Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98
in [Internet Explorer 6]
|
From: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 17 Dec 2009 17:59 In message <cxuk2cekampc.dlg(a)msnews.aosake.net>, N. Miller <anonymous(a)msnews.aosake.net> writes: [] >Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. But be honest, and add >a proper disclaimer; your files are untested against Windows 98, and >unsupported in Windows 98. They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they >cure. Use at your own risk. But they may cure more than they introduce. Don't use them at your own risk too (-: > >Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute. > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** "I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense, reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
From: MEB on 17 Dec 2009 18:26 On 12/17/2009 05:59 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <cxuk2cekampc.dlg(a)msnews.aosake.net>, N. Miller > <anonymous(a)msnews.aosake.net> writes: > [] >> Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. But be honest, >> and add >> a proper disclaimer; your files are untested against Windows 98, and >> unsupported in Windows 98. They may introduce more vulnerabilities >> than they >> cure. Use at your own risk. > > But they may cure more than they introduce. Don't use them at your own > risk too (-: Really? Then where are the test results to prove that point... *IF* you followed the CERT histories and elsewhere, you would think otherwise... >> >> Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute. >> > -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 17 Dec 2009 18:17 In message <yxxxiuldy3dr$.dlg(a)msnews.aosake.net>, N. Miller <anonymous(a)msnews.aosake.net> writes: [] >Tell my mother, my aunt, my cousin, and his wife, that their boxes are being >used for "trivial" stuff! I have a friend who expects things to work safely, >and I could not recommend to him something not warranted to be safe. Such as an EOL-state 98 ... (-: [] >> If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't >> still be using windows-98. > >Some people can't afford to upgrade right away when things die. (By "die", do you mean "reach EOL"?) > >> And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS >> a form of support. > >Not really. Unless you consider self-support as a form of "support". > >> And it's not like it's not a reversable process. You can try those >> files, and if you don't like them - you can go back to what you had. > >Well, you probably might need to reinstall from scratch, or restore an >earlier image, if you wind up 'pwnd' by malware because of introduced >vulnerabilities. As opposed to being pwnd by malware because of known vulnerabilities? > >>>> So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply. > >>> It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the >>> bilge on your own when things go wrong. > >> Why the anger and bitterness over this? > >Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and >arrogant manner. I think there's some pots and kettles going on here. > >> If things go wrong (which hasn't been detected by anyone yet) you simply >> revert to the original files. >> >> Is that remedy too complex for you to carry out? > >Better to either not do it in the first place, or at least do it with open >eyes. That is a matter of opinion - BOTH WAYS, i. e. neither approach is unarguably wrong or unarguably right. [] >> And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific" >> files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and >> 98. > >It is still a bastardized OS at the end of the day. Correct. [] >> So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these >> files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of >> as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities? > >Yes. > >> Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true? > >No. I think you two are never going to agree; does it matter? [] >>> Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. >>> But be honest, and add a proper disclaimer; your files are >>> untested against Windows 98, and unsupported in Windows 98. 98G, it might be easier just to do that - it might stop the reflex action of MEB and this alter ego of his, and you could still post details of your patches. >>> >>> They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure. Or not. > >> The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely. > >But not impossible. > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.) > >> And you be honest. >> >> Admit that anyone still running win-98 currently, 3.5 years after the >> end of "official" support from Microsoft, needs to take extra steps, >> perhaps extraordinary or unconventional steps, to insure their system is >> compentent and secure when it comes to internet access, web browsing, >> etc. > >And you be honest. Admit that introducing new, unknown vulnerabilities by >playing "Mix'N'Match' with OS components is possible. YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. Now can we please have our newsgroup back (-:? > >>> Use at your own risk. > >> Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days? > >Yes. > >> Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these >> patch files? > >No. > Why do you say that? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** "I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense, reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
From: MEB on 17 Dec 2009 19:12 On 12/17/2009 06:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <yxxxiuldy3dr$.dlg(a)msnews.aosake.net>, N. Miller > <anonymous(a)msnews.aosake.net> writes: > [] >> Tell my mother, my aunt, my cousin, and his wife, that their boxes are >> being >> used for "trivial" stuff! I have a friend who expects things to work >> safely, >> and I could not recommend to him something not warranted to be safe. > > Such as an EOL-state 98 ... (-: > [] >>> If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't >>> still be using windows-98. >> >> Some people can't afford to upgrade right away when things die. > > (By "die", do you mean "reach EOL"?) >> >>> And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS >>> a form of support. >> >> Not really. Unless you consider self-support as a form of "support". >> >>> And it's not like it's not a reversable process. You can try those >>> files, and if you don't like them - you can go back to what you had. >> >> Well, you probably might need to reinstall from scratch, or restore an >> earlier image, if you wind up 'pwnd' by malware because of introduced >> vulnerabilities. > > As opposed to being pwnd by malware because of known vulnerabilities? >> >>>>> So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply. >> >>>> It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the >>>> bilge on your own when things go wrong. >> >>> Why the anger and bitterness over this? >> >> Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and >> arrogant manner. > > I think there's some pots and kettles going on here. >> >>> If things go wrong (which hasn't been detected by anyone yet) you simply >>> revert to the original files. >>> >>> Is that remedy too complex for you to carry out? >> >> Better to either not do it in the first place, or at least do it with >> open >> eyes. > > That is a matter of opinion - BOTH WAYS, i. e. neither approach is > unarguably wrong or unarguably right. > [] >>> And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific" >>> files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and >>> 98. >> >> It is still a bastardized OS at the end of the day. > > Correct. > [] >>> So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these >>> files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of >>> as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities? >> >> Yes. >> >>> Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true? >> >> No. > > I think you two are never going to agree; does it matter? > [] >>>> Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. >>>> But be honest, and add a proper disclaimer; your files are >>>> untested against Windows 98, and unsupported in Windows 98. > > 98G, it might be easier just to do that - it might stop the reflex > action of MEB and this alter ego of his, and you could still post > details of your patches. You mention me, sooooooo.... Sorry you just don't get it yet, that's your personal problem which only you can correct. I tolerate no attempts to place 9X users at a security or legal risk in this group [win98.gen_discussion]. These 2K files ARE DESIGNED FOR 2K, an NT based OS, NOT for Win9X. ANY fixes are directed towards vulnerabilities in native to THE NT OSs and the browser IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. In WIn9X, these are COMPLETELY FOREIGN files definitely bringing new vulnerabilities. The malware programmers DESIGNED their products around the EOL 9X. ANY changes to base files, which these do, changes the ability of the malware programs to provide adequate and *designed for* protection. The evidence there is the FACT that most continued testing and actively supporting EOL 9X at least for a year or so afterwards. Though many just dropped support... That means they and several of the malware testing services literally designed their programs for what Win9X was at EOL in its standard state. So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't because they do] AND that malware applications CAN PROTECT against any new vulnerabilities introduced. They can not claim malware isn't affected, because malware protection programmers would need to design their programs for the vastly DIS-SIMILAR potential 9X modified installations one could be running... they would need hundreds of SPECIFIC malware applications and thousands [likely hundreds of thousands] of extra lines of code... AND would need to modify it EVERY TIME one of these changed do to file changes [similar to when Microsoft made drastic changes during support]. >>>> >>>> They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure. > > Or not. >> >>> The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely. >> >> But not impossible. >> >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html > > Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from > drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of > course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running > modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.) >> >>> And you be honest. >>> >>> Admit that anyone still running win-98 currently, 3.5 years after the >>> end of "official" support from Microsoft, needs to take extra steps, >>> perhaps extraordinary or unconventional steps, to insure their system is >>> compentent and secure when it comes to internet access, web browsing, >>> etc. >> >> And you be honest. Admit that introducing new, unknown vulnerabilities by >> playing "Mix'N'Match' with OS components is possible. > > YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. Now can we please have our newsgroup back (-:? >> >>>> Use at your own risk. >> >>> Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days? >> >> Yes. >> >>> Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these >>> patch files? >> >> No. >> > Why do you say that? -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: Sunny on 17 Dec 2009 19:26
"MEB" <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OMFCgZ3fKHA.1112(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... <snip> > So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides > tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't > because they do] Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ? (Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?) You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it. |