Firefox "too expensive" for the State Dept....

[Sirotnikov]

If you were involved in IT of a very large unit, then you would see why it's forbidden.

IT admins can strictly control IE settings on every computer under their control through Windows, remotely. They can enable and disable certain parts of it (eg, proxy use) and set fine-grained security settings via corporate policy.

Firefox does not support this. This is why enterprises are dominated by IE.

It may change if Firefox finally supports the MSI installer, which then lets Windows admins push the app out to all computers to install and hopefully configure as well. But that's only part of the problem, it will still never match the IE fine-tuning possible due to it being a component of Windows.

Other factors: Firefox doesn't support NTLM out of the box. Many, many internal webpages/applications are dependent on the flawed rendering in IE6. It is very expensive to fix those apps up.

I realize the control feeling it gives to IT (makes them happy) but if you look at it honestly, actual security settings seem irrelevant.

(A network with actual secrets would not come to depend on IE corporate policy to assure security. If you have truly high security requirements, you run totally separate networks for secret information, and have completely separate internet stations for "outside" access. If they get virus ridden, no serious harm is done. espionage is another question)

The person asking the question comes from the Intel. community, (with far greater security demands), and they allow firefox. Security isn't specifically mentioned in the official reply. The official reply speaks of patches and administration.

Patch wise - firefox updates itself better than IE. Training wise - just let people who like firefox download firefox.

I imagine various administrative settings a proxy is used for (content filtering? caching?) can be implemented using the LAN gateways and dns servers.


Intranet culture wise - I'm aware of the cursed IE 6 intranet dependency. It has affected several projects I helped lead.

I also think that this is probably the actual major culprit, even though it isn't mentioned specifically.

What is not clear is whether they are speaking of intranet or outside internet access. For the outside web, it seems unreasonable to demand people to keep using IE.

Even though it was officially forbidden to install anything on the dedicated internet computers, we would let people who want to use firefox use firefox. If it's on the same workstation, why can't people use both?

[Dinner]

How dumb people have to be?
Why cant' smarter people install firefox for themselves?

to be clear - i was involved with the IT of a very large unit (though not as large as the US state dept). I don't see a reason why firefox should be forbidden to download.

They forbid the installing of anything. Mainly it is just a control freak issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what - any company that takes security seriously don't EVER use IE6 level. They may chose to be compatible but it's a pain in the ass, so if they can aviod it they do..

Uh... Imran works for the United States Government (Department of Labor to be exact). We are cognizant of security issues due to personally identifiable information due to investigations into pension and health care plans. We use IE6 (which is a total pain in the ass).

[Solomwi]

Solomwi thinks Imran should refer to himself in the third person more often, kind of like the Rickey Henderson of Apolyton. It could rival self biased's italics before long. For what, though, I'm not quite sure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran thinks this could be the start of a good trend. Maybe could even rival Wiglaf's

[Solomwi]

Solomwi thinks Imran shouldn't get carried away.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran thinks Solomwi may have a point worth considering.

[Solomwi]

Of course he does. As Solomwi told a girl in the office today, you're perfectly entitled to disagree with Solomwi, but you're not entitled to do so and be correct at the same time.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did Solomwi do it while he was ***** slapping said girl for disagreeing?

[SlowwHand]

It's far more important to do business than to be secure. In their eyes, a restrictive firewall with overbearing antivirus means they're secure.

You're correct. Businesses, in the USA, move very slowly and cautiously in any "upgrade".

[Solomwi]

No, as is Solomwi's well-honed practice, Solomwi did that with a pleasant smile. Local elections were today, and she insisted that those who don't vote forfeit their right to complain. Solomwi pointed out the SUPERFACT that that old saw was backwards, as those who participate bear responsibility for the results, while those who refuse to participate bear no responsibility, and are therefore more entitled to complain.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Solomwi was wrong

[Solomwi]

Imran has failed on this one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran may need to ***** slap Solomwi into acknowledging his error.

[SlowwHand]

I'm kind of split on this one. I think a person should vote whenever they have an opportunity.