well it is nss, microsoft likes paying for reports like these ...

IE 10 is not among the five browsers with the most market share; as of May 1 -- less than three weeks ago -- IE 10 only had 6% of the market share:  http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57582279-93/ie-10-doubles-its-share-of-desktop-browser-market/

IE 9 and IE 8 both have much larger market shares, but the 'lab' forgets those basic facts which discredits their report and the lab's report does not consider the versions of IE with greater market share while claiming its testing the browsers with the greatest market share (which, again, is a false claim).

The report specifically stated IE 10 as one of the five most popular browsers, which is an untrue statement ... if they specify version, the version they specify needs to meet their qualifications, which it does not.  It did not test the security of the most popular versions of IE (9 and 8).  That's dishonest.

WHO CARES about integrity in advertisements claiming to be unbiased reports despite failing a cursory examination?  I do for one, as would anyone who cares about valid and accurate information from honest sources.  I don't care what the NSS lab's credentials are ... this report is self-evidently false.  Integrity and honesty are not trademarked logos to slap on something and scream that you have ... they have to actually mean something.

IE has earned a reputation for horrible security, vulnerability worsened by its deep integration into the Windows operating system.  The easily un-verified falsehood I found on the surface of the report establishes that the report is not credible.  Anyone citing or relying on such an easily discredited report are themsevles being dishonest ... this refutation of the report does not prove or disprove that IE 10 is or is not secure, but such an obvious falsehood in the report coupled with Microsoft's renowned history of promising every new iteration of an old product is better, faster, more productive, more secure, etc. which has rung false so many times (yes, I am aware Microsoft is not the only developer guilty of this, but given this report tries to dismiss IE's earned ill-reputation while the report itself presents a false claim as to IE 10's marketplace dominance, for the purpose of this rebuttal its very relevant).

Popularity and honesty are not congruent.  If you are able to convince 99.9% of all computer users with a false report like this that IE is secure, that does not mean IE is actually secure.  No one who buys a Windows computer has an option to not have IE, so even if popularity were a valid measure of security, in the case of IE, its a fraudulently inflated market share that only exists due to ongoing antitrust violations by Microsoft.

It's a good test for morons, but if you're not a moron, "socially engineered malware" is shit you'll never get to begin with.  Unless something has changed, IE 10 has terrible ratings against exploits in general, and only becomes a semi secure environment if you cripple functionality with a high security setting.

I'm more interested in how easily the browser gets hijacked, whether that wonderful flash ad can infect me with something, things I don't have to be a complete retard to have a problem with in the first place.  Strange files off the internet are like email attachments from people you don't know, stop running them without checking them out first.

I think the real issue is that a similar study done by Accuvant showed that all browsers were more or less equally competent (or incompetent) at the same thing measured here by NSS...the main difference is that Accuvant used a lot more sites and apps compared to NSS...

It isn't too far fetched to imagine that NSS simply picked websites that IE 10 will block but the other browsers don't...

Is that really any different from checking/unchecking a few boxes/options in IE?   Either way you are really just talking about 'changing' the browser's defaults.