Security Update for JView Profiler KB903235
Just me
to update later on. Today this critical update is no longer at the
Windows Update site. Checked my installed updates, in case I had
updated it but forgot about it, but the update is no longer there.
Below is the note I had written down:
Security Update for JView Profiler (KB903235), 105 kb.
MS05-037
Issued: July 12, 2005
Version: 1.0
JView Profiler (Javaprxy.dll)
This update sets the "kill Bit" for JView Profiler (Javaprxy.dll).
My question: Is this ciritcal update for Windows 98 SE, and if so,
where can it be updated from?
Thanks to all for your help.
Gary S. Terhune
update performs a relatively simple registry hack that you can do yourself.
Note the following paragraph from MS05-037 (the pertaining Security
Bulletin):
------------------------------------------------------
Does this update contain any changes to functionality?
No. Since the JView Profiler COM object was not designed to be accessed
through Internet Explorer, this update sets the kill bit for the JView
Profiler (Javaprxy.dll) COM object. To help protect customers who have this
object installed, this update prevents it from being instantiated in
Internet Explorer. For more information about kill bits, see Microsoft
Knowledge Base Article 240797. The class identifier (CLSID) for this object
is '03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0'.
------------------------------------------------------
In short: Open REGEDIT and navigate to HKLM\Software\Internet
Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility. Look at the CLSID keys under that for a key
named "03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0'" If that key doesn't exist,
create it. In that key, create a new DWORD named "Compatibility Flags", make
the value 400.
Should result in a value that looks like this: 0x000000400 (1024)
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:5ltbg1l8a3i1dra4a...@4ax.com...
PCR
| Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
Compatibility\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}
Compatibility Flags 0x00000400 (1024) <<DWORD Value
Without "Microsoft", all is lost.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grys...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ukeOlKOp...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
PCR
(1) IE6, Help, About...
SP1, Q313829, Q328970, Q328389, Q324929, Q810847, Q813951, Q816506,
Q813489, Q330994, Q818529, Q822925, Q828750, Q824145, Q832894,
Q837009, Q831167, Q823353, Q867801, Q833989, Q834707, Q889293, Q867282,
Q891781, Q890923, Q883939, Q903235, & Q896727.
(2) "Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs"...
(a) Internet Explorer Q896727
(was Q883939, Q890923, Q891781, Q889293, Q834707, Q867801,
Q831167, Q832894, Q824145, Q828750, Q822925, Q818529)
(b) Internet Explorer Q903235 (was Q883939).
I took it when offered. Now, I cannot even see it in the Catalog...
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/default.asp
...but, go look for yourself.
Here it is from my WU folder. (I take them into there, although I always
let the site do it's auto-download/install.)...
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS05-037.mspx
...BUT looks like it says you must get it from the Windows Update site.
I think this is the Registry key Terhune means to say...
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
Compatibility\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}
Compatibility Flags 0x00000400 (1024) <<DWORD Value
...Do you have it?
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:5ltbg1l8a3i1dra4a...@4ax.com...
Gary S. Terhune
started getting blurry.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"PCR" <pcr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uMII9SP...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Just me
I'm using Windows 98SE with IE SP2 and now I'm not sure whether it
applies to me. But a month ago I'm sure I saw the update at the
Windows Update site as applying to me. I had made a note of it for a
later update. Today, however, the update was no longer there implying,
to me, that I may not need it afterall.
Below is what MS05-037 says under "Affected Components" at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms05-037.mspx
It reads in part:
"Internet Explorer 5.5 Service Pack 2 on Microsoft Windows Millennium
Edition -- Review the FAQ section of this bulletin for details about
these operating systems."
"Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 on Microsoft Windows 98, on
Microsoft Windows 98 SE or on Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition
Review the FAQ section of this bulletin for details about these
operating systems."
From the above, seems that I may not need the update since I'm using
Win 98 SE with IE5.5. Am I correct in this?
I have all of the critical updates except the above and the Security
Update 891711 (MS05-002), which I've read that this latter may create
problems.
Again, thanks for responding.
John
Just me
"03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0'", which was not there.
Just me
>If you actually have it, it will show up at...
>
>(1) IE6, Help, About...
>SP1, Q313829, Q328970, Q328389, Q324929, Q810847, Q813951, Q816506,
>Q813489, Q330994, Q818529, Q822925, Q828750, Q824145, Q832894,
>Q837009, Q831167, Q823353, Q867801, Q833989, Q834707, Q889293, Q867282,
>Q891781, Q890923, Q883939, Q903235, & Q896727.
Not there.
>
>(2) "Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs"...
> (a) Internet Explorer Q896727
> (was Q883939, Q890923, Q891781, Q889293, Q834707, Q867801,
> Q831167, Q832894, Q824145, Q828750, Q822925, Q818529)
> (b) Internet Explorer Q903235 (was Q883939).
>
Not in Add/Remove either.
>I took it when offered. Now, I cannot even see it in the Catalog...
>http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/default.asp
>...but, go look for yourself.
>
Also, not in Catalog
>Here it is from my WU folder. (I take them into there, although I always
>let the site do it's auto-download/install.)...
My WUpdate folder in C:\ is empty. The one in D: drive got wiped when
D: drive was replaced a month ago due to problems.
Is there a file where it shows all my Windows Updates, besided lokking
in the Catalog? And how do you copy the updates from the Help->About
Internet Explorer and the Add/Remove listing.
Gary S. Terhune
whether it applies to your system or not, the patch *should_be* available at
WU Catalog.
Your logic is faulty. The patch isn't offered for versions of IE earlier
than 5.5 because those versions simply aren't supported any longer. Haven't
been for some time. That does *not* mean that earlier versions aren't
vulnerable, particularly earlier versions of IE5 (not sure about IE4.) I
would bet that your IE *is* vulnerable, and in any case, the kill-bit fix I
suggested won't harm your installation. The Active-X control involved isn't
supposed to be used in IE, anyway. This issue is a common one--Active-X
controls that aren't meant to be accessed by IE but manage to be hooked by
malware into doing so, with all the security issues that suggests. Setting
the kill-bit is the common solution. Pretty much that entire ActiveX
Compatibility key of the Registry consists of kill-bits. A similar issue is
currently top news in security circles regarding MSDDS.DLL (an Office 2000
file), and the same solution is suggested.
As for KB891711 (MS05-002), that *did* have problems when it was first
issued. A replacement patch was issued within a short time and no longer
causes any problems that I'm aware of. You *should* install KB891711 without
delay.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:29dcg1ditrlneoat4...@4ax.com...
Rick Chauvin
System Requirements
This update applies to Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (SP1) with the
following operating systems:
Windows XP SP1
Windows 2000 SP4
Windows 98
Windows 98SE
Windows Millennium
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=2A506C16-01EF-4060-BCF8-6993C55840A9&displaylang=en
Rick
Rick Chauvin
tracker history is that this last W98SE - MS05-038 896727 Cumulative
Security Update for IE6 also sets that:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
Compatibility\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}
Compatibility Flags 0x00000400 (1024) <<DWORD Value
...anyway, I imagine the new IE supercedes that KB903235 and so is why
they pulled it.
Rick
Gary S. Terhune
5.01. Anyway, the end-point is that you *do* need to set the kill-bit, and
the patch doesn't seem to be available. So do it manually.
Did I understand you correctly? Did you previously see this patch listed at
WU? Because the response from MS is to quote the following paragraph from
the Security Bulletin:
"Note Critical security updates for these operating systems may not
be available at the same time as the other security updates that
are included with this security bulletin. They will be made available as
soon as possible following the release. When these security updates are
available, you will be able to download them only from the Windows
Update Web site."
That would indicate that the patch has not yet been posted for Win9x
systems.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"Gary S. Terhune" <grys...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23EG1q4P...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Just me
<grys...@mvps.org> wrote:
>I've punted the issue upstairs. We'll see what they say. Regardless of
>whether it applies to your system or not, the patch *should_be* available at
>WU Catalog.
>
>Your logic is faulty. The patch isn't offered for versions of IE earlier
>than 5.5 because those versions simply aren't supported any longer. Haven't
>been for some time. That does *not* mean that earlier versions aren't
>vulnerable, particularly earlier versions of IE5 (not sure about IE4.) I
>would bet that your IE *is* vulnerable, and in any case, the kill-bit fix I
>suggested won't harm your installation. The Active-X control involved isn't
>supposed to be used in IE, anyway. This issue is a common one--Active-X
>controls that aren't meant to be accessed by IE but manage to be hooked by
>malware into doing so, with all the security issues that suggests. Setting
>the kill-bit is the common solution. Pretty much that entire ActiveX
>Compatibility key of the Registry consists of kill-bits. A similar issue is
>currently top news in security circles regarding MSDDS.DLL (an Office 2000
>file), and the same solution is suggested.
>
>As for KB891711 (MS05-002), that *did* have problems when it was first
>issued. A replacement patch was issued within a short time and no longer
>causes any problems that I'm aware of. You *should* install KB891711 without
>delay.
KB891711 just updated.
Thanks.
Now WU shows that I need only the following two:
Microsoft GDI+ Detection Tool (KB873374)
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (Windows 98, Windows Me)*
IE SP 1 I don't need as I have IE5.5 SP2. GDI+ Detection Tool I do not
understand what this is. :)
Still KB903235 is not in WU or in the Catalog.
I'm afraid to touch the Registry and would rather do it through WU.
Perhaps as a last resort I'll do it as you suggested. But, like I
said, I'm afraid that I'll muck up things here. :) Have spent too much
money on this old system.
Again, thanks to all.
Gary S. Terhune
grys...@mvps.org
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:u0jcg1psp1nohkb9i...@4ax.com...
Just me
<grys...@mvps.org> wrote:
>Did I understand you correctly? Did you previously see this patch listed at
>WU?
Gary, I have a notation in front of me dated 7/19/05. That is a month
ago today. I usually wait for WU to take me to the Windows Update site
automatically each month. Oftentime I do not do the updates until I
read a little more about them in this NG.
The notation that I have is about KB903235, KB888113 and KB891711.
I have also written down additional details about each of the three
KBs. Seems that I could only have gotten this info from the WU site.
Notice the 7/19/05 date, which corresponds with today's, 8/19/05
automatic update one month later. I only go to the WU site when
connected automatically.
What my note above says is that as of 7/19/05 I hadn't updated the
above three.
Today I was again connected to WU automatically upon clicking on the
IE browser. Went back to my notes and all 3 of the above updates were
there, except for KB903235. Updated the KB888113 earlier today and,
upon your advise, just updated the 891711.
John
Gary S. Terhune
update and removed as a stand-alone. Haven't looked into that one.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:jfjcg1d7966ntn1k5...@4ax.com...
Just me
Gary S. Terhune
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:t2mcg1dsio149jtcm...@4ax.com...
Just me
<grys...@mvps.org> wrote:
>Yup. Check your inbox.
Thanks.
Done.
John
PCR
did cover it.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grys...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eBEAklPp...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Thanks, PCR. Been looking at too much Registry stuff this morning.
Eyes
| started getting blurry.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
|
| "PCR" <pcr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:uMII9SP...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
...snip
PCR
article. Well, we know you didn't get the update, then, which provides
the kill bit...
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
Compatibility\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
..., BUT what about this key & sub-key, do you have it...?...
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
@="JVIEW Profiler"
[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}\InprocSe
rver32]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\JAVAPRXY.DLL"
"ThreadingModel"="Both"
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:mhfcg1pkho59bhcu7...@4ax.com...
Gary S. Terhune
them. Those aren't the problem. The Active-X is perfectly safe when used as
intended. It's when it gets used in IE that problems occur. Thus, we use the
already-discussed solution to prevent IE, specifically, from using the
Active-X control.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"PCR" <pcr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:%23JDHpUR...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
PCR
through it or send it to you. Check for that other Registry key, though,
that I posted elsewhere. It should have come up in your search for...
"03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0".
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:nvfcg11f6u0dvrhrt...@4ax.com...
PCR
his Registry...
03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0
I'm beginning to wonder. What about the following? It doesn't come in
with the kill bit, does it...?...
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
@="JVIEW Profiler"
[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}\InprocSe
rver32]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\JAVAPRXY.DLL"
"ThreadingModel"="Both"
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Rick Chauvin" <jus...@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:Os$vDNQpF...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
PCR
his Registry search. Perhaps it did, & he only meant the kill bit failed
to show. His wording was over-kill, then...
"I saw that myself, but was able to look for Class Identifier
"03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0'", which was not there."
OOOPS! Just me, you've got a single quote in there before the second
double quote! Try that search again without it!
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grys...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OFWTzcRp...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
PCR
in
| his Registry...
| 03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0
He may have attached a single quote to the end of that CLSID causing the
search to fail. In that case, perhaps the MS05-038 896727 Cumulative
really did give it to him.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"PCR" <pcr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uferskRp...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
PCR
time...
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:mhfcg1pkho59bhcu7...@4ax.com...
| I saw that myself, but was able to look for Class Identifier
| "03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0'", which was not there.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"PCR" <pcr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ucrNVdRp...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Gary S. Terhune
<s>.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"PCR" <pcr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:uu3M2qR...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Just me
>REGEDIT4
>
>[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
>Compatibility\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
>"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
>
>..., BUT what about this key & sub-key, do you have it...?...
>
>REGEDIT4
>
>[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
>@="JVIEW Profiler"
[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
@="JVIEW Profiler"
>[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}\InprocSe
>rver32]
>@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\JAVAPRXY.DLL"
>"ThreadingModel"="Both"
[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}\InprocServer32]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\JAVAPRXY.DLL"
"ThreadingModel"="Both"
I think they're the same.
Sorry for posting them. Could have said YES to both. Just wanted to
look at them both so I could compare them. Eyesight is beginning to
fail.
Just me
>OK, thanks. I was just wondering why that other one wouldn't come up in
>his Registry search. Perhaps it did, & he only meant the kill bit failed
>to show. His wording was over-kill, then...
>
>"I saw that myself, but was able to look for Class Identifier
>"03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0'", which was not there."
>
Meant that I, too, noticed the missing word "Microsoft" in
HKLM\Software\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility and was able to
navigate to the CLSIDs and find out that
"03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0" was not there.
Gary S. Terhune
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:q63dg15sctckk7bov...@4ax.com...
Just me
just to clear things up.
I did not do a search for the key Terhune had given me. Instead, I
navigated to the CLSIDs, taking into account of the missing
"Microsoft" and "03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0" was NOT the key
among them.
Had I searched for the actual key, I would have found the other two in
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT.
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:50:59 GMT, Just me <Just...@myLink.com>
wrote:
PA Bear
<w>
Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> Yup. Check your inbox.
>
>
PA Bear
Download details: Security Update for JView Profiler (KB903235):
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=2a506c16-01ef-4060-bcf8-6993c55840a9&DisplayLang=en
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE, Shell/User, Security), AH-VSOP
Gary S. Terhune
elsewhere in this thread, I'm aware of the patch for machines running on
IE6, but it doesn't apply to this particular thread since the OP is running
5.5.
Tell the truth, I'm a bit perplexed. What solution could possibly exist that
deals with issues like this one (and the new MSDDS alert and all the other
almost identical issues over the last few years) that is any better than
simply setting a kill-bit? Why would such a solution be more complicated
than a simple REG hack that works on every possible version of Windows
and/or IE. Seems to me that it should be *default* to set the IE Active-X
Compatibility kill bit for any such control that is not intended to be
scripted in IE. Why all this extra-complicated dancing around? Do the
official Patches for these issues actually get rid of the vulnerability in
the COM object? Or do they just set the kill-bit with more flourish?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"PA Bear" <PABe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23zQWDFT...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
PCR
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:l94dg15nf5tf3cjfs...@4ax.com...
PCR
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"PCR" <pcr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:e$Yvo2RpF...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
PCR
not the kill bit key. Let me see whether you've spoken to Chauvin yet...
no! Why? He has a site, which Bear has also posted now, where you can
get KB903235.
HOWEVER, by Chuavin's tracking, this too will give you that same kill
bit, & is why KB903235 has been pulled. Go take this instead from
Windows Update...
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-038
Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (896727)
Issued: August 9, 2005
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:ic3dg15kak3rl6935...@4ax.com...
Ivan Bútora
Security Update Replacement This update replaces the update that is included with Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-025. That update is also a cumulative update. This update also replaces the update that is included with Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-037
This would explain it.
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message news:5ltbg1l8a3i1dra4a...@4ax.com...
Rick Chauvin
> Seems like that should explain it. But Just me can't find that CLSID in
> his Registry...
> 03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0
>
> I'm beginning to wonder. What about the following? It doesn't come in
> with the kill bit, does it...?...
>
> REGEDIT4
>
> [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
> @="JVIEW Profiler"
>
> [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}\InprocSe
> rver32]
> @="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\JAVAPRXY.DLL"
> "ThreadingModel"="Both"
I don't track Root but rather Local of course, but for historical sake, when one first
installs the Java v3810 is what originally installs that CLSID portion of the key
"{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}" you're asking about, but v3810
is what first added this:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}\InprocServer32]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\JAVAPRXY.DLL"
"ThreadingModel"="Both"
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
@="JVIEW Profiler"
..and so then it's only when one installs the MS05-038 896727 Cumulative
for IE6 (or previous MS05-037 not available now) is when that same CLSID
portion reference is additionally added elsewhere to ActiveX Compatibility
which adds this:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX Compatibility\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
Rick
>
>
> --
> Thanks or Good Luck,
> There may be humor in this post, and,
> Naturally, you will not sue,
> should things get worse after this,
> PCR
> pcr...@netzero.net
> "Rick Chauvin" <jus...@nospamz.com> wrote in message
> news:Os$vDNQpF...@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>| Ah, the reason why they pulled it as I look through my software install
>| tracker history is that this last W98SE - MS05-038 896727 Cumulative
>| Security Update for IE6 also sets that:
>| HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
>| Compatibility\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}
>| Compatibility Flags 0x00000400
PCR
the CLSID at all. Right, as Terhune said, if Java is present, the CLSID
is there. So, he needs... MS05-038 896727... really, & that should be
the end of it. OK, thanks.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Rick Chauvin" <jus...@nospamz.com> wrote in message
news:%2362vCoY...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| PCR wrote:
| > Seems like that should explain it. But Just me can't find that CLSID
in
| > his Registry...
| > 03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0
| >
| > I'm beginning to wonder. What about the following? It doesn't come
in
| > with the kill bit, does it...?...
| >
| > REGEDIT4
| >
| > [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
| > @="JVIEW Profiler"
| >
| >
[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}\InprocSe
| > rver32]
| > @="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\JAVAPRXY.DLL"
| > "ThreadingModel"="Both"
|
| I don't track Root but rather Local of course, but for historical
sake, when one first
| installs the Java v3810 is what originally installs that CLSID portion
of the key
| "{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}" you're asking about, but
v3810
| is what first added this:
|
|
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-0060
08039BF0}\InprocServer32]
Just me
>Well, OK, I see from this & elsewhere you do have the Java keys, just
>not the kill bit key. Let me see whether you've spoken to Chauvin yet...
>no! Why? He has a site, which Bear has also posted now, where you can
>get KB903235.
>
>HOWEVER, by Chuavin's tracking, this too will give you that same kill
>bit, & is why KB903235 has been pulled. Go take this instead from
>Windows Update...
>
>Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-038
>Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (896727)
>Issued: August 9, 2005
I'm reading under Affected Components and does not apply to me as I'm
using Windows 98 SE with IE 5.5 SP2.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms05-038.mspx
PCR
update support or may not be affected". Normally, I let the site
decide. Was MS05-038 (896727) offered to you at Windows Update? Yes?
Take it.
Warning: I do see someone in this NG has begun to complain 896727 is
causing a problem...
"Otto Genf" wrote in message
news:eIoKV8Tp...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
...However, it is uninstallable in Add/Remove. And I don't think I've
seen anyone else with the complaint.
No? 896727 isn't offered? Well, you did say the other was once offered.
So, go take KB903235 from the link Chauvin & Bear posted...
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=2A506C16-01EF-4060-BCF8-6993C55840A9&displaylang=en
...or set the kill bit yourself. Either way, I see no problem. Don't let
the "kill" in "kill bit" worry you.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:osheg1dstb98qq789...@4ax.com...
Just me
>The article does say: "Other versions either no longer include security
>update support or may not be affected". Normally, I let the site
>decide. Was MS05-038 (896727) offered to you at Windows Update? Yes?
>Take it.
So, do I, that is, let WU decide.
No, MS05-038 is not offered. I've updated ALL critical updates
offered, except the Microsoft GDI+ Detection Tool (KB873374).
Thanks, PCR.
PCR
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:qfleg1h0kvq390rdp...@4ax.com...
Rick Chauvin
[...]
> No, MS05-038 is not offered.
That's correct 5.5 SP2 is not supported so you won't see it show
up at WU for you - even though you are still affected with 5.5 SP2.
And so as long as you have MS Java installed of which if you do you
can see these keys in your registy: ..yes?
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}\InprocServer32]
@="C:\\WINDOWS\\SYSTEM\\JAVAPRXY.DLL"
"ThreadingModel"="Both"
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
@="JVIEW Profiler"
..then if you don't want to upgrade to IE6 etc, then you have few choices to fix
it, one is to edit your registry as others suggested - which is extremely simple.
If you don't want to do it manually then I've attached the info needed to this
message, and so just save it to your computer, rename it to a reg
extension then double click or right click to merge it.
Rick
Gary S. Terhune
> Warning: I do see someone in this NG has begun to complain 896727 is
> causing a problem...
> "Otto Genf" wrote in message
> news:eIoKV8Tp...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
> ...However, it is uninstallable in Add/Remove. And I don't think I've
> seen anyone else with the complaint.
From MS05-038: "Caveats: Packages for this security update that were located
on the Microsoft Download Center have been updated as the initial packages
were corrupt, causing some Systems Management Server (SMS) and Internet
Explorer installation failures. New packages are now available and
Microsoft encourages users to re-download the packages from the links below
and re-apply. Updates downloaded from Automatic Update, Windows Update,
Microsoft Update and Windows Server Update Services (WSUS), were not
affected by this issue."
Gary S. Terhune
See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896727. I would review each of those
items to see if they apply to your system and, if so, do you have it already
installed.
The reason it isn't offered for your Win98+IE5.5 is that that platform is no
longer supported and perhaps one or more of the included patches aren't
compatible. Many of the items are "hotfix" items, ones that you previously
had to obtain from MS via telephone call. I think that if you review the
literature, you'll find that few of them apply to your system. Just find the
ones that do and make sure that you've either installed the appropriate
patch or have instituted the appropriate workaround, such as we did with the
JView Profiler kill bit.
If you have any questions on the applicability of one or another particular
fix, just ask. But remember--just because it doesn't specifically list your
OS and IE version doesn't mean that they aren't affected. It may simply mean
that they are affected but MS hasn't yet or won't ever issue a specific
patch. You're left to either upgrade to IE6 or institute a workaround.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
news:osheg1dstb98qq789...@4ax.com...
PCR
to intrude, if you did.) He did write: "I've un/re-installed KB896727,
but that didn't help." However, he doesn't say whether he... was...
reinstalling the same download or getting a new one.
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grys...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:O6M2Ycb...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Gary S. Terhune
it on.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
"PCR" <pcr...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:OTvpILdp...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
PCR
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grys...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:es%23mNPdp...@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
Just me
<jus...@nospamz.com> wrote:
>Just me wrote:
>[...]
>
>> No, MS05-038 is not offered.
>
>That's correct 5.5 SP2 is not supported so you won't see it show
>up at WU for you - even though you are still affected with 5.5 SP2.
>
>And so as long as you have MS Java installed of which if you do you
>can see these keys in your registy: ..yes?
Yes, I have both of them.
The one that I don't have is:
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
Compatibility\{03D9F3F2-B0E3-11D2-B081-006008039BF0}]
"Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
which the hotfix provided by you and Terhune will add.
I think I'm going to apply the hotfix first thing tomorrow.
On another note.
Been having problems with Scandisk yesterday and am not sure whether
it may have been caused by my updates of 8/19/05 for Windows 98SE, ie,
kb888113 (MS-05-015) and kb891711 (MS05-002).
Ran Scandisk from Windows in Safe Mode after cleaning the trash.
Scandisk ran Standard Mode w/o the option to fix errors. But got
several persistent errors in drive C: - "Folder cannot be opened in
MS-DOS because its MS-DOS name, including the name of any folder it is
in, is longer than 66 characters...." Chose to ignore this kind of
error and continue with the scanning. Never encountered this kind of
error.
Also, during same scan got an error in C:\Windows\Temporary Internet
Files\Content.IE. Error read: "Folder contains incorrect info about
Index.dat. The file or folder last-modified date or time is invalid."
This is almost an exact quote of the error. Chose to ignore this error
and continue. Same error for C:\Windows\Cookies and
C:\Windows\History\History.IE.
Could this be due to the above updates, or is it a hint the C:\ drive
is failing again? The C:\ drive was replaced about a year ago, but I
think the guy replaced it with a remanufacured drive. The D:\ drive
was replaced by me about a month ago. Made some posts regarding latter
on these threads.
Thanks to all for your help. Much appreciated here.
Gary S. Terhune
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:25:47 -0400, "Rick Chauvin"
> <jus...@nospamz.com> wrote:
> On another note.
>
> Been having problems with Scandisk yesterday and am not sure whether
> it may have been caused by my updates of 8/19/05 for Windows 98SE, ie,
> kb888113 (MS-05-015) and kb891711 (MS05-002).
What kind(s) of problems, specifically. Does it simply not
finish--continually restarts? If so, how ear does it typically get?
Regardless, see my Clean Boot article at
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
>
> Ran Scandisk from Windows in Safe Mode after cleaning the trash.
> Scandisk ran Standard Mode w/o the option to fix errors. But got
> several persistent errors in drive C: - "Folder cannot be opened in
> MS-DOS because its MS-DOS name, including the name of any folder it is
> in, is longer than 66 characters...." Chose to ignore this kind of
> error and continue with the scanning. Never encountered this kind of
> error.
You can safely ignore this "error". You *do* have to worry about too-long
paths for MS-DOS in certain situations (like file copy/move/delete
operations in pure DOS), but you'd do just as well to disable that option in
Scandisk preferences--tell it to stop reporting such errors.
> Also, during same scan got an error in C:\Windows\Temporary Internet
> Files\Content.IE. Error read: "Folder contains incorrect info about
> Index.dat. The file or folder last-modified date or time is invalid."
> This is almost an exact quote of the error. Chose to ignore this error
> and continue. Same error for C:\Windows\Cookies and
> C:\Windows\History\History.IE.
>
> Could this be due to the above updates, or is it a hint the C:\ drive
> is failing again? The C:\ drive was replaced about a year ago, but I
> think the guy replaced it with a remanufacured drive. The D:\ drive
> was replaced by me about a month ago. Made some posts regarding latter
> on these threads.
Could be any of the above, or it could simply be coincidence. Corruption in
those particular folders isn't uncommon. Easiest thing to do is delete them
and let Windows rebuild them. Boot to "Command Prompt Only" then run the
following commands:
smartdrv
cd windows
deltree recent
deltree tempor~1
deltree cookies
deltree history
When you restart, those folders will be automatically recreated.
Just me
<grys...@mvps.org> wrote:
>"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
>news:gecig1hkvqriedb9i...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:25:47 -0400, "Rick Chauvin"
>> <jus...@nospamz.com> wrote:
>> On another note.
>>
>> Been having problems with Scandisk yesterday and am not sure whether
>> it may have been caused by my updates of 8/19/05 for Windows 98SE, ie,
>> kb888113 (MS-05-015) and kb891711 (MS05-002).
>
>What kind(s) of problems, specifically. Does it simply not
>finish--continually restarts? If so, how ear does it typically get?
>Regardless, see my Clean Boot article at
>http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
Except for the errors below and my responses to them, it finishes
normally. I just ignore the errors and let it continue and it finishes
normally. I'll run both scandisk again for C: and D: tomorrow and see
if the errors repeat. This has never happened before on the C: drive.
The last time I had problems with Scandisk was with the D: drive,
which I have recently replaced with another one from Maxtor. On the D:
got a lot of cross-linked files and recovered most of them. The drive
was defective and still under warranty.
Ran Avast Pro, Free AVG, Ad-Aware, Stinger and Spybot S&D. Gonna
download new signatures for F-Prot and check the entire drive again.
I'm now reading your article on "Clean Boot: What it is and why you
need it."
Thanks for your time.
Gary S. Terhune
"Just me" <Just...@myLink.com> wrote in message
> Except for the errors below and my responses to them, it finishes
> normally. I just ignore the errors and let it continue and it finishes
> normally. I'll run both scandisk again for C: and D: tomorrow and see
> if the errors repeat. This has never happened before on the C: drive.
> The last time I had problems with Scandisk was with the D: drive,
> which I have recently replaced with another one from Maxtor. On the D:
> got a lot of cross-linked files and recovered most of them. The drive
> was defective and still under warranty.
The "errors" you are currently encountering on C:\ are quite normal errors.
Like I said, I'd tell scandisk to not even bother detecting the too-long
path. The other problems you mention are also minor and common and best
dealt with as I suggested.
Rick Chauvin
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 13:25:47 -0400, "Rick Chauvin" wrote:
>
>>Just me wrote:
[...]
> Been having problems with Scandisk yesterday and am not sure whether
> it may have been caused by my updates of 8/19/05 for Windows 98SE, ie,
> kb888113 (MS-05-015) and kb891711 (MS05-002).
nope
> Ran Scandisk from Windows in Safe Mode after cleaning the trash.
> Scandisk ran Standard Mode w/o the option to fix errors. But got
> several persistent errors in drive C: - "Folder cannot be opened in
> MS-DOS because its MS-DOS name, including the name of any folder it is
> in, is longer than 66 characters...." Chose to ignore this kind of
> error and continue with the scanning. Never encountered this kind of
> error.
As Gary mentioned to make sure on the options of Scandisk (on it's Advanced
tab) be sure you have it unchecked where it says to Report MS-DOS mode name
length errors. However, coincidentally just the other day even though mine
is unchecked I also got that same error.. momentary surprised but without
thinking about it much further I just went to that particular filename it
prompted on and renamed it much shorter ..and continued just fine. I don't
like having filenames that long anyway since other programs I use will balk
at them too.
> Also, during same scan got an error in C:\Windows\Temporary Internet
> Files\Content.IE. Error read: "Folder contains incorrect info about
> Index.dat. The file or folder last-modified date or time is invalid."
> This is almost an exact quote of the error. Chose to ignore this error
> and continue. Same error for C:\Windows\Cookies and
> C:\Windows\History\History.IE.
Interesting but it's not a big deal, and as Gary pointed out you will need
to delete the corresponding folders in dos which will in turn importantly
also delete their contained index.dat files, and when you reboot again it
will rebuild everything anew and be just fine again - so just do it, it's a
good thing.
> Could this be due to the above updates, or is it a hint the C:\ drive
> is failing again? The C:\ drive was replaced about a year ago, but I
No, and again delete the folders in dos, however I would prefer for
expediency to use
cd \windows
deltree /y tempor~1\*.*
deltree /y history\*.*
..but no doubt Gary wanted redundancy and safety for you, but you also want
to be sure to get history's entire subfolder (history/history) branch where
you say you are showing a problem'd index.dat and not in it's first history
folder.
As always, be very careful with the deltree command and type accurately.
Rick