Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98
in [Internet Explorer 6]
|
From: MEB on 17 Dec 2009 20:20 On 12/17/2009 07:26 PM, Sunny wrote: > "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. > > HEY STUPID, look on the malware sites and elsewhere like CERT, THEY provide the test results that they DO introduce new vulnerabilities. Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS... -- 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: N. Miller on 17 Dec 2009 20:15 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:17:03 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > 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.) Yes. But it is akin to stealing sensitive information from one's PC, nevertheless. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
From: Peter Foldes on 17 Dec 2009 23:30 Meb Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread to sleep. Only my opinion -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "MEB" <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:urzPG$3fKHA.2260(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > On 12/17/2009 07:26 PM, Sunny wrote: >> "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. >> >> > > HEY STUPID, look on the malware sites and elsewhere like CERT, THEY > provide the test results that they DO introduce new vulnerabilities. > Even someone as dense as you should be able to grasp those FACTS... > > -- > 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: 98 Guy on 18 Dec 2009 01:08 Peter Foldes top-poasted and full-quoted: > Meb > > Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread > to sleep. Only my opinion Hello Peter. Don't see you here very often. What's the occasion? Care to share your opinions with us? Perhaps you'd like to explain how mysterious vulnerabilities can form from the unlikely yet functional combination of win-2K IE6 patch files used on a win-98 system. And even more - how those vulnerabilities would even become discovered and leveraged against it. The depths of irrationality, fear and dread as expressed by a few here are astounding. Files developed and released by none other than Microsoft itself, designed to address KNOWN vulnerabilities in IE6, files known to function with no apparent incompatibility with Win-98, are feared and demonized as possibly, no - actually conveying as of yet unknown, unidentified, uncataloged vulnerabilities uniquely to the win-98 platform for which will never be discovered except by those ever industrious hackers who are renoun for making their own discoveries of arcane system vulnerabilities. Since fiction is the topic this evening, what are you and MEB getting from Santa this Christmas?
From: MEB on 18 Dec 2009 04:46
On 12/18/2009 01:08 AM, 98 Guy wrote: > Peter Foldes top-poasted and full-quoted: > >> Meb >> >> Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread >> to sleep. Only my opinion > > Hello Peter. Don't see you here very often. What's the occasion? > > Care to share your opinions with us? > > Perhaps you'd like to explain how mysterious vulnerabilities can form > from the unlikely yet functional combination of win-2K IE6 patch files > used on a win-98 system. > > And even more - how those vulnerabilities would even become discovered > and leveraged against it. > > The depths of irrationality, fear and dread as expressed by a few here > are astounding. > > Files developed and released by none other than Microsoft itself, > designed to address KNOWN vulnerabilities in IE6, files known to > function with no apparent incompatibility with Win-98, are feared and > demonized as possibly, no - actually conveying as of yet unknown, > unidentified, uncataloged vulnerabilities uniquely to the win-98 > platform for which will never be discovered except by those ever > industrious hackers who are renoun for making their own discoveries of > arcane system vulnerabilities. > > Since fiction is the topic this evening, what are you and MEB getting > from Santa this Christmas? HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X, now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin missing... Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows, think it will work... it makes as much of an argument as this stupidity you continue to spout... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |