Prev: Meb wants to talk about the useage of Win-2K IE6 files on 98
Next: KB837009
From: MEB on 6 Apr 2010 11:59
On 04/06/2010 09:46 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
> MEB wrote:
>
>> Uhuh, dorkidum, so let me ask you pursuant YOUR claims; WHY does
>> anyone need to install Win2K files into Win9X since they are immune
>> from the present hacks being used?
>
> Because:
>
> a) they might contain actual bug fixes in addition to patching
> vulnerabilities that are specific to NT-based OS's. The bug
> fixes might result in a more stable operating system.

Might huh. So every idiot on the planet is supposed to install these
because they are too stupid to know whether they perform *any* function
or not. And even though they may, OTOH, install additional unstable
issues and vulnerabilities into Win9X.

>
> b) they might actually patch vulnerabilities that are exposed on
> win-98 but which have never been coded properly to execute
> correctly on win-98 by any circulating malware.

Might huh. So even though 98 Guy claims there are no present exploits
being used against Win9X users, he recommends every idiot on the planet
should install these files to protect against vulnerabilities NOT being
exploited while NOT knowing the vulnerabilities that these DO install
into Win9X.

>
> c) there is no possibility that they can give win-98 any new
> vulnerabilities. If you believe that they can, then you'd
> have to explain why you would trust or have faith in any
> update from Microsoft under any condition.

Here 98 Guy exposes how completely clueless he and the rest of the
idiots on MSFN are related to these activities. The CLAIM is Microsoft
produces NO flawed updates even for the supported OSs, "there is no
possibility" for *ANY* new Win9X vulnerabilities.
Of the several THOUSAND updates and hotfixes to THE EXACT SAME FILES
due to coding flaws and failed corrections, 98 Guy and the idiots on
MSFN claim in Win9X these NEVER occur, yet recommend these files are
installed to fix ... ahhh, since there never were any flaws or
vulnerabilities EVER, then there obviously was never a reason to upgrade
or install hotfixes, EVER. Yep, we have all been duped, we should be
running "out-of-the-box" installations without ANY further updates or fixes.

>
> For all the above reasons, there is no rational argument to support the
> idea that there is a downside to installing these files on a win-98
> system.

And this is an excellent example of how truly clueless these idiots are
and particularly 98 Guy.
Even though these OSs *REQUIRE* separate and distinct coding and
compilation routines and inclusion for programs and applications to
properly function; and Win9X and the NTs are separate and distinct OSs
REQUIRING these specific compilation and coding activities; and even
though NO ONE bothers to make sure these IMPROPERLY programmed files
provide ANY function and DO NOT install new vulnerabilities in Win9X;
these MORONS want other MORONS to blindly accept these files for
installation into Win9X for no other reason than these files can be
installed, with _UNKNOWN_ consequences.

>
> But because win-98 is practically immune yo IE6 exploits these days,
> there is perhaps no compelling reason that the average win-98 user needs
> to seek out and install these files.

*NOTE* this specifically: 98 Guy has specifically stated Win9X is
"practically immune" to IE6 exploits.

So now that 98 Guy has once again explained MSFN and his distinct
knowledge and expertise regarding exactly what occurs everywhere.
Obviously now MSFN and 98 Guy claims are:

IE6 is *SAFE* for Win9X usage *WITHOUT* any W2K file updates involved.
{Not true, as IE6 is STILL severely flawed and being leveraged by
malicious activity across the world.}

That NO ONE need worry about _any_ exploit being leveraged against
Win9X with or without the W2K updates.
{Not true, as the same and modified versions of Win9X exploits are
still being used as when Win9x was a supported OS, in addition to new
forms.}

That there are _no_ coding differences between Win9X and the NTs.
{Not true, as there are distinct differences in even the NTs, and
certainly when compared against Win9X.}

Installation of improperly compiled files and applications *do not*
increase vulnerabilities and potential exploit vectors.
{Not true, as improperly compiled files include INCREASED errors,
failed system calls, and other aspects which can be used/leveraged
maliciously.}
---

These are representative of the lunatic ideas presently floating around
MSFN and between idiots like 98 Guy.

As any new vulnerabilities and exploits pursuant to installing IE6 W2K
files into Win9X would require someone with enough experience and
understanding to "catch" an exploit AND understand its functioning and
usage, these morons would hardly be the ones to do so as they CLAIM
there are *no* vulnerabilities installed EVER into Win9X even though
there obviously IS into the supported OSs, hence the NECESSITY for
continued hotfixes, zero-day fixes, out-of-band updates, and other updates.

Here again, is where the world gets to see the reasoning power
associated with these morons, these _clueless_ idiots who constantly
ignore the world in which they live;
who can't even comprehend the reasons *WHY* Microsoft MUST constantly
produce updates to its supported OSs and browsers;
*WHY* Microsoft always includes the *exact* OSs and _service pack_
levels these files are compiled for and tested against;
*WHY* these W2K files are _NOT_ even the same across the NT platforms;
and more obvious considerations which must be applied when dealing with
these issues.

So it boils down to "how stupid are you"... these suggested
installations are for the interface to the Internet, the "entry point"
for every malicious attack, crimeware, and other one encounters with
Internet usage, save for exploits using other applications to effectuate
the attack. Are you a clueless "98 Guy", or are you someone with some
intelligence.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Meb wants to talk about the useage of Win-2K IE6 files on 98
Next: KB837009