologies as well as a proven ability to meet customer needs," said Mandeep Khera, vice president of marketing for Cenzic.

<a href="http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/" title="cenzic.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/</a> [cenzic.com]

So, this report on browser vulnerabilities must be "Fair and Balanced" given that they are a Microsoft Certified Partner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cenzic 's acceptance to the SecureIT Alliance alongside our recent designation as a Microsoft Certified Partner highlights our expertise and experience in working with Microsoft technologies as well as a proven ability to meet customer needs , " said Mandeep Khera , vice president of marketing for Cenzic .
http : //www.cenzic.com/pr \ _20061011/ [ cenzic.com ] So , this report on browser vulnerabilities must be " Fair and Balanced " given that they are a Microsoft Certified Partner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cenzic's acceptance to the SecureIT Alliance alongside our recent designation as a Microsoft Certified Partner highlights our expertise and experience in working with Microsoft technologies as well as a proven ability to meet customer needs," said Mandeep Khera, vice president of marketing for Cenzic.
http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/ [cenzic.com]

So, this report on browser vulnerabilities must be "Fair and Balanced" given that they are a Microsoft Certified Partner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063018</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>random string of num</author>
	<datestamp>1257102780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>anyone think the pie chart looks a bit like the windows symbol?</htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone think the pie chart looks a bit like the windows symbol ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone think the pie chart looks a bit like the windows symbol?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065606</id>
	<title>I'm calling autobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, this one's pretty much autobs in my opinion,</p><p>IE may have nice security and stuff built in or whatever but the problem with it is that it is DIRECTLY connected with your windows OS.<br>meaning that if something gets into IE, it's in your computer</p><p>firefox and chrome both have this weakness, but not nearly as prominent</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , this one 's pretty much autobs in my opinion,IE may have nice security and stuff built in or whatever but the problem with it is that it is DIRECTLY connected with your windows OS.meaning that if something gets into IE , it 's in your computerfirefox and chrome both have this weakness , but not nearly as prominent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, this one's pretty much autobs in my opinion,IE may have nice security and stuff built in or whatever but the problem with it is that it is DIRECTLY connected with your windows OS.meaning that if something gets into IE, it's in your computerfirefox and chrome both have this weakness, but not nearly as prominent</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063308</id>
	<title>Ex MS employee on the "number of patches" metric</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257103860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as Window Snyder (former MS employee who later worked for mozilla for some time) pointed out: Microsoft puts multiple fixes in one patch, so multiple IE holes are counted as just one...
http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2007/11/30/critical-vulnerability-in-microsoft-metrics/</htmltext>
<tokenext>as Window Snyder ( former MS employee who later worked for mozilla for some time ) pointed out : Microsoft puts multiple fixes in one patch , so multiple IE holes are counted as just one.. . http : //blog.mozilla.com/security/2007/11/30/critical-vulnerability-in-microsoft-metrics/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as Window Snyder (former MS employee who later worked for mozilla for some time) pointed out: Microsoft puts multiple fixes in one patch, so multiple IE holes are counted as just one...
http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2007/11/30/critical-vulnerability-in-microsoft-metrics/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062782</id>
	<title>Cenzic is Loyalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're a certified Microsoft partner. Can't trust anybody to make that kind of statement about competition against MS unless they're an independent entity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're a certified Microsoft partner .
Ca n't trust anybody to make that kind of statement about competition against MS unless they 're an independent entity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're a certified Microsoft partner.
Can't trust anybody to make that kind of statement about competition against MS unless they're an independent entity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30069502</id>
	<title>I'm Reminded of that scene from "The Mummy"</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1257098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The crowd of ragged locals gather, all chanting in a low voice, "My Crow Soft, My Crow Soft, My Crow Soft".  A Google search shows the following, <i>The <a href="http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/" title="cenzic.com">SecureIT Alliance</a> [cenzic.com] enables leading security vendors to collaborate in order to improve the process of building and integrating Microsoft platform-friendly products.</i>  I can only think there's a Grinning Show Off hard at work at m$ saying to itself, "It's been a hard work day, but I earn my pay at m$"</htmltext>
<tokenext>The crowd of ragged locals gather , all chanting in a low voice , " My Crow Soft , My Crow Soft , My Crow Soft " .
A Google search shows the following , The SecureIT Alliance [ cenzic.com ] enables leading security vendors to collaborate in order to improve the process of building and integrating Microsoft platform-friendly products .
I can only think there 's a Grinning Show Off hard at work at m $ saying to itself , " It 's been a hard work day , but I earn my pay at m $ "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The crowd of ragged locals gather, all chanting in a low voice, "My Crow Soft, My Crow Soft, My Crow Soft".
A Google search shows the following, The SecureIT Alliance [cenzic.com] enables leading security vendors to collaborate in order to improve the process of building and integrating Microsoft platform-friendly products.
I can only think there's a Grinning Show Off hard at work at m$ saying to itself, "It's been a hard work day, but I earn my pay at m$"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30069880</id>
	<title>Matter of Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh sure, Firefox may have the most vulnerabilities, but how many of those vulnerabilities are guaranteed to lock up the system with a BSOD? IE may have fewer (uh, huh, and I have a bridge for sale, too), but the ones it DOES have may be more likely to cause irreversible data loss and hardware damage. Just something to consider...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh sure , Firefox may have the most vulnerabilities , but how many of those vulnerabilities are guaranteed to lock up the system with a BSOD ?
IE may have fewer ( uh , huh , and I have a bridge for sale , too ) , but the ones it DOES have may be more likely to cause irreversible data loss and hardware damage .
Just something to consider.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh sure, Firefox may have the most vulnerabilities, but how many of those vulnerabilities are guaranteed to lock up the system with a BSOD?
IE may have fewer (uh, huh, and I have a bridge for sale, too), but the ones it DOES have may be more likely to cause irreversible data loss and hardware damage.
Just something to consider...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063330</id>
	<title>Shenanigans</title>
	<author>killmenow</author>
	<datestamp>1257103920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Study/article is misleading and useless.</p><p>Also: Chrome, Bitches!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Study/article is misleading and useless.Also : Chrome , Bitches !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Study/article is misleading and useless.Also: Chrome, Bitches!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062716</id>
	<title>Anyone Got the List?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1257101400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In <a href="http://www.cenzic.com/downloads/Cenzic\_AppSecTrends\_Q1-Q2-2009.pdf" title="cenzic.com">Cenzic's report</a> [cenzic.com] that chart is entitled "Web Browser Vulnerabilities by Major Type" and web browsers are only given one page.  <br> <br>

I looked through older reports and cannot find a list of "vulnerabilities by major type."  Anyone know where to find that?  Until you can point that to me, I'm not going to take much stock in a company which has an ad on the bottom of the article that reads:<p><div class="quote"><p>Let us hack you before hackers do!  The Cenzic website HealthCheck.  FREE.  Request yours now!</p></div><p>I'm sure one major category is "Win32 kernel exploits" while every piece of Gecko and Webkit qualifies as one major type.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Cenzic 's report [ cenzic.com ] that chart is entitled " Web Browser Vulnerabilities by Major Type " and web browsers are only given one page .
I looked through older reports and can not find a list of " vulnerabilities by major type .
" Anyone know where to find that ?
Until you can point that to me , I 'm not going to take much stock in a company which has an ad on the bottom of the article that reads : Let us hack you before hackers do !
The Cenzic website HealthCheck .
FREE. Request yours now ! I 'm sure one major category is " Win32 kernel exploits " while every piece of Gecko and Webkit qualifies as one major type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Cenzic's report [cenzic.com] that chart is entitled "Web Browser Vulnerabilities by Major Type" and web browsers are only given one page.
I looked through older reports and cannot find a list of "vulnerabilities by major type.
"  Anyone know where to find that?
Until you can point that to me, I'm not going to take much stock in a company which has an ad on the bottom of the article that reads:Let us hack you before hackers do!
The Cenzic website HealthCheck.
FREE.  Request yours now!I'm sure one major category is "Win32 kernel exploits" while every piece of Gecko and Webkit qualifies as one major type.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063056</id>
	<title>Marketing report.. move along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read TFA and the project lead and editors all had XXXXX of Marketing in their title.</p><p>When your stats are nothing more than a report of other stats that you do not list, its hard to take it seriously.</p><p>But I think generating a few leads is more important than backing your facts ^M^M^M^M^M stats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read TFA and the project lead and editors all had XXXXX of Marketing in their title.When your stats are nothing more than a report of other stats that you do not list , its hard to take it seriously.But I think generating a few leads is more important than backing your facts ^ M ^ M ^ M ^ M ^ M stats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read TFA and the project lead and editors all had XXXXX of Marketing in their title.When your stats are nothing more than a report of other stats that you do not list, its hard to take it seriously.But I think generating a few leads is more important than backing your facts ^M^M^M^M^M stats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30067898</id>
	<title>OT: opengamepanel.org</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1257082200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I went to check this out... and I couldn't find any helpful information!  The web site had lots of good stuff about getting started, FAQ, etc... but nothing that told me what OGP actually <i>is</i>.   Before I jump in and start installing it, maybe some information about what OGP is/does/solves might be good to put there on the front page, especially if you're shamelessly plugging it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I went to check this out... and I could n't find any helpful information !
The web site had lots of good stuff about getting started , FAQ , etc... but nothing that told me what OGP actually is .
Before I jump in and start installing it , maybe some information about what OGP is/does/solves might be good to put there on the front page , especially if you 're shamelessly plugging it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I went to check this out... and I couldn't find any helpful information!
The web site had lots of good stuff about getting started, FAQ, etc... but nothing that told me what OGP actually is.
Before I jump in and start installing it, maybe some information about what OGP is/does/solves might be good to put there on the front page, especially if you're shamelessly plugging it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246</id>
	<title>Yet another deliberately lying bullshit story!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257103500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing <em>openly known</em> vulnerabilities, and calling it "all in all vulnerability".<br>As if they wouldn't know <em>perfectly</em> well, that Microsoft sends a cease and desist letter to anyone who is even talking about a vulnerability that is not official to MS.</p><p>I guess the old saying is true, that:</p><p>If you can't program, you teach.<br>If you can't teach, you administrate.<br>If you can't administrate, you report.<br>If you can't report, you criticize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing openly known vulnerabilities , and calling it " all in all vulnerability " .As if they would n't know perfectly well , that Microsoft sends a cease and desist letter to anyone who is even talking about a vulnerability that is not official to MS.I guess the old saying is true , that : If you ca n't program , you teach.If you ca n't teach , you administrate.If you ca n't administrate , you report.If you ca n't report , you criticize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing openly known vulnerabilities, and calling it "all in all vulnerability".As if they wouldn't know perfectly well, that Microsoft sends a cease and desist letter to anyone who is even talking about a vulnerability that is not official to MS.I guess the old saying is true, that:If you can't program, you teach.If you can't teach, you administrate.If you can't administrate, you report.If you can't report, you criticize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063954</id>
	<title>An Afterthought</title>
	<author>Punkster812</author>
	<datestamp>1257105960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This doesn't make any sense. First of all, I have used Cenzic tools, they don't test the web browser, they test web apps. So they scan a website/webpages looking for fields and other data forms and do a bunch of test on those to check for XSS, SQL injection, potential overflows, etc.
<br> <br>
So I am really confused on where they got the data for vulnerabilities of a browser and why they would mention this when they aren't testing it using their tool. If they are going solely based on what is released in update notes or anything like that, well then a browser who patches all it's problems will appear way more vulnerable than one that patches only the ones it feels like getting around to; not to mention the one that is now patched is less vulnerable then the one that did nothing.
<br> <br>
I would like to see someone visit a malicious site (somewhere that installs malware and the like) in all these browsers, it won't be Firefox or Safari (or Opera for that mater) who get infected. And why wasn't Chrome included in this comparison? This comparison seems like an afterthought and probably shouldn't have been included in the write-up, I would take this as a grain of sand and would simply ignore it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't make any sense .
First of all , I have used Cenzic tools , they do n't test the web browser , they test web apps .
So they scan a website/webpages looking for fields and other data forms and do a bunch of test on those to check for XSS , SQL injection , potential overflows , etc .
So I am really confused on where they got the data for vulnerabilities of a browser and why they would mention this when they are n't testing it using their tool .
If they are going solely based on what is released in update notes or anything like that , well then a browser who patches all it 's problems will appear way more vulnerable than one that patches only the ones it feels like getting around to ; not to mention the one that is now patched is less vulnerable then the one that did nothing .
I would like to see someone visit a malicious site ( somewhere that installs malware and the like ) in all these browsers , it wo n't be Firefox or Safari ( or Opera for that mater ) who get infected .
And why was n't Chrome included in this comparison ?
This comparison seems like an afterthought and probably should n't have been included in the write-up , I would take this as a grain of sand and would simply ignore it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't make any sense.
First of all, I have used Cenzic tools, they don't test the web browser, they test web apps.
So they scan a website/webpages looking for fields and other data forms and do a bunch of test on those to check for XSS, SQL injection, potential overflows, etc.
So I am really confused on where they got the data for vulnerabilities of a browser and why they would mention this when they aren't testing it using their tool.
If they are going solely based on what is released in update notes or anything like that, well then a browser who patches all it's problems will appear way more vulnerable than one that patches only the ones it feels like getting around to; not to mention the one that is now patched is less vulnerable then the one that did nothing.
I would like to see someone visit a malicious site (somewhere that installs malware and the like) in all these browsers, it won't be Firefox or Safari (or Opera for that mater) who get infected.
And why wasn't Chrome included in this comparison?
This comparison seems like an afterthought and probably shouldn't have been included in the write-up, I would take this as a grain of sand and would simply ignore it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062958</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox IS getting infected in the wild</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257102540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is the prevailing flaw that Firefox has? Are they like ActiveX scale flaws where they own the PC or are they more minor but still serious?</p></div><p>Javascript.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the prevailing flaw that Firefox has ?
Are they like ActiveX scale flaws where they own the PC or are they more minor but still serious ? Javascript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the prevailing flaw that Firefox has?
Are they like ActiveX scale flaws where they own the PC or are they more minor but still serious?Javascript.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063566</id>
	<title>Anyone notice that the so called "study" is a...</title>
	<author>Em Ellel</author>
	<datestamp>1257104700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else notice that the so called "study" is actually a marketing material for some SaaS product? If you like that there are some great whitepapers out there... LOL.</p><p>its a joke - they just downloaded some bug reports, made some pretty graphs  and called it a report. I will bet you the person putting it together could not explain what a "web browser vulnerability" is - other than something that should scare people to buy their product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else notice that the so called " study " is actually a marketing material for some SaaS product ?
If you like that there are some great whitepapers out there... LOL.its a joke - they just downloaded some bug reports , made some pretty graphs and called it a report .
I will bet you the person putting it together could not explain what a " web browser vulnerability " is - other than something that should scare people to buy their product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else notice that the so called "study" is actually a marketing material for some SaaS product?
If you like that there are some great whitepapers out there... LOL.its a joke - they just downloaded some bug reports, made some pretty graphs  and called it a report.
I will bet you the person putting it together could not explain what a "web browser vulnerability" is - other than something that should scare people to buy their product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063022</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>PNutts</author>
	<datestamp>1257102780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you. Looking at the website they actually have some credibility which is refreshing in the sensational knee-jerk world of IT security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
Looking at the website they actually have some credibility which is refreshing in the sensational knee-jerk world of IT security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
Looking at the website they actually have some credibility which is refreshing in the sensational knee-jerk world of IT security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30070144</id>
	<title>It is just PR reply on Firfox success</title>
	<author>alukin</author>
	<datestamp>1258058940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, nothing more, just pure dirty PR. Firefox is gaining success and quickly "eats" IE customers. So this news is just dirty PR response and standard FUD by MS paid company.<br>If you check that "vulnerabilities" of Firefox, most alredy patched. If you check vulnerabilities of IE, they still "work".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , nothing more , just pure dirty PR .
Firefox is gaining success and quickly " eats " IE customers .
So this news is just dirty PR response and standard FUD by MS paid company.If you check that " vulnerabilities " of Firefox , most alredy patched .
If you check vulnerabilities of IE , they still " work " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, nothing more, just pure dirty PR.
Firefox is gaining success and quickly "eats" IE customers.
So this news is just dirty PR response and standard FUD by MS paid company.If you check that "vulnerabilities" of Firefox, most alredy patched.
If you check vulnerabilities of IE, they still "work".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064664</id>
	<title>Re:Ex MS employee on the "number of patches" metri</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1257108600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and you're claiming Mozilla doesn't roll up Firefox patches?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and you 're claiming Mozilla does n't roll up Firefox patches ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and you're claiming Mozilla doesn't roll up Firefox patches?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064146</id>
	<title>SQL injection?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The top vulnerability is SQL injection.<br>Can anybody explain how the browser is responsible for SQL injection vulns?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The top vulnerability is SQL injection.Can anybody explain how the browser is responsible for SQL injection vulns ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The top vulnerability is SQL injection.Can anybody explain how the browser is responsible for SQL injection vulns?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062812</id>
	<title>Re:who is cenzic?</title>
	<author>TrancePhreak</author>
	<datestamp>1257101880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There were 5 pages of results for Firefox and 2 pages for IE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There were 5 pages of results for Firefox and 2 pages for IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were 5 pages of results for Firefox and 2 pages for IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062924</id>
	<title>ActiveX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I didn't RTFA (oh yeah who does today?) but I guess they forgot to count the vulnerability of all the ActiveX published.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I did n't RTFA ( oh yeah who does today ?
) but I guess they forgot to count the vulnerability of all the ActiveX published .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I didn't RTFA (oh yeah who does today?
) but I guess they forgot to count the vulnerability of all the ActiveX published.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063828</id>
	<title>Secunia is better</title>
	<author>jeanph01</author>
	<datestamp>1257105540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Secunia is better. Take a look here:</p><p>IE6 <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/?task=advisories" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/?task=advisories</a> [secunia.com]<br>IE7 <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/?task=advisories" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/?task=advisories</a> [secunia.com]<br>IE8 <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/?task=advisories" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/?task=advisories</a> [secunia.com]<br>Firefox2 <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12434/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12434/</a> [secunia.com]<br>Firefox3.0 <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/?task=advisories" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/?task=advisories</a> [secunia.com]<br>Firefox3.5 <a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/?task=advisories" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/?task=advisories</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>Based on these, I would choose Firefox and not IE</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Secunia is better .
Take a look here : IE6 http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/11/ ? task = advisories [ secunia.com ] IE7 http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/ ? task = advisories [ secunia.com ] IE8 http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/ ? task = advisories [ secunia.com ] Firefox2 http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/12434/ [ secunia.com ] Firefox3.0 http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/ ? task = advisories [ secunia.com ] Firefox3.5 http : //secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/ ? task = advisories [ secunia.com ] Based on these , I would choose Firefox and not IE</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secunia is better.
Take a look here:IE6 http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/?task=advisories [secunia.com]IE7 http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/?task=advisories [secunia.com]IE8 http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/?task=advisories [secunia.com]Firefox2 http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12434/ [secunia.com]Firefox3.0 http://secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/?task=advisories [secunia.com]Firefox3.5 http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/?task=advisories [secunia.com]Based on these, I would choose Firefox and not IE</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063442</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe he is at fault?</title>
	<author>digitalsolo</author>
	<datestamp>1257104280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right, because that's a logical path...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because that 's a logical path.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because that's a logical path...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062892</id>
	<title>pay for by M$</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pay for by M$</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pay for by M $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pay for by M$</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063644</id>
	<title>Fear Mongers</title>
	<author>supernatendo</author>
	<datestamp>1257104940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, but a security study who's report starts off comparing security vulnerabilities in software, to swine flu, a biological virus that kills people, loses all credibility with me right off the start.

They even bring in a little politics by invoking the US president's name...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but a security study who 's report starts off comparing security vulnerabilities in software , to swine flu , a biological virus that kills people , loses all credibility with me right off the start .
They even bring in a little politics by invoking the US president 's name.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but a security study who's report starts off comparing security vulnerabilities in software, to swine flu, a biological virus that kills people, loses all credibility with me right off the start.
They even bring in a little politics by invoking the US president's name...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066530</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]<br>The most common published exploits on commercial applications were SQL Injection and Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities, which account for 25 percent and 17 percent of all Web attacks<br>[/qoute]</p><p>This is the web page being badly designed, tested, and developed (of course a tool kit that handled as much as this stuff as it could would help).  This is like saying that the "Toyota Prius" is the automobile consuming the largest number of rechargeable batteries and it is a the problem that there is a shortage for hearing-aid batteries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] The most common published exploits on commercial applications were SQL Injection and Cross Site Scripting ( XSS ) vulnerabilities , which account for 25 percent and 17 percent of all Web attacks [ /qoute ] This is the web page being badly designed , tested , and developed ( of course a tool kit that handled as much as this stuff as it could would help ) .
This is like saying that the " Toyota Prius " is the automobile consuming the largest number of rechargeable batteries and it is a the problem that there is a shortage for hearing-aid batteries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]The most common published exploits on commercial applications were SQL Injection and Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities, which account for 25 percent and 17 percent of all Web attacks[/qoute]This is the web page being badly designed, tested, and developed (of course a tool kit that handled as much as this stuff as it could would help).
This is like saying that the "Toyota Prius" is the automobile consuming the largest number of rechargeable batteries and it is a the problem that there is a shortage for hearing-aid batteries.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063132</id>
	<title>Too little info and more that a little misleading.</title>
	<author>sarkeizen</author>
	<datestamp>1257103080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I'm reading this and these guys come across like goofs somewhat...
<br> <br>
Pg. 4 - says: "The top 10 vulnerabilities for the first half of 2009, included familiar names such as Sun, IBM, SAP, PHP, and Apache." which is according to page 7 the ones they classified as "as the most severe." whatever that means.
<br> <br>
But in page 6 they say: "Sun Java, PHP, and Apache continue to be among the Top 10 vendors having the most severe vulnerabilities for the first half of 2009."
<br> <br>
However in the whole top 10 list there are only two mentions of PHP that I can see...and these are problems with phpMyAdmin - which is way outside what I would consider a reasonable interpretation as a problem with PHP being a "vendor" of a vulnerable product.
<br> <br>
So either there's a bunch of missing information or these guys can't tell the difference between PHP and an application written in PHP, or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something
<br> <br>
 The browser stuff seems too difficult to tell - if the actual question one is looking for is which is a safer experience.  Were all vulnerabilities equally bad? Were they indexed with some information about usage?  In other words do we look at the number of people using the vulnerable version and take that into account.
<br> <br>
Like a lot of whitepapers the information isn't very helpful and the math is downright insulting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm reading this and these guys come across like goofs somewhat.. . Pg. 4 - says : " The top 10 vulnerabilities for the first half of 2009 , included familiar names such as Sun , IBM , SAP , PHP , and Apache .
" which is according to page 7 the ones they classified as " as the most severe .
" whatever that means .
But in page 6 they say : " Sun Java , PHP , and Apache continue to be among the Top 10 vendors having the most severe vulnerabilities for the first half of 2009 .
" However in the whole top 10 list there are only two mentions of PHP that I can see...and these are problems with phpMyAdmin - which is way outside what I would consider a reasonable interpretation as a problem with PHP being a " vendor " of a vulnerable product .
So either there 's a bunch of missing information or these guys ca n't tell the difference between PHP and an application written in PHP , or ... something The browser stuff seems too difficult to tell - if the actual question one is looking for is which is a safer experience .
Were all vulnerabilities equally bad ?
Were they indexed with some information about usage ?
In other words do we look at the number of people using the vulnerable version and take that into account .
Like a lot of whitepapers the information is n't very helpful and the math is downright insulting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm reading this and these guys come across like goofs somewhat...
 
Pg. 4 - says: "The top 10 vulnerabilities for the first half of 2009, included familiar names such as Sun, IBM, SAP, PHP, and Apache.
" which is according to page 7 the ones they classified as "as the most severe.
" whatever that means.
But in page 6 they say: "Sun Java, PHP, and Apache continue to be among the Top 10 vendors having the most severe vulnerabilities for the first half of 2009.
"
 
However in the whole top 10 list there are only two mentions of PHP that I can see...and these are problems with phpMyAdmin - which is way outside what I would consider a reasonable interpretation as a problem with PHP being a "vendor" of a vulnerable product.
So either there's a bunch of missing information or these guys can't tell the difference between PHP and an application written in PHP, or ... something
 
 The browser stuff seems too difficult to tell - if the actual question one is looking for is which is a safer experience.
Were all vulnerabilities equally bad?
Were they indexed with some information about usage?
In other words do we look at the number of people using the vulnerable version and take that into account.
Like a lot of whitepapers the information isn't very helpful and the math is downright insulting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728</id>
	<title>who is cenzic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just another consultant hired to slant reality if you ask me.</p><p><a href="http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+internet+explorer" title="cert.org">http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+internet+explorer</a> [cert.org]<br><a href="http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+firefox" title="cert.org">http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+firefox</a> [cert.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another consultant hired to slant reality if you ask me.http : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + internet + explorer [ cert.org ] http : //search.cert.org/search ? q = advisory + firefox [ cert.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another consultant hired to slant reality if you ask me.http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+internet+explorer [cert.org]http://search.cert.org/search?q=advisory+firefox [cert.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736</id>
	<title>Firefox IS getting infected in the wild</title>
	<author>improfane</author>
	<datestamp>1257101520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have heard the case against Safari often.</p><p>I have definitely found infected Firefox installations on relative machines. It's not immune because it is open source.</p><p>What is the prevailing flaw that Firefox has? Are they like ActiveX scale flaws where they own the PC or are they more minor but still serious?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have heard the case against Safari often.I have definitely found infected Firefox installations on relative machines .
It 's not immune because it is open source.What is the prevailing flaw that Firefox has ?
Are they like ActiveX scale flaws where they own the PC or are they more minor but still serious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have heard the case against Safari often.I have definitely found infected Firefox installations on relative machines.
It's not immune because it is open source.What is the prevailing flaw that Firefox has?
Are they like ActiveX scale flaws where they own the PC or are they more minor but still serious?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064000</id>
	<title>Chief Marketing Officer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you notice that the "Executive Summary" isn't from a security expert or even IT.  It's from their Chief Marketing Officer.  That says plenty right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you notice that the " Executive Summary " is n't from a security expert or even IT .
It 's from their Chief Marketing Officer .
That says plenty right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you notice that the "Executive Summary" isn't from a security expert or even IT.
It's from their Chief Marketing Officer.
That says plenty right there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30071208</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1258032600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>Ditto what Mage Powers said.  There's zero information in TFA, and little more in PDF.  FUD, for certain.If the talking chimps care to publish meaningful information, I'll be happy to read it.  At this point in time, there is nothing to agree or to disagree with.Sensationalist headlines, nothing more, and nothing less.  Wonder how much Microsoft paid them for this "story"?</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto what Mage Powers said .
There 's zero information in TFA , and little more in PDF .
FUD , for certain.If the talking chimps care to publish meaningful information , I 'll be happy to read it .
At this point in time , there is nothing to agree or to disagree with.Sensationalist headlines , nothing more , and nothing less .
Wonder how much Microsoft paid them for this " story " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto what Mage Powers said.
There's zero information in TFA, and little more in PDF.
FUD, for certain.If the talking chimps care to publish meaningful information, I'll be happy to read it.
At this point in time, there is nothing to agree or to disagree with.Sensationalist headlines, nothing more, and nothing less.
Wonder how much Microsoft paid them for this "story"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063774</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another deliberately lying bullshit story!</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1257105360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And to draw the chain to its conclusion:</p><p>If you can't criticize, complain on Slashdot.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And to draw the chain to its conclusion : If you ca n't criticize , complain on Slashdot .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to draw the chain to its conclusion:If you can't criticize, complain on Slashdot.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068392</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another deliberately lying bullshit story!</title>
	<author>LihTox</author>
	<datestamp>1257086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you can't program, you teach.</i></p><p>As an academic, let me say: if you can't program, please don't teach (programming).  Because you will probably suck at it.</p><p>The saying "If you can't do, teach" is the reason mathematics education is so very very bad in this country: 11-12 years of math and college students can't solve 2x=6?  It's because so many teachers teaching math in elementary schools hate and are scared of math.  And they pass it along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't program , you teach.As an academic , let me say : if you ca n't program , please do n't teach ( programming ) .
Because you will probably suck at it.The saying " If you ca n't do , teach " is the reason mathematics education is so very very bad in this country : 11-12 years of math and college students ca n't solve 2x = 6 ?
It 's because so many teachers teaching math in elementary schools hate and are scared of math .
And they pass it along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't program, you teach.As an academic, let me say: if you can't program, please don't teach (programming).
Because you will probably suck at it.The saying "If you can't do, teach" is the reason mathematics education is so very very bad in this country: 11-12 years of math and college students can't solve 2x=6?
It's because so many teachers teaching math in elementary schools hate and are scared of math.
And they pass it along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062932</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>xgr3gx</author>
	<datestamp>1257102420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha - I had a feeling there was some kind of connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha - I had a feeling there was some kind of connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha - I had a feeling there was some kind of connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063198</id>
	<title>"Reported" bugs?</title>
	<author>Bluemumba</author>
	<datestamp>1257103380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't counting bugs released as part of press releases and change logs kind of like saying "All confirmed criminals are in jail?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't counting bugs released as part of press releases and change logs kind of like saying " All confirmed criminals are in jail ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't counting bugs released as part of press releases and change logs kind of like saying "All confirmed criminals are in jail?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064208</id>
	<title>Not really surprising...</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1257106800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15\% of vulnerabilities are in IE.</p></div><p>Well.  Remember that "the front door is unlocked, the guard has been dosed with chloral hydrate, and there's a loaded shotgun just laying there on the credenza" could collectively be called one single vulnerability.  Quantity doesn't trump quality!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15 \ % of vulnerabilities are in IE.Well .
Remember that " the front door is unlocked , the guard has been dosed with chloral hydrate , and there 's a loaded shotgun just laying there on the credenza " could collectively be called one single vulnerability .
Quantity does n't trump quality !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems a bit surprising to me that this study shows that only 15\% of vulnerabilities are in IE.Well.
Remember that "the front door is unlocked, the guard has been dosed with chloral hydrate, and there's a loaded shotgun just laying there on the credenza" could collectively be called one single vulnerability.
Quantity doesn't trump quality!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064466</id>
	<title>Re:opera ftw</title>
	<author>Excelcior</author>
	<datestamp>1257107700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here, I've been running Opera for about 13 years, and I've never once had a vulnerability exploited through it.  I can't tell you how many computers I've had to clean up that use FF exclusively.  I've always been very pleased with the security and stability in Opera.<br>On another note, according to the article, IE is the second best... in the latest version, anyway.  This isn't the first article which has said that either; it's time for all the OS fanboys to admit that sometimes OS applications aren't the best, but that they need to learn from others instead of simply believing they're the best because they're OS.</p><p>~just my $.02</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here , I 've been running Opera for about 13 years , and I 've never once had a vulnerability exploited through it .
I ca n't tell you how many computers I 've had to clean up that use FF exclusively .
I 've always been very pleased with the security and stability in Opera.On another note , according to the article , IE is the second best... in the latest version , anyway .
This is n't the first article which has said that either ; it 's time for all the OS fanboys to admit that sometimes OS applications are n't the best , but that they need to learn from others instead of simply believing they 're the best because they 're OS. ~ just my $ .02</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here, I've been running Opera for about 13 years, and I've never once had a vulnerability exploited through it.
I can't tell you how many computers I've had to clean up that use FF exclusively.
I've always been very pleased with the security and stability in Opera.On another note, according to the article, IE is the second best... in the latest version, anyway.
This isn't the first article which has said that either; it's time for all the OS fanboys to admit that sometimes OS applications aren't the best, but that they need to learn from others instead of simply believing they're the best because they're OS.~just my $.02</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062810</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of "studies" are sponsored by one of the sides. So I don't see why this is news here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of " studies " are sponsored by one of the sides .
So I do n't see why this is news here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of "studies" are sponsored by one of the sides.
So I don't see why this is news here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068972</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>tbg58</author>
	<datestamp>1257091860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, let's see, they achieved their "Substantial Momentum in Q2" working on security problems in what section of the technosphere?  Oh, they're a Microsoft partner.  So whatever their report says they made most of their money as a security firm working on Microsoft systems?  Follow the money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , let 's see , they achieved their " Substantial Momentum in Q2 " working on security problems in what section of the technosphere ?
Oh , they 're a Microsoft partner .
So whatever their report says they made most of their money as a security firm working on Microsoft systems ?
Follow the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, let's see, they achieved their "Substantial Momentum in Q2" working on security problems in what section of the technosphere?
Oh, they're a Microsoft partner.
So whatever their report says they made most of their money as a security firm working on Microsoft systems?
Follow the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065384</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox IS getting infected in the wild</title>
	<author>cream wobbly</author>
	<datestamp>1257068640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have heard the case against Safari often.</p></div><p>What case, please?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have definitely found infected Firefox installations on relative machines.</p></div><p>How so, please?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not immune because it is open source.</p></div><p>Beg pardon, did anyone say it was?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What is the prevailing flaw that Firefox has?</p></div><p>No flaw is "prevailing", because it is closed soon after it is discovered, and well before it is revealed. Or did you mean "prevailing <em>type of</em> flaw"? In that case I think you're looking at buffer overruns and underruns; double frees; that kind of thing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Are they like ActiveX scale flaws where they own the PC or are they more minor but still serious?</p></div><p>The question is not whether they are serious or not: any memory flaw is serious. The question is whether they are easy to exploit, whether you need local access to the machine, or if an installed extension can trigger the exploit.</p><p>The point is, <em>the report doesn't say</em>. It's a simple case of FUD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have heard the case against Safari often.What case , please ? I have definitely found infected Firefox installations on relative machines.How so , please ? It 's not immune because it is open source.Beg pardon , did anyone say it was ? What is the prevailing flaw that Firefox has ? No flaw is " prevailing " , because it is closed soon after it is discovered , and well before it is revealed .
Or did you mean " prevailing type of flaw " ?
In that case I think you 're looking at buffer overruns and underruns ; double frees ; that kind of thing.Are they like ActiveX scale flaws where they own the PC or are they more minor but still serious ? The question is not whether they are serious or not : any memory flaw is serious .
The question is whether they are easy to exploit , whether you need local access to the machine , or if an installed extension can trigger the exploit.The point is , the report does n't say .
It 's a simple case of FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have heard the case against Safari often.What case, please?I have definitely found infected Firefox installations on relative machines.How so, please?It's not immune because it is open source.Beg pardon, did anyone say it was?What is the prevailing flaw that Firefox has?No flaw is "prevailing", because it is closed soon after it is discovered, and well before it is revealed.
Or did you mean "prevailing type of flaw"?
In that case I think you're looking at buffer overruns and underruns; double frees; that kind of thing.Are they like ActiveX scale flaws where they own the PC or are they more minor but still serious?The question is not whether they are serious or not: any memory flaw is serious.
The question is whether they are easy to exploit, whether you need local access to the machine, or if an installed extension can trigger the exploit.The point is, the report doesn't say.
It's a simple case of FUD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063486</id>
	<title>open source means vulnerabilities found and fixed</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1257104400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many secret unfixed vulnerabilities in IE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many secret unfixed vulnerabilities in IE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many secret unfixed vulnerabilities in IE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064624</id>
	<title>Obama and Swine Flu</title>
	<author>gcatullus</author>
	<datestamp>1257108420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I actually looked at the pdf report. It starts off with "What do the swine flu and hackers have in common". That started to get a laugh, but then the executive summary says that web vulnerabilities are getting better because of Obama. How can anyone take this seriously??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I actually looked at the pdf report .
It starts off with " What do the swine flu and hackers have in common " .
That started to get a laugh , but then the executive summary says that web vulnerabilities are getting better because of Obama .
How can anyone take this seriously ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I actually looked at the pdf report.
It starts off with "What do the swine flu and hackers have in common".
That started to get a laugh, but then the executive summary says that web vulnerabilities are getting better because of Obama.
How can anyone take this seriously?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062758</id>
	<title>It seems a bit surprising</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1257101580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems a bit surprising but TFA is not about browser vulnerabilities. Most of it is focused in detailing web site vulnerabilities and has only two baseless pages with Firefox on top of web browser vulnerability list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems a bit surprising but TFA is not about browser vulnerabilities .
Most of it is focused in detailing web site vulnerabilities and has only two baseless pages with Firefox on top of web browser vulnerability list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems a bit surprising but TFA is not about browser vulnerabilities.
Most of it is focused in detailing web site vulnerabilities and has only two baseless pages with Firefox on top of web browser vulnerability list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064824</id>
	<title>Another metric not considered</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Window of time that a flaw is known and exploitable before getting patched.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Window of time that a flaw is known and exploitable before getting patched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Window of time that a flaw is known and exploitable before getting patched.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30067926</id>
	<title>Giving a fair value to this study</title>
	<author>Mr.RA</author>
	<datestamp>1257082500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I won't try to defend Firefox, as they have had a decent number of issues, but guys, given where this info comes from, I give this study a total value of 59 cents. Has anybody used their products<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  ?

I would love to see a similar study which takes the following two things into account:
- Severity of vulnerabilities
- Number of days (weeks or even months) before the vendor released a fix

Rob.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't try to defend Firefox , as they have had a decent number of issues , but guys , given where this info comes from , I give this study a total value of 59 cents .
Has anybody used their products ; ) ?
I would love to see a similar study which takes the following two things into account : - Severity of vulnerabilities - Number of days ( weeks or even months ) before the vendor released a fix Rob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't try to defend Firefox, as they have had a decent number of issues, but guys, given where this info comes from, I give this study a total value of 59 cents.
Has anybody used their products ;)  ?
I would love to see a similar study which takes the following two things into account:
- Severity of vulnerabilities
- Number of days (weeks or even months) before the vendor released a fix

Rob.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066208</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>rogourous my arse lol,<p><div class="quote"><p> Its not just a matter of filling out a form and sending it to Microsoft</p></div><p>actually that is far closer to the truth, being a partner just involves filling out forms that address the criteria, much like filling in a job application, I have done it for one of the firms I used to work for and there is nothing onerous or rigorous about the process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>rogourous my arse lol , Its not just a matter of filling out a form and sending it to Microsoftactually that is far closer to the truth , being a partner just involves filling out forms that address the criteria , much like filling in a job application , I have done it for one of the firms I used to work for and there is nothing onerous or rigorous about the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rogourous my arse lol, Its not just a matter of filling out a form and sending it to Microsoftactually that is far closer to the truth, being a partner just involves filling out forms that address the criteria, much like filling in a job application, I have done it for one of the firms I used to work for and there is nothing onerous or rigorous about the process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063066</id>
	<title>About the pie chart...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it just me or does the pie chart from the article look like a Windows logo? Same exact colors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it just me or does the pie chart from the article look like a Windows logo ?
Same exact colors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it just me or does the pie chart from the article look like a Windows logo?
Same exact colors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062670</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like exactly the kind of result Microsoft would love: FLOSS and OSX going down.
Too fake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like exactly the kind of result Microsoft would love : FLOSS and OSX going down .
Too fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like exactly the kind of result Microsoft would love: FLOSS and OSX going down.
Too fake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066344</id>
	<title>Most Vulnerabilities &lt;&gt; Most Vulnerable</title>
	<author>zizzybaloobah</author>
	<datestamp>1257073260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless, I have yet to fix a friend's or family member's 'slow' or 'misbehaving' computer that had anything other than IE as the default web browser.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless , I have yet to fix a friend 's or family member 's 'slow ' or 'misbehaving ' computer that had anything other than IE as the default web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless, I have yet to fix a friend's or family member's 'slow' or 'misbehaving' computer that had anything other than IE as the default web browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068878</id>
	<title>So Firefox fixes its vulnerabilities</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1257091020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Firefox fixes its vulnerabilities - and that is a bad thing?</p><p>And IE fixes fewer vulnerabilities, and that is a good thing?</p><p>Personally, I prefer to have all my browser vulnerabilities fixed, not half of them.</p><p>And by vulnerabilities we mean silly things like SQL injection?</p><p>Time to shoot the messenger, I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Firefox fixes its vulnerabilities - and that is a bad thing ? And IE fixes fewer vulnerabilities , and that is a good thing ? Personally , I prefer to have all my browser vulnerabilities fixed , not half of them.And by vulnerabilities we mean silly things like SQL injection ? Time to shoot the messenger , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Firefox fixes its vulnerabilities - and that is a bad thing?And IE fixes fewer vulnerabilities, and that is a good thing?Personally, I prefer to have all my browser vulnerabilities fixed, not half of them.And by vulnerabilities we mean silly things like SQL injection?Time to shoot the messenger, I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30074094</id>
	<title>The reason for IE:s low percentage...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258047600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that the majority of vulnerabilities is in the underlying OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that the majority of vulnerabilities is in the underlying OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that the majority of vulnerabilities is in the underlying OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063346</id>
	<title>I have experience here</title>
	<author>Effugas</author>
	<datestamp>1257103980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I'm posting as somebody who has gotten critical fixes pushed into both IE and Firefox.  (Technically, Chrome and Opera too, but those were the pure crypto vulns.)</p><p>It's genuinely hard to write a secure web browser.  Forget plugins -- you have a complex internal object model, subject to all sorts of very fine grained rules ("the filename on an input type=file form must not be settable from Javascript"), which can be made into a pile of moving parts under the control of an attacker.  What's happened somewhat recently is a lot more people have gotten into bashing Firefox.  You know those "many eyes" theories of open source, and how they're usually kind of full of it?</p><p>Well, "many eyes" are visiting it now, and Mozilla to their credit is doing a lot of very hard work to deal with the influx.  Good on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I 'm posting as somebody who has gotten critical fixes pushed into both IE and Firefox .
( Technically , Chrome and Opera too , but those were the pure crypto vulns .
) It 's genuinely hard to write a secure web browser .
Forget plugins -- you have a complex internal object model , subject to all sorts of very fine grained rules ( " the filename on an input type = file form must not be settable from Javascript " ) , which can be made into a pile of moving parts under the control of an attacker .
What 's happened somewhat recently is a lot more people have gotten into bashing Firefox .
You know those " many eyes " theories of open source , and how they 're usually kind of full of it ? Well , " many eyes " are visiting it now , and Mozilla to their credit is doing a lot of very hard work to deal with the influx .
Good on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I'm posting as somebody who has gotten critical fixes pushed into both IE and Firefox.
(Technically, Chrome and Opera too, but those were the pure crypto vulns.
)It's genuinely hard to write a secure web browser.
Forget plugins -- you have a complex internal object model, subject to all sorts of very fine grained rules ("the filename on an input type=file form must not be settable from Javascript"), which can be made into a pile of moving parts under the control of an attacker.
What's happened somewhat recently is a lot more people have gotten into bashing Firefox.
You know those "many eyes" theories of open source, and how they're usually kind of full of it?Well, "many eyes" are visiting it now, and Mozilla to their credit is doing a lot of very hard work to deal with the influx.
Good on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063720</id>
	<title>duration of vulnerability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of comments mentioning the lack of taking into account of the severity of the bugs, but what about the duration of the vulnerabilities.   Or to extend that train of thought, if IE has a current known exploit (or collection of them) there's not as much incentive to go finding another one if you know the one you have won't be closed for another few weeks/months anyway.  I suspect with firefox any hole found will be fixed with a released patch far more quickly (and as others mentioned, possibly before any exploits are known of) so you have to keep finding new ones if you want to use firefox as a way in to a machine.</p><p>In summary, FUD off</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of comments mentioning the lack of taking into account of the severity of the bugs , but what about the duration of the vulnerabilities .
Or to extend that train of thought , if IE has a current known exploit ( or collection of them ) there 's not as much incentive to go finding another one if you know the one you have wo n't be closed for another few weeks/months anyway .
I suspect with firefox any hole found will be fixed with a released patch far more quickly ( and as others mentioned , possibly before any exploits are known of ) so you have to keep finding new ones if you want to use firefox as a way in to a machine.In summary , FUD off</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of comments mentioning the lack of taking into account of the severity of the bugs, but what about the duration of the vulnerabilities.
Or to extend that train of thought, if IE has a current known exploit (or collection of them) there's not as much incentive to go finding another one if you know the one you have won't be closed for another few weeks/months anyway.
I suspect with firefox any hole found will be fixed with a released patch far more quickly (and as others mentioned, possibly before any exploits are known of) so you have to keep finding new ones if you want to use firefox as a way in to a machine.In summary, FUD off</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063182</id>
	<title>Chief Marketing Officer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting that the underlying report was led and edited by the Chief Marketing Officer for Cenzic, I'm just saying<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that the underlying report was led and edited by the Chief Marketing Officer for Cenzic , I 'm just saying ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that the underlying report was led and edited by the Chief Marketing Officer for Cenzic, I'm just saying ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065770</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257070680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Eh, being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing. Almost all the development firms I have worked for (from five employees to tens of thousands) are certified partners, it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophy</p></div><p>It means a lot if you ever sue Microsoft. I was involved in a lawsuit against Microsoft, and their lawyers made a big deal of the fact that we were "partners" with Microsoft. The painted a picture of Microsoft working in partnership with us to help us, and then we turned on them, and filed a lawsuit, rather than working it out like partners should.</p><p>We explained that it just meant we got MSDN from them, but I don't think the jury believed that. They are ordinary people--they don't think of the people they buy things from as "partners", and so are not going to think that's all being an MS partner means. I'm pretty sure they bought Microsoft's version, that partners have a special relationship with Microsoft, and what we were doing was a backstabbing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing .
Almost all the development firms I have worked for ( from five employees to tens of thousands ) are certified partners , it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophyIt means a lot if you ever sue Microsoft .
I was involved in a lawsuit against Microsoft , and their lawyers made a big deal of the fact that we were " partners " with Microsoft .
The painted a picture of Microsoft working in partnership with us to help us , and then we turned on them , and filed a lawsuit , rather than working it out like partners should.We explained that it just meant we got MSDN from them , but I do n't think the jury believed that .
They are ordinary people--they do n't think of the people they buy things from as " partners " , and so are not going to think that 's all being an MS partner means .
I 'm pretty sure they bought Microsoft 's version , that partners have a special relationship with Microsoft , and what we were doing was a backstabbing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Eh, being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing.
Almost all the development firms I have worked for (from five employees to tens of thousands) are certified partners, it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophyIt means a lot if you ever sue Microsoft.
I was involved in a lawsuit against Microsoft, and their lawyers made a big deal of the fact that we were "partners" with Microsoft.
The painted a picture of Microsoft working in partnership with us to help us, and then we turned on them, and filed a lawsuit, rather than working it out like partners should.We explained that it just meant we got MSDN from them, but I don't think the jury believed that.
They are ordinary people--they don't think of the people they buy things from as "partners", and so are not going to think that's all being an MS partner means.
I'm pretty sure they bought Microsoft's version, that partners have a special relationship with Microsoft, and what we were doing was a backstabbing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30067084</id>
	<title>My experience doesn't agree with this</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1257076860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had more than one friends with IE absolutely owned.  None with firefox so far and the firefox crowd is bigger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had more than one friends with IE absolutely owned .
None with firefox so far and the firefox crowd is bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had more than one friends with IE absolutely owned.
None with firefox so far and the firefox crowd is bigger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063674</id>
	<title>Vulnerabilities?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Firefox/Apache/Sun/IBM has more vulnerabilities than IE/IIS/Windows?  This study seems sadly out of touch with historical experience.</p><p>MS may have closed the exploit holes dramatically in the recent past, but it's tough to believe given their past performance: The most vulnerable OS in the history of computing.</p><p>Need I remind Cenzic the astoundingly short-sighted security designs within COM/DCOM, ActiveX, the Win32 API, the Registry Hive, etc.  Even IE8 went down at CanSecWest earlier this year (.NET bypass to DEP &amp; ASLR?  <a href="http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&amp;q=cache:tdwwRPU08R4J:taossa.com/archive/bh08sotirovdowdslides.pdf+.NET+DEP\%2BASLR+bypass&amp;hl=en&amp;gl=us&amp;pid=bl&amp;srcid=ADGEESgv6pjJZtuECqmxCt0DWDKTaSX4ET8CpEMdzrKlToDP4Pw8Wg-TNQImKXbGMHyh7gIcVx\_VpFcsnPBOPIMx0V\_i2og8pZ8cO5X7-ZPPoshAxUkExEwVUZfGELkEgYubFPS2Aemx&amp;sig=AFQjCNFgFI8WfsJaPMuN\_o5Y0\_A0\_9xLqQ" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Brilliant!</a> [google.com] ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox/Apache/Sun/IBM has more vulnerabilities than IE/IIS/Windows ?
This study seems sadly out of touch with historical experience.MS may have closed the exploit holes dramatically in the recent past , but it 's tough to believe given their past performance : The most vulnerable OS in the history of computing.Need I remind Cenzic the astoundingly short-sighted security designs within COM/DCOM , ActiveX , the Win32 API , the Registry Hive , etc .
Even IE8 went down at CanSecWest earlier this year ( .NET bypass to DEP &amp; ASLR ?
Brilliant ! [ google.com ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Firefox/Apache/Sun/IBM has more vulnerabilities than IE/IIS/Windows?
This study seems sadly out of touch with historical experience.MS may have closed the exploit holes dramatically in the recent past, but it's tough to believe given their past performance: The most vulnerable OS in the history of computing.Need I remind Cenzic the astoundingly short-sighted security designs within COM/DCOM, ActiveX, the Win32 API, the Registry Hive, etc.
Even IE8 went down at CanSecWest earlier this year (.NET bypass to DEP &amp; ASLR?
Brilliant! [google.com] ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062878</id>
	<title>News?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a bit surprising to you because you and your (ahem!) "news" site are overtly bias.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a bit surprising to you because you and your ( ahem !
) " news " site are overtly bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a bit surprising to you because you and your (ahem!
) "news" site are overtly bias.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065924</id>
	<title>Re:who is cenzic?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Vulnerability in Micrawhat? I Can't Hear You..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Vulnerability in Micrawhat ?
I Ca n't Hear You... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Vulnerability in Micrawhat?
I Can't Hear You..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30069702</id>
	<title>Haha so what was the patch for last night?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...what was the giant patch for last night again from Microsoft? ohhh that's right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...what was the giant patch for last night again from Microsoft ?
ohhh that 's right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...what was the giant patch for last night again from Microsoft?
ohhh that's right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063688</id>
	<title>blacklist Cenzic</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1257105060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there any way to provide some negative conditioning for misinformation spreaders?</p><p>Slashdotters:  Remember <b>Cenzic lies</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any way to provide some negative conditioning for misinformation spreaders ? Slashdotters : Remember Cenzic lies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any way to provide some negative conditioning for misinformation spreaders?Slashdotters:  Remember Cenzic lies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063470</id>
	<title>From the report...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257104400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the gist of Cenzic's \_marketing\_ report as it applies to browsers:</p><p>"<br>78 percent of the total reported vulnerabilities affected Web technologies, such as Web servers, applications, Web browsers. Plugins and ActiveX, which is a significant increase from earlier in the year.</p><p>Of the Web vulnerabilities, Web Browser vulnerabilities comprised (sic) eight percent of the total vulnerabilities found, and Web servers comprised two percent. Vulnerabilities in the code of commercial Web applications was 90 percent of the total Web related vulnerabilities. Looking at the various classes of vulnerabilities, we found that SQL Injection and Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities continued to dominate with 25 percent and 17 percent respectively. Authorization and Authentication vulnerabilities were higher at about 14 percent of total Web vulnerabilities followed by Directory Traversal at 12 percent.<br>"</p><p>Apparently they don't discriminate among versions of browsers, plugins, or web apps.  Firefox 1 + 2 + 3 = Firefox.</p><p>Nor do they say how they identified browsers.  (Presumably the ID came from each source that reported the results.)</p><p>They also don't report any specifics of browser vulnerabilities (kind, duration, patch, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the gist of Cenzic 's \ _marketing \ _ report as it applies to browsers : " 78 percent of the total reported vulnerabilities affected Web technologies , such as Web servers , applications , Web browsers .
Plugins and ActiveX , which is a significant increase from earlier in the year.Of the Web vulnerabilities , Web Browser vulnerabilities comprised ( sic ) eight percent of the total vulnerabilities found , and Web servers comprised two percent .
Vulnerabilities in the code of commercial Web applications was 90 percent of the total Web related vulnerabilities .
Looking at the various classes of vulnerabilities , we found that SQL Injection and Cross Site Scripting ( XSS ) vulnerabilities continued to dominate with 25 percent and 17 percent respectively .
Authorization and Authentication vulnerabilities were higher at about 14 percent of total Web vulnerabilities followed by Directory Traversal at 12 percent .
" Apparently they do n't discriminate among versions of browsers , plugins , or web apps .
Firefox 1 + 2 + 3 = Firefox.Nor do they say how they identified browsers .
( Presumably the ID came from each source that reported the results .
) They also do n't report any specifics of browser vulnerabilities ( kind , duration , patch , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the gist of Cenzic's \_marketing\_ report as it applies to browsers:"78 percent of the total reported vulnerabilities affected Web technologies, such as Web servers, applications, Web browsers.
Plugins and ActiveX, which is a significant increase from earlier in the year.Of the Web vulnerabilities, Web Browser vulnerabilities comprised (sic) eight percent of the total vulnerabilities found, and Web servers comprised two percent.
Vulnerabilities in the code of commercial Web applications was 90 percent of the total Web related vulnerabilities.
Looking at the various classes of vulnerabilities, we found that SQL Injection and Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities continued to dominate with 25 percent and 17 percent respectively.
Authorization and Authentication vulnerabilities were higher at about 14 percent of total Web vulnerabilities followed by Directory Traversal at 12 percent.
"Apparently they don't discriminate among versions of browsers, plugins, or web apps.
Firefox 1 + 2 + 3 = Firefox.Nor do they say how they identified browsers.
(Presumably the ID came from each source that reported the results.
)They also don't report any specifics of browser vulnerabilities (kind, duration, patch, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063824</id>
	<title>Details?</title>
	<author>Alerius</author>
	<datestamp>1257105540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I *did* RTFA and found it was fluff. So I read the linked PDF report to try and find out some details on what these gaping security holes in my favourite browser actually were. I did not want to have to eat crow over my repeated recommendations to us Firefox over IE because it was more secure. Well, there's plenty of space dedicated to reporting server side vulnerabilities, plenty on web apps, lots of repetition of how surprised they were to find Firefox and Safari so vulnerable...but nothing on what vulnerabilities. No mention of types of vulnerability, frequency, core browser, plug-ins, add-ins, versions, ZIP!

</p><p>The 29 page report has one page that is mostly taken up with a lovely colourlful exploded pie chart. There is more space dedicated to advertising the Cenzic products and services than there is referencing browser vulnerabilities.

</p><p>This is isn't a report, it's a sales pitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I * did * RTFA and found it was fluff .
So I read the linked PDF report to try and find out some details on what these gaping security holes in my favourite browser actually were .
I did not want to have to eat crow over my repeated recommendations to us Firefox over IE because it was more secure .
Well , there 's plenty of space dedicated to reporting server side vulnerabilities , plenty on web apps , lots of repetition of how surprised they were to find Firefox and Safari so vulnerable...but nothing on what vulnerabilities .
No mention of types of vulnerability , frequency , core browser , plug-ins , add-ins , versions , ZIP !
The 29 page report has one page that is mostly taken up with a lovely colourlful exploded pie chart .
There is more space dedicated to advertising the Cenzic products and services than there is referencing browser vulnerabilities .
This is is n't a report , it 's a sales pitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I *did* RTFA and found it was fluff.
So I read the linked PDF report to try and find out some details on what these gaping security holes in my favourite browser actually were.
I did not want to have to eat crow over my repeated recommendations to us Firefox over IE because it was more secure.
Well, there's plenty of space dedicated to reporting server side vulnerabilities, plenty on web apps, lots of repetition of how surprised they were to find Firefox and Safari so vulnerable...but nothing on what vulnerabilities.
No mention of types of vulnerability, frequency, core browser, plug-ins, add-ins, versions, ZIP!
The 29 page report has one page that is mostly taken up with a lovely colourlful exploded pie chart.
There is more space dedicated to advertising the Cenzic products and services than there is referencing browser vulnerabilities.
This is isn't a report, it's a sales pitch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062694</id>
	<title>how about when you turn off...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the vulnerability stay the same when you turn off Java?  How about Javascript?<br>For the most part, I'm happy surfing most of the time with both turned off... I've turned them off on my grandparent's browsers too in order to lessen their exposure</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the vulnerability stay the same when you turn off Java ?
How about Javascript ? For the most part , I 'm happy surfing most of the time with both turned off... I 've turned them off on my grandparent 's browsers too in order to lessen their exposure</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the vulnerability stay the same when you turn off Java?
How about Javascript?For the most part, I'm happy surfing most of the time with both turned off... I've turned them off on my grandparent's browsers too in order to lessen their exposure</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30081876</id>
	<title>For you who equate vulnerability count to security</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1258032960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Examine this program:<p> <em>   main(){system("/usr/bin/nc -l 1234<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin/bash"));}</em> </p><p>
 It demonstrably has exactly one vulnerability (no authentication required for remote access),  and no patch is available.</p><p>
 No patch can be written without destroying its functionality.
</p><p>
 Therefore, this program is demonstrably more secure than almost every Windows program ever written, including notepad.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Examine this program : main ( ) { system ( " /usr/bin/nc -l 1234 /bin/bash " ) ) ; } It demonstrably has exactly one vulnerability ( no authentication required for remote access ) , and no patch is available .
No patch can be written without destroying its functionality .
Therefore , this program is demonstrably more secure than almost every Windows program ever written , including notepad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Examine this program:    main(){system("/usr/bin/nc -l 1234 /bin/bash"));} 
 It demonstrably has exactly one vulnerability (no authentication required for remote access),  and no patch is available.
No patch can be written without destroying its functionality.
Therefore, this program is demonstrably more secure than almost every Windows program ever written, including notepad.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065396</id>
	<title>Microsoft beats all in security tests!</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1257068640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is reeling from the vicious and unwarranted slanders of security companies and the US government&rsquo;s Computer Emergency Response Team that its Internet Explorer web browser has alleged &ldquo;security holes&rdquo; or is in any way less than <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2008/12/16/internet-explorer-will-not-fill-your-computer-with-child-porn/" title="today.com">the finest software known to mankind</a> [today.com] and excellent value for your money. "Cenzic proves it's Firefox! FIREFOX DID IT! Fuckers."

</p><p>The festering paedophiles of CERT have gone so outrageously far as to make the ludicrous claim that just viewing a malicious webpage in IE could leave your computer open to being hacked and turned into a Russian Mafia spam server. &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t know what could have triggered such vindictiveness,&rdquo; sobbed Microsoft marketing marketer&rsquo;s marketer Steve Ballmer. &ldquo;Do they hate free enterprise that much?&rdquo;

</p><p>There are things you can do to make your computing experience even more secure. Microsoft&rsquo;s official suggestion &mdash; make sure your anti-virus software is up to date and using an entire CPU doing nothing much, click through five screens to run IE in &ldquo;protected mode,&rdquo; click through four screens to set zone security to &ldquo;high,&rdquo; click &ldquo;JUST BLOODY DO IT WILL YOU&rdquo; when the User Access Control asks if you really want to do this, enable automatic updates with the minor side-effect of installing Microsoft DRM on your system or Windows Genuine Advantage randomly turning your computer into a paperweight, and sacrifice a goat to Microsoft at midnight on a moonless night &mdash; is simple and straightforward. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s the quality you&rsquo;re paying for.&rdquo;

</p><p>On no account should you consider that there might be other web browsers out there, as researchers have demonstrated that all of them automatically download the cover of <i>Virgin Killer</i>. &ldquo;I saw a report,&rdquo; said marketing marketer John Curran of Microsoft Completely Enderlependent Analysts, Inc., &ldquo;that another browser had more vulnerabilities than ours! People would be very foolish indeed to move from the latest IE to Netscape 4.01.&rdquo;

</p><p>&ldquo;These CERT wankers are Mactards and trolls,&rdquo; said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield. &ldquo;They just want to take IE users out, brutally sodomise them, gas them in concentration camps and&rdquo; [<i>This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator. Replies may also be deleted.</i>]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is reeling from the vicious and unwarranted slanders of security companies and the US government    s Computer Emergency Response Team that its Internet Explorer web browser has alleged    security holes    or is in any way less than the finest software known to mankind [ today.com ] and excellent value for your money .
" Cenzic proves it 's Firefox !
FIREFOX DID IT !
Fuckers. " The festering paedophiles of CERT have gone so outrageously far as to make the ludicrous claim that just viewing a malicious webpage in IE could leave your computer open to being hacked and turned into a Russian Mafia spam server .
   We don    t know what could have triggered such vindictiveness ,    sobbed Microsoft marketing marketer    s marketer Steve Ballmer .
   Do they hate free enterprise that much ?    There are things you can do to make your computing experience even more secure .
Microsoft    s official suggestion    make sure your anti-virus software is up to date and using an entire CPU doing nothing much , click through five screens to run IE in    protected mode ,    click through four screens to set zone security to    high ,    click    JUST BLOODY DO IT WILL YOU    when the User Access Control asks if you really want to do this , enable automatic updates with the minor side-effect of installing Microsoft DRM on your system or Windows Genuine Advantage randomly turning your computer into a paperweight , and sacrifice a goat to Microsoft at midnight on a moonless night    is simple and straightforward .
   It    s the quality you    re paying for.    On no account should you consider that there might be other web browsers out there , as researchers have demonstrated that all of them automatically download the cover of Virgin Killer .
   I saw a report ,    said marketing marketer John Curran of Microsoft Completely Enderlependent Analysts , Inc. ,    that another browser had more vulnerabilities than ours !
People would be very foolish indeed to move from the latest IE to Netscape 4.01.       These CERT wankers are Mactards and trolls ,    said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield .
   They just want to take IE users out , brutally sodomise them , gas them in concentration camps and    [ This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator .
Replies may also be deleted .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is reeling from the vicious and unwarranted slanders of security companies and the US government’s Computer Emergency Response Team that its Internet Explorer web browser has alleged “security holes” or is in any way less than the finest software known to mankind [today.com] and excellent value for your money.
"Cenzic proves it's Firefox!
FIREFOX DID IT!
Fuckers."

The festering paedophiles of CERT have gone so outrageously far as to make the ludicrous claim that just viewing a malicious webpage in IE could leave your computer open to being hacked and turned into a Russian Mafia spam server.
“We don’t know what could have triggered such vindictiveness,” sobbed Microsoft marketing marketer’s marketer Steve Ballmer.
“Do they hate free enterprise that much?”

There are things you can do to make your computing experience even more secure.
Microsoft’s official suggestion — make sure your anti-virus software is up to date and using an entire CPU doing nothing much, click through five screens to run IE in “protected mode,” click through four screens to set zone security to “high,” click “JUST BLOODY DO IT WILL YOU” when the User Access Control asks if you really want to do this, enable automatic updates with the minor side-effect of installing Microsoft DRM on your system or Windows Genuine Advantage randomly turning your computer into a paperweight, and sacrifice a goat to Microsoft at midnight on a moonless night — is simple and straightforward.
“It’s the quality you’re paying for.”

On no account should you consider that there might be other web browsers out there, as researchers have demonstrated that all of them automatically download the cover of Virgin Killer.
“I saw a report,” said marketing marketer John Curran of Microsoft Completely Enderlependent Analysts, Inc., “that another browser had more vulnerabilities than ours!
People would be very foolish indeed to move from the latest IE to Netscape 4.01.”

“These CERT wankers are Mactards and trolls,” said Guardian marketing marketer Jack Schofield.
“They just want to take IE users out, brutally sodomise them, gas them in concentration camps and” [This comment has been removed by a Guardian moderator.
Replies may also be deleted.
]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063028</id>
	<title>Uh... huh...</title>
	<author>Hacker\_PingWu</author>
	<datestamp>1257102780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article link is only one short page and does not describe in detail how they came to their conclusions.<br>

<br>However, from the words they're using,  they're implying common vulnerabilities exploited in corporate server-side applications. Not client-side.<br>

<br>SQL Injection and XXS Scripting are much bigger issues with implementation of web applications in web pages on the server side, use databases and
scripting flaws in the code of the web apps to circumvent browser security.<br>

<br>They're talking about something that has little to do with the integrity of security of individual browsers, and more with the decisions webmasters make
and what web applications they use.<br>

<br>Also, when they refer to Safari, they say they're referring to the <i>iPhone Safari version:</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...followed by Apple Safari, whose browser showed a vast increase in exploits, due to vulnerabilities reported in the Safari iPhone browser...</i>

Looks like they're pretty clearly full of shit, and they're trying to be ambiguous and obscure by explaining little and using jargon to discourage people
from searching for what all the terms they're using means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article link is only one short page and does not describe in detail how they came to their conclusions .
However , from the words they 're using , they 're implying common vulnerabilities exploited in corporate server-side applications .
Not client-side .
SQL Injection and XXS Scripting are much bigger issues with implementation of web applications in web pages on the server side , use databases and scripting flaws in the code of the web apps to circumvent browser security .
They 're talking about something that has little to do with the integrity of security of individual browsers , and more with the decisions webmasters make and what web applications they use .
Also , when they refer to Safari , they say they 're referring to the iPhone Safari version : ...followed by Apple Safari , whose browser showed a vast increase in exploits , due to vulnerabilities reported in the Safari iPhone browser.. . Looks like they 're pretty clearly full of shit , and they 're trying to be ambiguous and obscure by explaining little and using jargon to discourage people from searching for what all the terms they 're using means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article link is only one short page and does not describe in detail how they came to their conclusions.
However, from the words they're using,  they're implying common vulnerabilities exploited in corporate server-side applications.
Not client-side.
SQL Injection and XXS Scripting are much bigger issues with implementation of web applications in web pages on the server side, use databases and
scripting flaws in the code of the web apps to circumvent browser security.
They're talking about something that has little to do with the integrity of security of individual browsers, and more with the decisions webmasters make
and what web applications they use.
Also, when they refer to Safari, they say they're referring to the iPhone Safari version: ...followed by Apple Safari, whose browser showed a vast increase in exploits, due to vulnerabilities reported in the Safari iPhone browser...

Looks like they're pretty clearly full of shit, and they're trying to be ambiguous and obscure by explaining little and using jargon to discourage people
from searching for what all the terms they're using means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063702</id>
	<title>Re:Firefox IS getting infected in the wild</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1257105120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on this article?  Impossible to say.  In fact, since there's no mention made of what data they used or how they compiled the raw data, I'd suggest that the number may be based on something meaningless.  Or maybe not.</p><p>Firefox is certainly not invulnerable.  But Firefox rarely remains vulnerable to any flaw for long, and by definition every bug that happens is reported.  So that will tend to overestimate the "number of bugs" and underestimate the importance of how fast they went away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on this article ?
Impossible to say .
In fact , since there 's no mention made of what data they used or how they compiled the raw data , I 'd suggest that the number may be based on something meaningless .
Or maybe not.Firefox is certainly not invulnerable .
But Firefox rarely remains vulnerable to any flaw for long , and by definition every bug that happens is reported .
So that will tend to overestimate the " number of bugs " and underestimate the importance of how fast they went away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on this article?
Impossible to say.
In fact, since there's no mention made of what data they used or how they compiled the raw data, I'd suggest that the number may be based on something meaningless.
Or maybe not.Firefox is certainly not invulnerable.
But Firefox rarely remains vulnerable to any flaw for long, and by definition every bug that happens is reported.
So that will tend to overestimate the "number of bugs" and underestimate the importance of how fast they went away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065678</id>
	<title>Phew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257070260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing I use IE 6 then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing I use IE 6 then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing I use IE 6 then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062976</id>
	<title>Re:Certified</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then there's this:

<p>
<a href="http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/" title="cenzic.com">http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/</a> [cenzic.com]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then there 's this : http : //www.cenzic.com/pr \ _20061011/ [ cenzic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then there's this:


http://www.cenzic.com/pr\_20061011/ [cenzic.com]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063118</id>
	<title>Firefox + NoScript?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox + NoScript + intelligent user who doesn't whitelist every page he visits</p><p>Just a guess, but I think this combo has very few vulnerabilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox + NoScript + intelligent user who does n't whitelist every page he visitsJust a guess , but I think this combo has very few vulnerabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox + NoScript + intelligent user who doesn't whitelist every page he visitsJust a guess, but I think this combo has very few vulnerabilities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30069774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30067898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30069728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30093868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_1626224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30070144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064184
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30093868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30066858
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30069728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30069774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30067898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30068392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30064146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30063118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_1626224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30062760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_1626224.30065432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
