Safari, Opera browsers patch-shy, says study
Chrome, Firefox users plug more often
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Users of Safari and Opera are much more likely to run insecure versions of those browsers because it's harder to keep up with updates, a new study has concluded.
The report, prepared by researchers at Google Switzerland and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, analyzed data pulled from anonymized Google logs. It showed that only 24 percent of Opera users were browsing with the latest version three weeks after a new release. Apple's Safari fared slightly better, with 53 percent of users on a 3.x version of Safari having applied a new update within 21 days.
"All in all, the poor update effectiveness of Apple Safari and Opera gives attackers plenty of time to use known exploits to attack users of outdated browsers," the report's authors, Thomas Duebendorfer and Stefan Frei, wrote.
By contrast, Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox did much better, with 97 percent and 85 percent of users running the most current browser respectively. Microsoft's Internet Explorer was excluded from the comparison because its user-agent string doesn't reveal incremental versions numbers.
The authors concluded that the differences were largely the result of the way the browsers go about offering updates. Both Chrome and Firefox offer autoupdates that go largely unnoticed by users. In the case of Chrome, the browser automatically checks for new versions every five hours. When one is detected, it is downloaded and installed the next time the user restarts the browser. Firefox checks for updates each time the browser is started, and when one is found, the user is asked to reboot the program.
Apple and Opera don't make things as easy, the authors say. Those running a 3.2 version of Safari on a Mac must apply a Tiger or Leopard operating system update first before getting browser updates, which slows the overall patch process. Opera checks for updates only once a week, and users have to go through a fresh installation each time one is found.
The report is available here. ®
COMMENTS
The problem is the end users
So, Opera notifies me of an update (it actually DOES this folks) and I don't implement it. This is Opera's problem? Sure, I agree "automatic" would be better.
And while we're at it, how many of the actual o/s where these browsers reside have been patched? I thought so.
branches
I like Opera but I am one of the, er - lazy - users. What I would prefer is frequent automatic updates from a branch that only includes security and bug fixes, while upgrades to new releases are manual.
As for completely reinstalling Opera, I don't mind that. It's pretty small you know.
/y inv to Flame raid pls
Just thought I'll add something to the Firefox and auto-updates debate. My users, who are not admins or priviledged users, can and do apply Firefox updates. Admittedly, I did have to add the updater to the whitelist but it works.
Unfortunately, most of them don't know what Firefox is and insist on using IE6 which, for reasons too long and boring to go into, we are unable to upgrade.
Can lead a horse to water... etc

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Data control in the cloud
Cloud based data management
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth