Gold'en Rant : Why can't they make Firefox secure?

Like many Netters, several years ago I canned the delights of Internet Explorer for the security benefits of Opera Software's Web browser of the same name and and Mozilla's Firefox.

I ended up canning Opera last year when the company started charging for an ad-free version of its software, switching wholly over to Firefox, which was - so I thought - relatively secure.

This week I read on Computerworld that Firefox is vulnerable if you have the Google or Yahoo Toolbar, amongst several plug-ins, installed on your machine.

The problem stems from the fact that, whilst plug-ins coded up and hosted on Mozilla's own Web site are secure against vulnerabilities, those created by third parties are not.

I suspect that Mozilla may end up having to charge a premium for access to its specially coded versions of plug-ins for Firefox, so off we go - back to Internet Explorer, the latest version of which is quite snazzy, I have to admit.

On balance, I wish that Mozilla had charged a modest fee - maybe $9.95 a year - for its browser. That way the company could have developed a really wide range of secure plug-ins.

But no, it all has to be a free flower-in-the-hair, anti-the-establishment, hippydom open source application. Grrrrrr! - sometimes I wish open source firms would follow the lead of Sourcefire, which has developed a commercial version of Snort. Or am I asking too much?