Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98
in [Windows 98]
|
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 ___---
From: 98 Guy on 18 Dec 2009 08:48 Full-quoter MEB wrote: > HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x? To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use? And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose they were created for in the first place. > now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin > missing... You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in time if it were true. You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need not do anything differently when compiling these files for either platform. > Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows, > think it will work... Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that conveys a vulnerability. It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never disputed that before. Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very similar as executed on both platforms.
From: 98 Guy on 18 Dec 2009 21:52 MEB wrote: > http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows 98. That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result in new vulnerabilities. You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof. What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP, dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies, because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence it yields false positives. You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.
From: Sunny on 19 Dec 2009 01:06
"98 Guy" <98(a)Guy.com> wrote in message news:4B2C3FE9.1916C09C(a)Guy.com... > MEB wrote: > >> http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm > > Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into > it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows > 98. Not according to Microsoft, their download page for IE6 says otherwise :-) "System Requirements Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000; Windows 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1" I use IE6 on my Win98SE PC, and have done since it came out. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=1e1550cb-5e5d-48f5-b02b-20b602228de6&DisplayLang=en > That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches > either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result > in new vulnerabilities. > > You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof. > > What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP, > dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies, > because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both > are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All > these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a > very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of > dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence > it yields false positives. > > You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was > made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker > false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies > the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K > platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that > it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies. Wonder how MEB will take Microsoft to task for claiming IE6 is compatible with : (using MEB typespeak shouting) "WINDOWS 2000; WINDOWS 98; Windows ME; Windows NT; Windows XP Service Pack 1" |