IE 9 silent update helps boost its market share

In December, Microsoft announced that it would begin automatic and silent updates to its Internet Explorer web browser for Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 users starting in 2012. While that hasn't happened here in the US yet, Microsoft has enabled the feature in Australia and Brazil. Computerworld.com reports that there's evidence that IE 9's market share has gone up in those countries.

The information comes from StatCounter, which ironically is not considered by Microsoft to be an accurate way of determining web browser market share. Nevertheless, StatCounter's data shows that in IE9 use in Australia went up 23 percent in February and 42 percent higher in Brazil in the same month. Microsoft said that Windows Vista and Windows 7 users running IE 7 and IE 8 would automatically get a silent update to IE 9 in those territories.

Microsoft also announced that Windows XP users of IE 6 and IE 7 would get a silent update to IE 8. However, StatCounter's numbers in Australia and Brazil don't show much in the way of market share drops for those versions. So far. Microsoft has not given out any further information on when its silent update plans for Internet Explorer will be expanded to more countries.

Image via StatCounter

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Saints Row: The Third - Enter the Dominatrix revealed

Next Story

Samsung Galaxy S III officially announced [Update]

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Holy crap! They push an update onto everyone, and it causes a lot of people's software to be UPDATED!!! You can see it on the GRAPH!!! WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT?!?!

Should have been this way from the beginning (that goes for all browsers). You'd think they would have learned their lesson when XP was at its peak (with malware).

KomaWeiss said,
IE9 is okay. I still don't trust it for online banking, etc. I'll just do that in Chrome, or just reboot into Linux.

You've got to be kidding right? You don't trust a browser from a company that builds for better security and protection yet you trust Google??? *facepalm*

KomaWeiss said,
IE9 is okay. I still don't trust it for online banking, etc. I'll just do that in Chrome, or just reboot into Linux.

Wow, really? The most secure browser is not good enough, so you drop to Chrome?

(Go pull the numbers from any security firm, and this is why banking and institutions that take security seriously have moved back to IE8 and IE9.)

The 'funny' part of your post is that you go use Linux? Wow, really again? Chrome on Linux is not as secure as Chrome on Windows 7, due to OS security differences.

Want to test this, go ask Google when there are 'browser hack' competitions, and Google puts up a bounty if Chrome gets compromised, do you know the ONLY way they pay out if Chrome is compromised?
----
Their terms are Chrome, but it MUST be running on Windows 7 x64. So if Chrome is compromised on Linux, or OS X, or even Android, Google does not consider it a secure platform and their bounty DOES NOT APPLY.

So Linux? Not a good idea. If you are doing this based on 'malware', you are misleading yourself, as there are a lot of Linux botted systems out there, and because of the inexperience and the 'differences' in distribution, detection of a rooted or botted Linux system is more elusive than people realize.

(It wasn't that long ago, that there was a big security push to get Linux off routers, swtiches, etc as there was an alarming number of them that were botted and sucking packets and sending them off. Since routers were not 'security' scanned, they are still a prime target for botting, and Linux makes it easy.

Or go ask Anonymous or any good hacking group, they essentially bot a few thousand Linux servers and desktops to do the work for them. Not Windows desktops, not Windows Servers, but Linux servers and Linux desktops as Linux is easier to compromise and less frequently checked properly.

thenetavenger said,

Wow, really? The most secure browser is not good enough, so you drop to Chrome?

(Go pull the numbers from any security firm, and this is why banking and institutions that take security seriously have moved back to IE8 and IE9.)

The 'funny' part of your post is that you go use Linux? Wow, really again? Chrome on Linux is not as secure as Chrome on Windows 7, due to OS security differences.

Want to test this, go ask Google when there are 'browser hack' competitions, and Google puts up a bounty if Chrome gets compromised, do you know the ONLY way they pay out if Chrome is compromised?
----
Their terms are Chrome, but it MUST be running on Windows 7 x64. So if Chrome is compromised on Linux, or OS X, or even Android, Google does not consider it a secure platform and their bounty DOES NOT APPLY.

So Linux? Not a good idea. If you are doing this based on 'malware', you are misleading yourself, as there are a lot of Linux botted systems out there, and because of the inexperience and the 'differences' in distribution, detection of a rooted or botted Linux system is more elusive than people realize.

(It wasn't that long ago, that there was a big security push to get Linux off routers, swtiches, etc as there was an alarming number of them that were botted and sucking packets and sending them off. Since routers were not 'security' scanned, they are still a prime target for botting, and Linux makes it easy.

Or go ask Anonymous or any good hacking group, they essentially bot a few thousand Linux servers and desktops to do the work for them. Not Windows desktops, not Windows Servers, but Linux servers and Linux desktops as Linux is easier to compromise and less frequently checked properly.

I trust Linux, because I have never had an issue with it. All the programs I install are from source code. You can't really do all the trusting with Windows applications, where you have malware addons, etc. in their installers, and whatnot.

I've been using Chrome and Chromium for online banking, and other sensitive stuff. Have I ever had my banking compromised, or some other crap? Nope.

You might have, but I never have.

You know why not Windows servers, or anything, because Linux servers have a higher market than Windows. Well, that's what all you Windows lovers claim that's the reason why OSes have that issue, because of "market shares".

Look at how long it takes to get users to update IE. Look at how long it takes to get security patches for it? They don't even bother making faster upgrades to it, until the next OS. Now take a look at Linux applications and whatnot. Once a security issue is found it is patched really quick. I really don't have to worry about security issues. If I want extra security I can easily encrypt my HDD, compile a hardened kernel, etc..

KomaWeiss said,
IE9 is okay. I still don't trust it for online banking, etc. I'll just do that in Chrome, or just reboot into Linux.

Agreed. I would never trust Windows and certainly never IE with sensitive information like banking, credit cards, etc.

GNU/Linux is the secure option.

j2006 said,

You've got to be kidding right? You don't trust a browser from a company that builds for better security and protection yet you trust Google??? *facepalm*

I think he's referring to all the spyware, keylogger, and other crap that gets installed with IE. Even just visiting a website can hijack your system with IE. I always recommend people at a minimum, install Chrome, Firefox, or Opera, and ideally, use GNU/Linux if possible for sensitive stuff like banking.

thenetavenger said,

Wow, really? The most secure browser is not good enough, so you drop to Chrome?

You're really claiming that IE is the most secure browser? Hehe. No IT professional I know chooses to use IE. It's renowned for being one of largest malware infection vectors in Windows.
thenetavenger said,

(Go pull the numbers from any security firm, and this is why banking and institutions that take security seriously have moved back to IE8 and IE9.)

A paid report does nothing to allay the history of IE.

thenetavenger said,

The 'funny' part of your post is that you go use Linux? Wow, really again? Chrome on Linux is not as secure as Chrome on Windows 7, due to OS security differences.

I don't think you really understand how banking details get compromised. It's often through keyloggers and other malware installed by using IE and ActiveX. Those things don't exist on GNU/Linux, thus his assertion that it's much more secure than Windows is correct.

It's best not to get bogged down in OS security details like sandboxing etc. Those things are broken on a daily basis. It's what the exploits are targeted at, which in this case is mostly IE, and Windows. Therefore, it stands to reason that doing your banking on Windows is very risky, especially if you use IE.

thenetavenger said,

Want to test this, go ask Google when there are 'browser hack' competitions, and Google puts up a bounty if Chrome gets compromised, do you know the ONLY way they pay out if Chrome is compromised?

We're talking about real world exploits, not proof of concepts. Besides, those are all based on Windows, not Linux. Once you get through the browser, you still have to deal with the OS.
thenetavenger said,

Their terms are Chrome, but it MUST be running on Windows 7 x64. So if Chrome is compromised on Linux, or OS X, or even Android, Google does not consider it a secure platform and their bounty DOES NOT APPLY.

Again, all the exploits are targeting Windows, not Linux.
thenetavenger said,

So Linux? Not a good idea.

You've clearly never used Linux otherwise you wouldn't say that. Security experts often use Linux for dissecting Windows malware specifically because of its immunity and robustness. Linux is a must for anyone doing sensitive banking stuff on their PC. Even running it from a pen drive is much more secure.

simplezz said,

You're really claiming that IE is the most secure browser? Hehe. No IT professional I know chooses to use IE. It's renowned for being one of largest malware infection vectors in Windows.

Says more about you and your IT 'professionals' then about him. as thenetavenger is absolutely right. Didnt it took 1.5years before ANYONE was able to break IE8's sandboxing after IE8 was released? thats quite unbelieveable right? as Chrome's sandboxing was broken through within a month or 2. FF has no sandboxing and is/was KNOWN for its buffer overflow exploits. Only thanks to the operating system Windows 7 which blocks buffer/stack overflows. Its not FF's security, its microsofts.
simplezz said,

A paid report does nothing to allay the history of IE.
History? You do know at the time they released IE6, it was the most 'modern' browser of its time. And was almost completely W3C standard?
And considering IE comes from the Mosaic browser, in a way we have the whole WWW thanks to IE (Mosaic was one of the founding browsers for the WWW)
simplezz said,

I don't think you really understand how banking details get compromised. It's often through keyloggers and other malware installed by using IE and ActiveX. Those things don't exist on GNU/Linux, thus his assertion that it's much more secure than Windows is correct.

Oh its only IE and ActiveX that gets compromised? Really now. IE9 is my browser of choice for online banking and the sorts thanks to its 'Inprivate'. Where even IF your IE9 might be compromised, any 'plugin' or activeX addon is completely disabled.
simplezz said,

It's best not to get bogged down in OS security details like sandboxing etc. Those things are broken on a daily basis. It's what the exploits are targeted at, which in this case is mostly IE, and Windows. Therefore, it stands to reason that doing your banking on Windows is very risky, especially if you use IE.

Erm, Windows 7 is by far the most secure OS currently available. Thanks to its build in protection against buffer overflows. It also has ASLR since Windows Vista, however Linux kernels did not include these untill 2009.... Over 3 years after MS implemented into Windows...
Also Windows its application layers and sandboxing methods are protecting the applications and users on a level uncomparable to Linux.
simplezz said,

We're talking about real world exploits, not proof of concepts. Besides, those are all based on Windows, not Linux. Once you get through the browser, you still have to deal with the OS.

Again, all the exploits are targeting Windows, not Linux.


Really now? Theres an Debian/ubuntu virus out there that hasnt been fixed in 12 years... (it doesnt do much except crapping over your free disk space, but still )
Theres a reason the last couple of years, as (thanks to ubuntu) linux is getting a bit more popular as a desktop system, that theres a huge list of anti-virus programs for Linux nowadays. With warnings going out for Linux users to watch out as the amount of malware for linux is increasing. Windows only you say? You forgot the Apache exploit a while ago? just an easy example on how in a matter of minutes, thousands, if not millions of linux systems get compromised.
simplezz said,

You've clearly never used Linux otherwise you wouldn't say that. Security experts often use Linux for dissecting Windows malware specifically because of its immunity and robustness. Linux is a must for anyone doing sensitive banking stuff on their PC. Even running it from a pen drive is much more secure.

offcourse they would use a completely different OS to dissect malware.. or doesnt it make sense to you?

Just for you, to hopefully get your head out of your arse. The main reason Windows is targetted so much, is its marketshare and popularity. And the experience they have on this platform. (as its ancient).
See now Mac's OSX is getting more marketshare, see how its targetted and hundreds of thousands of macs get comprimised in a short amount of time. Its been many years since a majority of Windows systems got compromised by just 1 and the same exploit.
Plus the fact that exploits and issues in Windows mostly get fixed ALLOT faster then OSX or Linux.

Can i guess the Linux distro your using? I myself am a Debian fan since they have an even better aproach for their OS then Microsoft (to bad its just developed a tidy bit to slow). And I have and still use Debian for over a decade. Using a variety of BSD systems, managed (open)SuSe and Red Hat servers and every release still attempt to use Ubuntu on my desktop (just interest, for usability its just absolutely horrid, next to the fact i dont have time to figure out drivers every single freaking release.. works in 9, doesnt in 10... )

So before blasting me to be a MS Fanboy, I use both Debian and Windows, got an android phone and just know the strengths and weaknesses of the systems/environments i work on/with. You sir, however. are a stereotypical linux fanboy/ms hater. And just hate plain hate/dislike/flame something just because its from a specific Company... thats just plain silly (okay im guilty of similar, but thats for EA Games and totaly understandable after they ruined a ton of great games)

KomaWeiss said,
IE9 is okay. I still don't trust it for online banking, etc. I'll just do that in Chrome, or just reboot into Linux.

That HAS to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my life. You trust that phone everything home Google Chrome over IE for banking? That would be the very last browser I'd use for banking. Actually, it's the very last browser I'd EVER use, period!! I'd use that almost as equally incompetent Firefox browser over Chrome even!!

Order_66 said,
I'm glad big brother is always there looking out for me.

Big brother will often try to push garbage your way so you can't always trust them blindly.

honestly, browsers do need auto updated, because the standard user will never do it... only way to keep stuff secure is go googles route and auto patch when it needs to be with no user intervention

neufuse said,
honestly, browsers do need auto updated, because the standard user will never do it... only way to keep stuff secure is go googles route and auto patch when it needs to be with no user intervention

Tell that to the anti-trust people.

I'm not a huge google fan but it's the right idea. Push updates that are critical with little to no interaction. Just let the user know it happened. Lets make the web a safer place eh?

neufuse said,
honestly, browsers do need auto updated, because the standard user will never do it... only way to keep stuff secure is go googles route and auto patch when it needs to be with no user intervention

neufuse said,
honestly, browsers do need auto updated, because the standard user will never do it... only way to keep stuff secure is go googles route and auto patch when it needs to be with no user intervention

There is currently an issue which prevents that:
When you do auto update on certain things like java/flash/etc... they will often push crapware on the user and those non tech savvy users will just click yes and not bother to read what gets installed. On linux they don't have that issue, wheras on Winblowz they do.

Xerax said,

Tell that to the anti-trust people.

I don't think the anti-trust thing is so much of a problem these days considering how much innovation and competition there is in the browser market. However, Microsoft's past history of using its monopoly to damage competition and set the web back years means any changes they make will always be closely scrutinised.

soldier1st said,

There is currently an issue which prevents that:
When you do auto update on certain things like java/flash/etc... they will often push crapware on the user and those non tech savvy users will just click yes and not bother to read what gets installed. On linux they don't have that issue, wheras on Winblowz they do.

Obviously if it was a silent update, they would not be aware of it happening and therefore would not be prompted to hit "Next" to install the crapware.

neufuse said,
honestly, browsers do need auto updated, because the standard user will never do it... only way to keep stuff secure is go googles route and auto patch when it needs to be with no user intervention

actually that is an irritating "feature"
First time i installed Chrome i killed the auto update crap.
Occasionaly (few times a month) i click on "About" and if a new version
is detected it auto downloads and installs, while not having to put up
with anymore "Auto" updater BS
Not every single piece of software i use needs to have an auto update proccess
bloating the hell out of my finely tuned / tweaked operating system

This story and the result is one of those things that is geared towards the idiots.
Which would be the majority, advanced pc power users don't BS like this

Looong tired of having to live in a PC world that is designed and engineered to
cater to grandma, idiots and children, while advanced pc users have to jump through dummy hurdles..

I still think Microsoft should have a "Pro" version of windows for Pros
Maybe even an Overclockers Edition or something
and keep the dumb bs separate, people can go get "Retarded Grandma Edition" if needed..

Trueblue711 said,

Obviously if it was a silent update, they would not be aware of it happening and therefore would not be prompted to hit "Next" to install the crapware.