MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer
98 Guy
win-2k are fully compatible with Windows 98.
The kb article is here: support.microsoft.com/kb/974455
The download link is here: tinyurl.com/ygjyyc6
Previous updates for the files shlwapi.dll and mshtml.dll did not work
on win-98, but these new versions seem to work ok.
The actual executable or the unpacked install.exe program will not run
under win-98. What you need to do is download the above file, unzip it,
and copy over the following files:
browseui.dll
cdfview.dll
danim.dll
dxtmsft.dll
dxtrans.dll
iepeers.dll
inseng.dll
jsproxy.dll
mshtml.dll
msrating.dll
mstime.dll
pngfilt.dll
shdocvw.dll
shlwapi.dll
urlmon.dll
wininet.dll
They can be found in the \rtmgdr folder of the unpacked download file.
Some of those are direct-x related, so you might not want to replace
your existing file with those.
Backup your existing files so you can replace them if necessary.
Re-registering these files is not necessary - simple file-replacement is
all that is needed.
These files will bring the IE6-sp1 component of your win-98 system up to
date and equivalent (security-wise) to any win-2k system running IE6.
MEB
DO NOT TAKE THE ABOVE ADVISE...
These updates require the NT file system security [and other aspects]
to work properly and provide the protections intended..
As usual, this advise fails to address these issues, and the *testing
required* to ensure they not only work as expected, but that installing
them will not CREATE NEW VULNERABILITIES.
Take particular note of the headings:
Hotfixes
Internet Explorer 6 with Service Pack 1 on all supported versions of
Windows 2000
And the other information provided there, including the linked materials.
You WILL *NOT* be brought up-to-date security-wise by using these
purported fixes as you would be in any other installation/OS using IE6.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
98 Guy
that even more people can read and benefit from it.
Just what is your explanation for repeating (in full) instructions and
information that you caution others not to follow?
MEB spewed:
> DO NOT TAKE THE ABOVE ADVISE...
>
> These updates require the NT file system security [and other
> aspects] to work properly and provide the protections intended..
And how exactly do you know that?
What information do you know about those files that tells you that they
can't or don't function perfectly on win-98?
Which of those files requires the "nt file system security" ?
What are the [other aspects] ?
> As usual, this advise fails to address these issues,
As usual, you employ baffling bullshit with nothing to back it up.
> Take particular note of the headings:
> Internet Explorer 6 with Service Pack 1 on all supported
> versions of Windows 2000
I said openly that those files were for win-2k. But it's been
historically shown that IE6 update files for win-2k are frequently
identical to those that were offered for (or have been found to work on)
windows 98.
> You WILL *NOT* be brought up-to-date security-wise by using
> these purported fixes as you would be in any other
> installation/OS using IE6.
And that's what's got you really pissed off.
You just can't stand to hear or be shown how the security status of
windows 98 can be improved upon by using files provided by Micro$haft
itself.
The reader is invited to read the following thread (starting from post
#8) for more information on this subject:
http://www.msfn.org/board/latest-ms-ie6-security-update-breaks-windows-98-t136563.html
The use of these update files has been endorsed by the win-98 experts at
msfn.org.
Meb will no-doubt full-quote my post and add some bullshit nonsense. He
will not address my request that he answer the specific questions I've
asked here.
Greg
wrote:
Have you tried it? Don't knock someone advice, until you try it,.
Greg
Greg
wrote:
>98 Guy wrote:
One more thing.
If the files are written for I.E. 6, I don't see why it wouldn't
work for I.E. 6 in any version of windows that support I.E. 6
Greg
Greg
Update,
I wouldn't use this files, they are not for I.E. 6
danim.dll
dxtrans.dll
Greg
Update,
I wouldn't use this files, they are not for I.E. 6
danim.dll
dxtrans.dll
dxtmsft.dll
Those are for directx (Read it may or may not work).
MEB
Right!
Spoken by another who has no idea of what is contained within the
various OSs, how they work, security [file permissions and other], and
what is REQUIRED to understand WHY these supposed "you can install the
files so it must provide the protections/fixes" is a load of garbage.
Merely because a file or files installs DOES NOT MEAN it provides
anything to an OS for which it was not designed. It *MAY* contain a fix
[within that file], but that also requires *ALL* the other files and
their fixes to accomplish the goal, e.g., the security issues attempted
to be fixed.
TRY to understand the *WHY* for ALL of those other files YOU WILL NOT
BE USING and which you have *NOT* received since 2006.
Greg
wrote:
I have been using computer since 1980's, yes I am that old. I
know a lot about operating systems on how they work. I really like
windows 98se. I am dual booting between 98se and xp using system
commander 7.5
I read a lot, I may not be a advance user, I would consider
myself an intermediate user. I installed hard drives, Memory,
CD/DVD drives, Pci cards, floppy drives, etc
Except for the directx files in that list.
Let use browseui.dll as an example.
Let assume I.E. 6 was installed on both systems at the same time.
Microsoft needs to patch the browser do to a security hold.
So they patch browseui.dll file. This patch is for windows 2000
or above.
This does not mean the patch wont work on browseui.dll in 98se, it
will and it would be better that the unsecured browseui.dll Even the
msfn forum posters says it ok to do it, just don't use the directx
files.
Greg
MEB
Greg, you are once again attempting to address it as IF IT RELATES TO A
SINGLE FILE. It does not. There is a relational functioning *between*
*ALL of the files* necessary for the *specific* function, e.g., web
browsing.
In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE was *NEVER* properly ported to
work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within IE6
*WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY
elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the security
hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available in those
environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however they DO EXIST.
IF you would care to review some of this forum's OLD history, you would
find lengthy discussions on IE and its files, AND you would find some of
98 Guy's prior attempts [starting in 2006] to apprise of installable W2K
or XP files into 9X for IE AND lengthy discussions of WHY those don't
work properly, AND WHY they provide nothing more than a false sense of
security and MAY install even more dangerous vulnerabilities than exist
in an EOL IE.
IF YOU want to test these, feel free to do so, however, unless you TEST
them with SOFTWARE AND SPECIFIC VULNERABILITIES TESTS you have done
nothing but installed some files which may cause other issues...
Greg
wrote:
> In this case its IE, NOTE however, IE6 was *NEVER* properly ported to
>work within Win9X, *it was DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional
>browser Microsoft ALWAYS produces prior to releasing/for a new OS].
> Since DAY ONE there have been missing function calls in 9X within IE6
>*WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY
>elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the security
>hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY available in those
>environments. The errors are REPRESSED in 9X, however they DO EXIST.
>
If that was really the case, Microsoft would never release an IE 6
version for 98se, ME etc. if it was designed NT. Microsoft even
claimed it was more secure when it was released. Do those security
function exist in windows 98se? Maybe or maybe not. There is some
windows nt function in windows 98se because there are files that have
the same code written to them and visa versa. (In fact a screwed up
install of xp slipstream version I did on emachine a couple years
back, came out looking like windows me and it worked.)
I never said a signal file, I was just using it as an example. I
am referring to the I.E. files 98 guy mentioned. I said read the
MSFN forum. They said it is ok to install and you would have better
security. They did make a comment not to install the direct x files
unless you have net framework installed. (Not sure if it was 1.1 or
2)
Were not talking about upgrading I.E. 6 to I.E. 8 Were talking about
a security update.
If it what you said is true, that IE 6 was never ported properly
ported to work with 9x. If that is the case, using those files
would even give you better security then, not less security.
Greg
MEB
Well, we can see you're the normal Windows user, unable to understand
even the most basic concepts of the OS you are using...
Start here:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XP_file_errors.htm
Then actually go back through some of the old discussions. Might want
to actually learn about what the OSs actually do, and how they perform
the functions as they do.
And YES Microsoft WOULD release a piece of garbage and CLAIM it was
functional, look at anything it has produced and the dozens or hundreds
of updates just to make it to EOL... and NO using those files does not
guarantee any increase in 9X security by installing them... you don't
have the hundreds of other files for the NTs that go along with them..
AND go back through the other *transitional* browsers Microsoft has
produced, none as different as the NT based IE6 crammed into the 9X
environment of course,,, which broke various internal functions in 9X...
Really, you should make an effort to understand the OSs...
Before you put more drivel here, pop over to the Certs and notice the
.net functional issues/vulnerabilities, the Firefox add-in that
subjected FF users to malicious hacks installed by Microsoft *WITHOUT*
FF users input, and some of the other information available...
OR you can continue to spout nonsense..
Sunny
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edfg34WU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
<snip>
> Well, we can see you're the normal Windows user, unable to understand
> even the most basic concepts of the OS you are using...
Your over inflated ego and self worth is alive and well.
What's with the "we can see"? Why do you presume that anyone agrees with
you?
Do you lump "normal Windows users" with your "Usenutters" now?
MEB
Take a hike Sunny, and take your USENUTTER junk with you when you leave.
Greg
wrote:
MEB, he does not believe what I have read and learned. I think MEB
needs to go visit the MSFN forums. They are the ones that said this
but added don't use the directx files unless you have a certain
version of net framework.
MEB, also needs to read how some files are coded. I bet if you dig
through the files of windows nt, xp, vista, w7 you would fine some
windows 9x code in them.
Knowing MEB, he would say the unofficial service pack for windows 98se
would not be secure, even through GRC recommends it.
MEB,
I have more than a basic concept on how an operating system works.
If you read what I said,
I have 3 partitions
Windows 98se partition one
Windows me partition two
No Operating system installed on partition three. I use it to share
files.
I also installed
Memory, Hard drives, Pci cards, Floppy disk, Cd drives, cables,
etc.
Greg
MEB
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:41:25 +1000, "Sunny" <womba...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:edfg34WU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> <snip>
>>> Well, we can see you're the normal Windows user, unable to understand
>>> even the most basic concepts of the OS you are using...
>> <snip site spam>
>>
>> Your over inflated ego and self worth is alive and well.
>> What's with the "we can see"? Why do you presume that anyone agrees with
>> you?
>> Do you lump "normal Windows users" with your "Usenutters" now?
>>
>>
>
> MEB, he does not believe what I have read and learned. I think MEB
> needs to go visit the MSFN forums. They are the ones that said this
> but added don't use the directx files unless you have a certain
> version of net framework.
Don't need to "visit" MSFN...
So WHO said to do this... what is their reliability??? What is their
standing with the MSFN community? What hcoding have THEY modified or
what fixes have they produced?
Ask them where their specific test results are posted related to ANY
purported security and other enhancements WITHIN 9X as are afforded
within the supposed installable files as TESTED with 9X specific
hacks... MAKE them provide linked materials...
>
> MEB, also needs to read how some files are coded. I bet if you dig
> through the files of windows nt, xp, vista, w7 you would fine some
> windows 9x code in them.
I think it would be more accurate to say YOU need to look at the coding
and OSs, I have.
>
> Knowing MEB, he would say the unofficial service pack for windows 98se
> would not be secure, even through GRC recommends it.
Don't put words in my mouth, I have tested them, warned about variables
associated with using them, and provided links to them before...
>
> MEB,
> I have more than a basic concept on how an operating system works.
>
> If you read what I said,
> I have 3 partitions
> Windows 98se partition one
> Windows me partition two
> No Operating system installed on partition three. I use it to share
> files.
>
> I also installed
> Memory, Hard drives, Pci cards, Floppy disk, Cd drives, cables,
> etc.
>
> Greg
>
So... what your point... YOU said Microsoft would never produce or
offer something like it did... where is your countering proof to the
linked materials and my statements???
98 Guy
> I Don't need to "visit" MSFN...
Because they would laugh their ass off after reading your shit. You
wouldn't dare show your ass on that forum. They'd cut you to pieces.
> So WHO said to do this... what is their reliability???
What exactly is your hangup?
Why do you believe that every installtion of win-98 out there is
performing some mission-critical, life-sustaining function that demands
such a high level of examination of every suggested improvement or
enhancement?
If a handful of file-substitutions causes a problem, then role them
back. It's easy enough to do. It ain't gonna kill someone if they try
it. Nobody's running the space station or a nuclear power plant with
win-98, so your constant fear mongering over these modifications is
unjustified and misplaced.
I know it makes you feel big and important to some of the children
around here that worship you when you spout your FUD, but most of us see
through all that bullshit.
You must think that this particular win-98 forum is a place where you
can appear like a rooster in a hen house. It's the reason why you never
show your face in any win-2k or XP newsgroup.
It's time you took that attitude over to the Win-3.x forums, or even
some Amiga, Commodore or Atari forums. Maybe there you can rule over a
roost that's more appropriate for you level of knowledge and
understanding, if not vintage.
Sunny
> Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:edfg34WU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> <snip>
>>> Well, we can see you're the normal Windows user, unable to understand
>>> even the most basic concepts of the OS you are using...
>> <snip site spam>
>>
>> Your over inflated ego and self worth is alive and well.
>> What's with the "we can see"? Why do you presume that anyone agrees
>> with
>> you?
>> Do you lump "normal Windows users" with your "Usenutters" now?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Take a hike Sunny, and take your USENUTTER junk with you when you leave.
Thankfully, you have no say in what I do, or any authority to tell anyone
to "take a hike".
Must frustrate the hell out of you.
Suggestion..... Grow up.
MEB
> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23AO0e5d...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Sunny wrote:
>>> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:edfg34WU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> <snip>
>>>> Well, we can see you're the normal Windows user, unable to understand
>>>> even the most basic concepts of the OS you are using...
>>> <snip site spam>
>>>
>>> Your over inflated ego and self worth is alive and well.
>>> What's with the "we can see"? Why do you presume that anyone agrees
>>> with
>>> you?
>>> Do you lump "normal Windows users" with your "Usenutters" now?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Take a hike Sunny, and take your USENUTTER junk with you when you leave.
>
> Thankfully, you have no say in what I do, or any authority to tell anyone
> to "take a hike".
> Must frustrate the hell out of you.
> Suggestion..... Grow up.
>
>
Yeah, why don't you... bugger off
Sunny
In answer to Sunny wrote:
>>> Take a hike Sunny, and take your USENUTTER junk with you when you
>>> leave.
>>
>> Thankfully, you have no say in what I do, or any authority to tell
>> anyone
>> to "take a hike".
>> Must frustrate the hell out of you.
>> Suggestion..... Grow up.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, why don't you... bugger off
"Counsel" yourself, it may help you back into the "Real World".
MEB
Just a little reminder for those perhaps unfamiliar with the Usenet
culture. There is a common suggestion: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
*Expect though*, that there will be those who MUST *tromp on the
trolls* so the world knows what and who they are and/or to dispel
whatever myth or falsehood may be involved. You can generally recognize
a REAL troll or these other parties rather easily by what they
consistently use [attacks against parties and their viable materials]
and their type of posting style.
These low-life Usenetters [note1], generally without anything of value
to post and lacking the intelligence necessary to do so; they *WILL*
attack [often several trolls and sockpuppets at a time] those posting
viable materials attempting to take over the various groups for their
own usage or to kill the respective group [a personal satisfaction to
these types]; and to discredit viable parties and postings to whatever
extent possible.
There are also those who deliberately post false information with
seemingly legitimate links or arguments, or who actually believe the
"urban myths" regardless of ALL of the materials and arguments
otherwise; it does not, however, change what these people are, the scum
of Usenet and what will bring its ultimate demise.
Please read the below so you might have a better understanding of the
various types of parties [there are other classifications], and what to
expect within Usenet. Here's a hint, if the party posting is using their
REAL name, you can likely, a least, consider their post *might* be of
value, since what they post follows them to their REAL life. Note
though: Usenet is also filled with Identity theft, so look for those
parties including some method of verification of who they are.
Here's a well put idea taken from jonz, a dejanews user/troll's sig
[per a discussion with this entity], who must have forgotten this *was*
the sig being used, unless it was a sub-conscious admission and warning
of what this party is/was:
""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"
So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
statement}:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_%28Internet_culture%29
note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.
Sunny
> Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23XpeAtf...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> In answer to Sunny wrote:
>>
>>>>> Take a hike Sunny, and take your USENUTTER junk with you when you
>>>>> leave.
>>>> Thankfully, you have no say in what I do, or any authority to tell
>>>> anyone
>>>> to "take a hike".
>>>> Must frustrate the hell out of you.
>>>> Suggestion..... Grow up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yeah, why don't you... bugger off
>>
>> "Counsel" yourself, it may help you back into the "Real World".
> note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
> numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
> in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
> own inexorable and infantile amusement.
Your "holier than thou" ego is alive and well.
MEB
Correction:
the above linked materials are found here:
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm
Sorry for the incorrect link [so much for manual entries when I should
have been asleep instead of fixing an XP computer]...
>
> Then actually go back through some of the old discussions. Might want
> to actually learn about what the OSs actually do, and how they perform
> the functions as they do.
>
> And YES Microsoft WOULD release a piece of garbage and CLAIM it was
> functional, look at anything it has produced and the dozens or hundreds
> of updates just to make it to EOL... and NO using those files does not
> guarantee any increase in 9X security by installing them... you don't
> have the hundreds of other files for the NTs that go along with them..
> AND go back through the other *transitional* browsers Microsoft has
> produced, none as different as the NT based IE6 crammed into the 9X
> environment of course,,, which broke various internal functions in 9X...
>
> Really, you should make an effort to understand the OSs...
>
> Before you put more drivel here, pop over to the Certs and notice the
> ..net functional issues/vulnerabilities, the Firefox add-in that
none
properly copy and paste ... so use the attachment!
MEB
note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.
Sunny, however, IS a worthless piece of trash troll without the
intelligence to post ANYTHING of value.
MEB
> Thanks for the update information. Between you and Greg I went ahead and
> copied files (except DX) and all is well. BTW, I saw this cumulative update
> swing by in my XP auto update and saw the ActiveX Kill-Bits also got a hefty
> update. So, went ahead and pulled the last cumulative update for ActiveX
> Kill-Bits for W2K (KB973346 7/2009) and put together a REG file we can use
> to update W98 registry (increases IE security, attached). If attachment does
> not appear, here it is for the adventureous: (just copy and paste contents
> below into a file called KillBits.reg); double-click, accept, done. No
> re-boot necessary.
>
> REGEDIT4
>
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{22FD7C0A-850C-4A53-9821-0B0915C96139}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{314111B8-A502-11D2-BBCA-00C04F8EC294}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{314111C6-A502-11D2-BBCA-00C04F8EC294}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{5F810AFC-BB5F-4416-BE63-E01DD117BD6C}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{3BEE4890-4FE9-4A37-8C1E-5E7E12791C1F}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{40F23EB7-B397-4285-8F3C-AACE4FA40309}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{47206204-5ECA-11D2-960F-00C04F8EE628}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{00D46195-B634-4C41-B53B-5093527FB791}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0270E604-387F-48ED-BB6D-AA51F51D6FC3}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{038F6F55-C9F0-4601-8740-98EF1CA9DF9A}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{05CDEE1D-D109-4992-B72B-6D4F5E2AB731}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0B9C0C26-728C-4FDA-B8DD-59806E20E4D9}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0C378864-D5C4-4D9C-854C-432E3BEC9CCB}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{101D2283-EED9-4BA2-8F3F-23DB860946EB}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{108092BF-B7DB-40D1-B7FB-F55922FCC9BE}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{14C1B87C-3342-445F-9B5E-365FF330A3AC}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{17E67D4A-23A1-40D8-A049-EE34C0AF756A}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{1E0D3332-7441-44FF-A225-AF48E977D8B6}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{285CAE3C-F16A-4A84-9A80-FF23D6E56D68}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{2875E7A5-EE3C-4FE7-A23E-DE0529D12028}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{2C2DE2E6-2AD1-4301-A6A7-DF364858EF01}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{3604EC19-E009-4DCB-ABC5-BB95BF92FD8B}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{3D6A1A85-DE54-4768-9951-053B3B02B9B0}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{41473CFB-66B6-45B8-8FB3-2BC9C1FD87BA}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{42C68651-1700-4750-A81F-A1F5110E0F66}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{44A6A9CA-AC5B-4C39-8FE6-17E7D06903A9}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{4614C49A-0B7D-4E0D-A877-38CCCFE7D589}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{4774922A-8983-4ECC-94FD-7235F06F53A1}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{47AF06DD-8E1B-4CA4-8F55-6B1E9FF36ACB}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{497EE41C-CE06-4DD4-8308-6C730713C646}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{5C6698D9-7BE4-4122-8EC5-291D84DBD4A0}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{60178279-6D62-43AF-A336-77925651A4C6}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{6470DE80-1635-4B5D-93A3-3701CE148A79}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{652623DC-2BB4-4C1C-ADFB-57A218F1A5EE}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{65FB3073-CA8E-42A1-9A9A-2F826D05A843}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{66E07EF9-4E89-4284-9632-6D6904B77732}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{68BBCA71-E1F6-47B2-87D3-369E1349D990}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{692898BE-C7CC-4CB3-A45C-66508B7E2C33}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{6981B978-70D9-40B9-B00E-903B6FC8CA8A}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{69C462E1-CD41-49E3-9EC2-D305155718C1}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{6C095616-6064-43CA-9180-CF1B6B6A0BE4}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{6CA73E8B-B584-4533-A405-3D6F9C012B56}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{6E5E167B-1566-4316-B27F-0DDAB3484CF7}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{73BCFD0F-0DAA-4B21-B709-2A8D9D9C692A}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{76EE578D-314B-4755-8365-6E1722C001A2}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{784F2933-6BDD-4E5F-B1BA-A8D99B603649}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{7A12547F-B772-4F2D-BE36-CE5D0FA886A1}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{7EB2A2EC-1C3A-4946-9614-86D3A10EDBF3}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{833E62AD-1655-499F-908E-62DCA1EB2EC6}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{86C2B477-5382-4A09-8CA3-E63B1158A377}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{8C7A23D9-2A9B-4AEA-BA91-3003A316B44D}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{8CC18E3F-4E2B-4D27-840E-CB2F99A3A003}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{8DBC7A04-B478-41D5-BE05-5545D565B59C}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{905BF7D7-6BC1-445A-BE53-9478AC096BEB}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{910E7ADE-7F75-402D-A4A6-BB1A82362FCA}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{916063A5-0098-4FB7-8717-1B2C62DD4E45}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{926618A9-4035-4CD6-8240-64C58EB37B07}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{9275A865-754B-4EDF-B828-FED0F8D344FC}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{93441C07-E57E-4086-B912-F323D741A9D8}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{93C5524B-97AE-491E-8EB7-2A3AD964F926}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{947F2947-2296-42FE-92E6-E2E03519B895}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{974E1D88-BADF-4C80-8594-A59039C992EA}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{977315A5-C0DB-4EFD-89C2-10AA86CA39A5}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{9BAFC7B3-F318-4BD4-BABB-6E403272615A}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{A233E654-53FF-43AA-B1E2-60DA2E89A1EC}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{A3796166-A03C-418A-AF3A-060115D4E478}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{A73BAEFA-EE65-494D-BEDB-DD3E5A34FA98}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{A7866636-ED52-4722-82A9-6BAABEFDBF96}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{A95845D8-8463-4605-B5FB-4F8CFBAC5C47}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{AA13BD85-7EC0-4CC8-9958-1BB2AA32FD0B}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{AB049B11-607B-46C8-BBF7-F4D6AF301046}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{AB237044-8A3B-42BB-9EE1-9BFA6721D9ED}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{AE2B937E-EA7D-4A8D-888C-B68D7F72A3C4}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{AE6C4705-0F11-4ACB-BDD4-37F138BEF289}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{B0A08D67-9464-4E73-A549-2CC208AC60D3}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{B26E6120-DD35-4BEA-B1E3-E75F546EBF2A}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{B60770C2-0390-41A8-A8DE-61889888D840}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{B85537E9-2D9C-400A-BC92-B04F4D9FF17D}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{B95B52E9-B839-4412-96EB-4DABAB2E4E24}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{B9C13CD0-5A97-4C6B-8A50-7638020E2462}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{BA162249-F2C5-4851-8ADC-FC58CB424243}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{BF931895-AF82-467A-8819-917C6EE2D1F3}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C70D0641-DDE1-4FD7-A4D4-DA187B80741D}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C86EE68A-9C77-4441-BD35-14CC6CC4A189}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C94188F6-0F9F-46B3-8B78-D71907BD8B77}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{CB05A177-1069-4A7A-AB0A-5E6E00DCDB76}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{CC7DA087-B7F4-4829-B038-DA01DFB5D879}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{CDAF9CEC-F3EC-4B22-ABA3-9726713560F8}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{CF08D263-B832-42DB-8950-F40C9E672E27}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{CF6866F9-B67C-4B24-9957-F91E91E788DC}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{D986FE4B-AE67-43C8-9A89-EADDEA3EC6B6}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{DC4F9DA0-DB05-4BB0-8FB2-03A80FE98772}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{DE233AFF-8BD5-457E-B7F0-702DBEA5A828}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{E12DA4F2-BDFB-4EAD-B12F-2725251FA6B0}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{E1A26BBF-26C0-401D-B82B-5C4CC67457E0}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{E4C97925-C194-4551-8831-EABBD0280885}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{E6127E3B-8D17-4BEA-A039-8BB9D0D105A2}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{F1F51698-7B63-4394-8743-1F4CF1853DE1}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{F399F5B6-3C63-4674-B0FF-E94328B1947D}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{F6A7FF1B-9951-4CBE-B197-EA554D6DF40D}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{F89EF74A-956B-4BD3-A066-4F23DF891982}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{FA8932FF-E064-4378-901C-69CB94E3A20A}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{FC28B75F-F9F6-4C92-AF91-14A3A51C49FB}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0002E500-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0002E510-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0002E511-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0002E520-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0002E530-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{AED98630-0251-4E83-917D-43A23D66D507}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{F0E42D50-368C-11D0-AD81-00A0C90DC8D9}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{F0E42D60-368C-11D0-AD81-00A0C90DC8D9}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{F2175210-368C-11D0-AD81-00A0C90DC8D9}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{67A5F8DC-1A4B-4D66-9F24-A704AD929EEE}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{E48BB416-C578-4A62-84C9-5E3389ABE5FC}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{FA91DF8D-53AB-455D-AB20-F2F023E498D3}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0ECD9B64-23AA-11D0-B351-00A0C9055D8E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{1E216240-1B7D-11CF-9D53-00AA003C9CB6}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{248DD896-BB45-11CF-9ABC-0080C7E7B78D}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{3A2B370C-BA0A-11D1-B137-0000F8753F5D}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{4788DE08-3552-49EA-AC8C-233DA52523B9}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{6262D3A0-531B-11CF-91F6-C2863C385E30}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{B09DE715-87C1-11D1-8BE3-0000F8754DA1}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C932BA85-4374-101B-A56C-00AA003668DC}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{CDE57A43-8B86-11D0-B3C6-00A0C90AEA82}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{FFBB3F3B-0A5A-4106-BE53-DFE1E2340CB1}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{00000032-9593-4264-8B29-930B3E4EDCCD}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{4C39376E-FA9D-4349-BACC-D305C1750EF3}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{648A5600-2C6E-101B-82B6-000000000014}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C3EB1670-84E0-4EDA-B570-0B51AAE81679}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{D8089245-3211-40F6-819B-9E5E92CD61A2}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{011B3619-FE63-4814-8A84-15A194CE9CE3}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0149EEDF-D08F-4142-8D73-D23903D21E90}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0369B4E5-45B6-11D3-B650-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0369B4E6-45B6-11D3-B650-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{055CB2D7-2969-45CD-914B-76890722F112}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{0955AC62-BF2E-4CBA-A2B9-A63F772D46CF}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{15D6504A-5494-499C-886C-973C9E53B9F1}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{1BE49F30-0E1B-11D3-9D8E-00C04F72D980}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{1C15D484-911D-11D2-B632-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{1DF7D126-4050-47F0-A7CF-4C4CA9241333}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{2C63E4EB-4CEA-41B8-919C-E947EA19A77C}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{334125C0-77E5-11D3-B653-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{37B0353C-A4C8-11D2-B634-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{37B03543-A4C8-11D2-B634-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{37B03544-A4C8-11D2-B634-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{418008F3-CF67-4668-9628-10DC52BE1D08}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{4A5869CF-929D-4040-AE03-FCAFC5B9CD42}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{577FAA18-4518-445E-8F70-1473F8CF4BA4}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{59DC47A8-116C-11D3-9D8E-00C04F72D980}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{7F9CB14D-48E4-43B6-9346-1AEBC39C64D3}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{823535A0-0318-11D3-9D8E-00C04F72D980}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{8872FF1B-98FA-4D7A-8D93-C9F1055F85BB}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{8A674B4C-1F63-11D3-B64C-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{8A674B4D-1F63-11D3-B64C-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{9CD64701-BDF3-4D14-8E03-F12983D86664}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{9E77AAC4-35E5-42A1-BDC2-8F3FF399847C}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{A1A2B1C4-0E3A-11D3-9D8E-00C04F72D980}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{A2E3074E-6C3D-11D3-B653-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{A2E30750-6C3D-11D3-B653-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{A8DCF3D5-0780-4EF4-8A83-2CFFAACB8ACE}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{AD8E510D-217F-409B-8076-29C5E73B98E8}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{B0EDF163-910A-11D2-B632-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{B64016F3-C9A2-4066-96F0-BD9563314726}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{BB530C63-D9DF-4B49-9439-63453962E598}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C531D9FD-9685-4028-8B68-6E1232079F1E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C5702CCC-9B79-11D3-B654-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C5702CCD-9B79-11D3-B654-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C5702CCE-9B79-11D3-B654-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C5702CCF-9B79-11D3-B654-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C5702CD0-9B79-11D3-B654-00C04F79498E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{C6B14B32-76AA-4A86-A7AC-5C79AAF58DA7}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{CAAFDD83-CEFC-4E3D-BA03-175F17A24F91}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{D02AAC50-027E-11D3-9D8E-00C04F72D980}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{F9769A06-7ACA-4E39-9CFB-97BB35F0E77E}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\ActiveX
> Compatibility\{FA7C375B-66A7-4280-879D-FD459C84BB02}]
> "Compatibility Flags"=dword:00000400
>
>
So where is the links to your careful testing of the fixed issues in 9X
and IE6, which are supposedly addressed via the updates and your ActiveX
mod?
Get kicked off of MSFN also?
Sunny
>
> Sunny, however, IS a worthless piece of trash troll without the
> intelligence to post ANYTHING of value.
Mirror Mirror, on the wall...................
Sunny
> none wrote:
>> Thanks for the update information. Between you and Greg I went ahead
>> and
>> copied files (except DX) and all is well.
> So where is the links to your careful testing of the fixed issues in 9X
> and IE6, which are supposedly addressed via the updates and your ActiveX
> mod?
>
> Get kicked off of MSFN also?
Can't help youself can you ?
Mirror Mirror, on the wall (again)
MEB
Sunny, however, IS a worthless piece of trash troll without the
intelligence to post ANYTHING of value.
--
Jeff Richards
> snip <
> It *MAY* contain a fix
> [within that file], but that also requires *ALL* the other files and
That statement is completely incorrect. It is quite feasible, and in fact
quite common, that a change to a single file provides potection against the
exploit.
It is unfortunate that you react in such an emotional manner to anyone who
attempts to clarify what you are trying to say, because some of your
comments are correct.
For instance, it is possible that the files that _can_ be installed are not
the files that needed to be changed to protect against the exploit. It is
possible that the exploit exists in W98 regardless of whether the files are
patched or not, because W98 does not contain the features that the patch
relies on in order to provide the claimed protection. It is possible that
the patches are irrelevant for W98 because the vulnerability never existed
in the first place. There are, in fact, a wide range of possibilities. But
that message is lost in your rudeness and name-calling. And your statement
that I have quoted above is just plain wrong.
MEB
Really, so where is your information which provides the argument to
back your statement?
You ARE correct the vulnerabilities may not even exist [most relate
directly to issues within the NTs AND other updates {such as system}
which do come into play during the usage], you are incorrect or
misleading when trying to indicate that other files from the NTs are not
necessary to provide full security functionality. Nor have you even
remotely addressed the issue of IE6 incompatibility within 9X to start with.
And cram the emotional garbage back where it belongs... I respond as
needed. You apparently do as well, don't you... so FO.
Greg
<JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>That statement is completely incorrect. It is quite feasible, and in fact
>quite common, that a change to a single file provides potection against the
>exploit.
That is exactly what I been trying to tell MEB.
Greg
Greg
<JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>For instance, it is possible that the files that _can_ be installed are not
>the files that needed to be changed to protect against the exploit. It is
>possible that the exploit exists in W98 regardless of whether the files are
>patched or not, because W98 does not contain the features that the patch
>relies on in order to provide the claimed protection. It is possible that
>the patches are irrelevant for W98 because the vulnerability never existed
>in the first place.
I was also trying to say that as well. You said much better than I
did.
Greg
MEB
> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eWXPrtRU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> snip <
>> It *MAY* contain a fix
>> [within that file], but that also requires *ALL* the other files and
>> their fixes to accomplish the goal.
>
> That statement is completely incorrect. It is quite feasible, and in fact
> exploit.
>
Good job dipstick, now you have this Greg/98 Guy entity spouting the
SAME nonsense you have, with the same lame arguments...
What are you trying to do, drum up more hacked systems for the group to
work with...
I would suggest you make an effort to correct and clarify your ignorant
posting...
98 Guy
> IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was
> DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS
> produces prior to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there
> have been missing function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE
> NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY
> elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
> security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY
> available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED
> in 9X, however they DO EXIST.
There is nothing on the internet that supports your claims. If there
is, post a link to it - and NOT a generic search link that purports to
address those points.
The truth is that IE5 and up come with NT API emulator which implements
all missing APIs required for IE on 9x platforms (mostly Unicode
functions). IE is not tied to NT's security model.
IE6 SP1 uses .dlls that were written to work both in the 9x/ME family
and in the NT-family of OSes. If you open, for instance, iexplor.exe in
the Dependancy Walker, you'll will find those missing dependencies, too,
and it works. AFAIK, that is due to the way browseui.dll, shlwapi.dll
and shdocvw.dll were written: they have code that first checks whether
those dependencies are satisfied, before calling for them. The known
false positives are the following (you may not always see all of them):
Missing modules:
* APPHELP.DLL
* USERENV.DLL
* UXTHEME.DLL
Missing functions:
* CoWaitForMultipleHandles (in OLE32.DLL)
* CoAllowSetForegroundWindow (in OLE32.DLL)
* SHBindToParent (in SHELL32.DLL)
* SHPathPrepareForWriteW (in SHELL32.DLL)
Hence, lots of programs that do work OK still have, in Dependency Walker
message window, those two warnings:
"Warning: At least one delay-load dependency module was not found."
"Warning: At least one module has an unresolved import due to a missing
export function in a delay-load dependent module."
MEB
> MEB wrote:
>
>> IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was
>> DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS
>> produces prior to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there
>> have been missing function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE
>> NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY
>> elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
>> security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY
>> available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED
>> in 9X, however they DO EXIST.
>
> There is nothing on the internet that supports your claims. If there
> is, post a link to it - and NOT a generic search link that purports to
> address those points.
I did moron, its on MY site.
>
> The truth is that IE5 and up come with NT API emulator which implements
> all missing APIs required for IE on 9x platforms (mostly Unicode
> functions). IE is not tied to NT's security model.
WRONG, full Unicode comes ONLY via non-standard installation of unicows.
>
> IE6 SP1 uses .dlls that were written to work both in the 9x/ME family
> and in the NT-family of OSes. If you open, for instance, iexplor.exe in
> the Dependancy Walker, you'll will find those missing dependencies, too,
> and it works. AFAIK, that is due to the way browseui.dll, shlwapi.dll
> and shdocvw.dll were written: they have code that first checks whether
> those dependencies are satisfied, before calling for them. The known
> false positives are the following (you may not always see all of them):
>
> Missing modules:
>
> * APPHELP.DLL
> * USERENV.DLL
> * UXTHEME.DLL
>
> Missing functions:
>
> * CoWaitForMultipleHandles (in OLE32.DLL)
> * CoAllowSetForegroundWindow (in OLE32.DLL)
> * SHBindToParent (in SHELL32.DLL)
> * SHPathPrepareForWriteW (in SHELL32.DLL)
>
> Hence, lots of programs that do work OK still have, in Dependency Walker
> message window, those two warnings:
>
> "Warning: At least one delay-load dependency module was not found."
> "Warning: At least one module has an unresolved import due to a missing
> export function in a delay-load dependent module."
Nice, shows how you have kept up-to-date on the updates and what they
changed and WHY those DO appear [that's sarcasm].
NOW spend a little time trying to figure out WHY those exist...
HINT - What other files were necessary to modify to *ALLOW* the
installation and usage of IE6 in Win9X?
Then figure out [hint - actually look at] the updates installed ONLY
FOR IE6 and their relationships - HINT - WHY were these files
necessarily and constantly modified to ONLY work with IE6?
When you get that figured out [though I doubt you will] go back through
the updates to the LAST browser designed for the 9X/ME OSs and what
those contained.
HINT - the files necessary for IE6 usage were NOT installed nor were
they constantly modified throughout the IE6 support era.
When you get through all that WITH the proper knowledge and understand
of the inter-interoperability and relational characteristics {which in
your case will not occur} ponder upon *WHY not installing IE6* still
allows the 9X system to function as it was designed and should...
whereas AFTER installing IE6 even such basic elements like copy and move
are affected.
Now, since all you are attempting to prove is the INSTALL ABILITY of
the updates you BROUGHT in ignorance to this group...
SHOW YOUR LINKS TO NEW DEPENDENCY WALKER *PROFILING* LINKS AFTER
INSTALLING THESE PURPORTED UPDATES. Make sure to include profiles for
IE6, Explorer, and some of the other generally installed, like Office.>>>
Put the links to these materials below:
HOWEVER, since merely showing installation ability proves nothing of
value to the 9X user unless these files actually perform some function:
SHOW YOUR LINKS TO TEST RESULTS WHICH ADDRESS THE SUPPOSED FLAWS
AFFECTING THE 9X/ME OSs WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED WITH THE INSTALLATION
OF THESE PURPORTED UPDATES USING 9X/ME SPECIFIC TESTS.>>>>
Put the links to these test results links below:
Moreover, since you, Jeff, and the purported Greg are recommending
installation, provide the links to your CAREFUL and EXTENSIVE
application compatibility testing showing no adverse issues related to
this installation.>>>>>
Put the links to the extensive long term compatibility test results below:
Greg
wrote:
We could do without the name calling and being insulting
Don't put words into my mouth. I never said to install it or not to
install it. I have not tried it yet. In fact if you read the link
98guy provided. You would see that the MSFN users recommend
installing this update on 98se. They did say not to install the
directx files unless you have a certain version of net framework
installed.
Greg
MEB
Are you 98 Guy??? then shut up it has nothing to do with you. YOU are
to supply the links to the materials..
Sunny
<snip>
> Are you 98 Guy??? then shut up it has nothing to do with you. YOU are
> to supply the links to the materials..
Tsk Tsk, You don't get to "order" anyone on Usenet to do anything,
If you got with the real World, not your paranoid version of it, you
might just learn something, instead of "knowing it all".
MEB
OK, Sunny you want to play, how about you dazzle the world with your
obviously superior knowledge of Win98, vulnerabilities, inter-relational
issues, system applicability by providing the details necessary to show
WITHOUT QUESTION that these suggested files provide ANY NECESSARY
FUNCTION concerning any known or potential vulnerabilities with 9X/ME,
IE6, and security enhancements or system flaws within the IE6 browser
AND Win98/ME.
Provide the links below to materials which verify your statements AND
which proofs the issues.>>>>
Sunny
> Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:O%23ofbB2U...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> <snip>
>>> Are you 98 Guy??? then shut up it has nothing to do with you. YOU are
>>> to supply the links to the materials..
>>
>> Tsk Tsk, You don't get to "order" anyone on Usenet to do anything,
>> If you got with the real World, not your paranoid version of it, you
>> might just learn something, instead of "knowing it all".
>>
>
> OK, Sunny you want to play, how about you dazzle the world with your
> obviously superior knowledge of Win98, vulnerabilities, inter-relational
> issues, system applicability by providing the details necessary to show
"obviously superior knowledge of Win98" are your words, not mine.
Not once, have I suggested that I have such knowledge, that is another one
of your fantasies.
> WITHOUT QUESTION that these suggested files provide ANY NECESSARY
> FUNCTION concerning any known or potential vulnerabilities with 9X/ME,
> IE6, and security enhancements or system flaws within the IE6 browser
> AND Win98/ME.
Do you talk the way you type? Using UPPER CASE, to ENHANCE your posts?
Or is it just a habit?
> Provide the links below to materials which verify your statements AND
> which proofs the issues.>>>>
Have you lost the plot? Why do I need links to verify anything you post?
(Your posting style and petty hatreds are available to anyone on Usenet,
who choose to read them)
MEB
Sorry Sunny, your normal USENUTTER crap is insufficient...
Unless you provide those statements AND the linked materials you will be
providing absolute proof you are nothing more than an ignorant piece of
trash, with nothing better to do in your miserable and pathetic life but
be a TROLL in the group.
Let me post the materials again:
OK, Sunny you want to play, how about you dazzle the world with your
obviously superior knowledge of Win98, vulnerabilities, inter-relational
issues, system applicability by providing the details necessary to show
WITHOUT QUESTION that these suggested files provide ANY NECESSARY
FUNCTION concerning any known or potential vulnerabilities with 9X/ME,
IE6, and security enhancements or system flaws within the IE6 browser
AND Win98/ME. Put those statements below:>>>>>>
Provide the links below to materials which verify your statements AND
which proofs the issues.>>>>
Sunny
Only to you it seems (Doesn't that tell you something?)
> Unless you provide those statements AND the linked materials you will be
> providing absolute proof you are nothing more than an ignorant piece of
> trash, with nothing better to do in your miserable and pathetic life but
> be a TROLL in the group.
Just add the above, to your History of name calling and bigot outlook on
life.
> Let me post the materials again:
Feel free (as I am to not post your "materials")
MEB
Greg
wrote:
>>>
>>> Moreover, since you, Jeff, and the --->purported Greg<----- are recommending
>>> installation,
>> We could do without the name calling and being insulting
>
> Are you 98 Guy??? then shut up it has nothing to do with you. YOU are
>to supply the links to the materials..
1st I never ever said to install or not to install the update. All I
mentioned was the msfn forums that 98guy linked to. It tells you how
to install those files on windows 98se. I didn't totally agree
with 98guy or you. I still have not install those files, I don't
use IE 6 is windows 98se much.
Greg
MEB
Okay, but you have suggested they CAN AND SHOULD BE INSTALLED. You
quoted MSFN,, I told you to MAKE them [on MSFN] provide you with links
to materials which *prove ANY value* to the Win9X user.
Where are those links?
You continued to post after that segment with further supposed
information on Win9X and files within the system INCLUDING that IE6 was
NOT a bad port designed for XP/NT. I provided a link that shows that to
be false.. where is/are your link(s) to materials which disprove MY
supplied statements and materials?
You still persist in posting OPINION without any basis whatsoever...
that isn't what is required in discussions of this fashion. These types
delve into the technical and applicable aspects WITH materials to back
up statements, NOT other's opinions or conjecture without knowledgeable
basis.
YOU questioned MY postings without anything to back your questions or
statements; YOU challenged MY expertise without having your own.
What made you think you could, without me taking you to task for doing so?
Here's a suggestion from someone who HAS spent years reviewing,
hacking, and other such stuff within the Windows environments: don't
install the files unless someone provides EXACTLY and EVERYTHING I have
requested and noted in this discussion.
*NOTE:* Even after installing those files [should anyone ever provide
the materials-- don't hold your breath], you should understand that
Win2k support is ending [On July 13, 2010, Extended Support for Windows
2000 Professional will end.], so any NEW vulnerabilities will REMAIN
UNFIXED; nor is there any guarantee that ANY fixes [and there will be
many, there always is] from now till then will be installable in
Win9X/ME. *MOREOVER*, You will *NOT* know what those vulnerabilities are
as *none* of the normal organizations [including AV providers] and
testing facilities have tested for Win9X/ME and MODIFIED IE6 {and
resultant systems} vulnerabilities, nor are most testing a standard
Win98/ME.
MEB
Greg
Read carefully.
This has nothing to do with the Operating system, which you seem not
to get. Jeff Richards made it perfectly clear, what I was talking
about but said it lot better then I did. I agree with Jeff. It does
hurt to install it, it may or may not help security but it wont make
it less secure period. Like you claim.
As far as the link, go a re-read 98guy post, He provided it for you.
From reading that link and the poster.
It does hurt to install it, but they said don't replace the directx
MEB
Read extra carefully -- IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE OPERATING
SYSTEM.. system files WERE changed and ARE AGAIN with installation of
these supposed updates...
Jeff was an idiot posting what he did...
Hey, how many times do I need to tell you I *don't need to visit MSFN*...
Now, WHERE are your links?
Greg
wrote:
>Read extra carefully -- IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE OPERATING
>SYSTEM.. system files WERE changed and ARE AGAIN with installation of
>these supposed updates...
This where me, Jeff, 98guy and the msfn forum poster disagree with
you.
Since, you were to lazy to look back. Here is the link.
http://www.msfn.org/board/latest-ms-ie6-security-update-breaks-windows-98-t136563.html
Read post numbers
8, 9, 11, 12
http://www.msfn.org/board/directx-9-0c-use...&hl=DirectX
Read post
7, 21, 22,
27 (Neat thing he/she did)
28
So the last release worked.
Proved my point.
Greg
MEB
So you're nothing but a meatpuppet huh..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29#Meatpuppet
Yeah, note the supposed experts ALSO said that even though they
recommend installation they WON"T provide anything to support their
supposed claims of fitness and security enhancement due to the
installation...
http://www.msfn.org/board/internet-explorer-and-s-porting-win-9x-t138994.html
Typical worthless dimwits... one of the reasons Windows is the most
hacked OS on the planet...
Sunny
"Meatpuppet" ? "supposed experts" ? "Typical worthless dimwits... "
Mirror Mirror on the wall...............
Enjoy your mirror image, you deserve each other.
MEB
Sunny
>
> Just a little reminder <snip>
Do you stamp your little feet when you post ?
http://teaching.idallen.com/whynewsgroups.html
http://usenet_news.totallyexplained.com/
"Usenet news groups offer the potential of real discussion.
The multiple posters and multiple readers build a community
of learning, and the discussion history is immediately available
to anyone who joins.
e.g. in a help desk news group, people often answer each
other's questions without intervention from system staff
or faculty. Answers may come from people not "officially"
required to be part of the discussion."
MEB
So where are your answers Sunny....
Let me post them one more time...
<< Sorry Sunny, your normal USENUTTER crap is insufficient...
Unless you provide those statements AND the linked materials you will be
providing absolute proof you are nothing more than an ignorant piece of
trash, with nothing better to do in your miserable and pathetic life but
be a TROLL in the group.
Let me post the materials again:
OK, Sunny you want to play, how about you dazzle the world with your
obviously superior knowledge of Win98, vulnerabilities, inter-relational
issues, system applicability by providing the details necessary to show
WITHOUT QUESTION that these suggested files provide ANY NECESSARY
FUNCTION concerning any known or potential vulnerabilities with 9X/ME,
IE6, and security enhancements or system flaws within the IE6 browser
AND Win98/ME. Put those statements below:>>>>>>
Provide the links below to materials which verify your statements AND
which proofs the issues.>>>>
Sunny
Provide proof that I ever claimed any expertise in any of your "claims"
above.
Here is a reminder of the crap you post :
On 8 Aug 09 you wrote
" But while you're here:
Say, how is it *down under* since you're apparently trying to mimic
the UK and US... how's your economy doing... were you FORCED to put
large sums of money into your purported economy,, I mean you realize of
course if you did, that any purported money you now make, transfer,
save, receive for payment in your work, receive for interest or
dividend, and otherwise invest in your economy is actually your own
money or more accurately your debt you can't pay,, don't you???
How much longer do you think China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the
other nations of actual worth will continue to support this debt and
your nation?? "
"Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?"
"Oh, and have you ever satisfied your debt to the Aboriginals?"
1. The Australian "economy is doing fine (2nd best recovery in the
World)
2. You must have a low opinion of your own country to list China, Iraq,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, as "nations of actual worth"
3. No nation is "supporting our debt" they are actually lining up to
buy our raw materials.
4. Having served in the Military, and in Vietnam alongside US Forces I
dismiss your
("Are you prepared to kill more people or use military force to steal
their resources or force acceptance of your dominance?")
with the contempt it deserves
5. Have you personally satisfied your debt to American "Aboriginals"?
Your style of posting and over inflated opinion of you self worth is
disgusting.
Get a life.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm
MEB
Sunny
"Sunny" <womba...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:ugf0ni6U...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Kj5qT6...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Sunny wrote:
>>> Do you stamp your little feet when you post ?
MEB
Sunny
>
> Just a little reminder <snip>
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"
Welcome to Usenet MEB, enjoy.
Jeff Richards
Perhaps you would like to provide the reference to the post where I
recommended installation. I can't find it. Forget the name-calling, leave
the histrionics out - just show me the words I used where I recommended
installation of these files.
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23fbsKiz...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> snip <
MEB
> Perhaps you would like to provide the reference to the post where I
> recommended installation. I can't find it. Forget the name-calling, leave
> the histrionics out - just show me the words I used where I recommended
> installation of these files.
Uniquely, it happens to at present, appear directly below this post of
yours in the threaded view of this discussion.
Though you do not directly state it should be installed, you make NO
effort to make sure anyone DOES understand the variables. You spend more
time attempting to address my handling of *trolls* and *sockpuppets*, or
is it *you didn't have a clue that is what was occurring*.
Moreover, you made NO effort, when the immediate reaction by Greg was
to use your post as a basis TO INSTALL the supposed updates, to correct
or clarify *your* statement, leaving the impression of your support for
that activity.
Were this still a supported OS, I would have made an official complaint
to Microsoft requesting your removal status as an MVP due to the harm
and damage from your post.
Let me put it below so you have a reference to work from:
From: "Jeff Richards" <.au>
References: <4ADBD29B...@Guy.com>
<eijwX#HUKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>
<7k3e5cF...@mid.individual.net> <eWXPrtRU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>
Subject: Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:26:59 +1100
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eWXPrtRU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > snip <
> > It *MAY* contain a fix
> > [within that file], but that also requires *ALL* the other files and
> > their fixes to accomplish the goal.
That statement is completely incorrect. It is quite feasible, and in fact
quite common, that a change to a single file provides potection against
the
exploit.
It is unfortunate that you react in such an emotional manner to anyone who
attempts to clarify what you are trying to say, because some of your
comments are correct.
For instance, it is possible that the files that _can_ be installed are not
the files that needed to be changed to protect against the exploit. It is
possible that the exploit exists in W98 regardless of whether the files are
patched or not, because W98 does not contain the features that the patch
relies on in order to provide the claimed protection. It is possible that
the patches are irrelevant for W98 because the vulnerability never existed
in the first place. There are, in fact, a wide range of possibilities.
But
that message is lost in your rudeness and name-calling. And your statement
that I have quoted above is just plain wrong.
PA Bear, MS MVP
*SP4* (only), WinXP SP2 or SP3 (only), and Win2003 SP2 (only).
<QP>
It should be a priority for customers who have older releases of the
software to migrate to supported releases to prevent potential
exposure to vulnerabilities.
</QP>
Source: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS09-054.mspx
(FAQ)
Translation: If you're worried about security, migrate to WinXP SP3 or
higher.
On Oct 19, 9:49 pm, Greg <inva...@invalid.net> wrote:
> ...This patch is for windows 2000 or above.
Sunny
> Jeff Richards wrote:
>> Perhaps you would like to provide the reference to the post where I
>> recommended installation. I can't find it. Forget the name-calling,
>> leave
>> the histrionics out - just show me the words I used where I recommended
>> installation of these files.
> Though you do not directly state it should be installed, you make NO
> effort to make sure anyone DOES understand the variables. You spend more
> time attempting to address my handling of *trolls* and *sockpuppets*, or
> is it *you didn't have a clue that is what was occurring*.
That's the ticket MEB, never admit you are wrong and turn the words, so
that you appear to be winning.
MEB
""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"
So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
Jeff Richards
people do understand the variables. Specifically, I corrected your
assertion that "*ALL* the other files and their fixes" are required in order
to fix a vulnerability. Drawing attention to such a blatantly and obviously
incorrect assertion may be quite helpful to people working out what they
should, or shouldn't do about this patch.
But how you managed to read that correction as somehow advocating the
installation of the fix is a mystery to me. I think your paranoia has
affected your comprehension. Can you understand how irrational it is to
assume that anyone who disagrees with any part of anything you say is in
full agreement with all the other people who have disagreed with you?
Because that is exactly what you are assuming.
And please don't 'handle' the trolls - there weren't any trolls here until
you started 'handling' them.
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OWQ2Yn%23UKH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
MEB
> You have your facts wrong, once again. I did make an effort to ensure that
> people do understand the variables. Specifically, I corrected your
> assertion that "*ALL* the other files and their fixes" are required in order
> to fix a vulnerability. Drawing attention to such a blatantly and obviously
> incorrect assertion may be quite helpful to people working out what they
> should, or shouldn't do about this patch.
>
> But how you managed to read that correction as somehow advocating the
> installation of the fix is a mystery to me. I think your paranoia has
> affected your comprehension. Can you understand how irrational it is to
> assume that anyone who disagrees with any part of anything you say is in
> full agreement with all the other people who have disagreed with you?
> Because that is exactly what you are assuming.
Here, peruse these again. You were given TWO (2) opportunities to
correct/ modify, or clarify:
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 02:45:45 -0400
From: MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer
Jeff Richards wrote:
> > "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Really, so where is your information which provides the argument to
back your statement?
You ARE correct the vulnerabilities may not even exist [most relate
directly to issues within the NTs AND other updates {such as system}
which do come into play during the usage], you are incorrect or
misleading when trying to indicate that other files from the NTs are not
necessary to provide full security functionality. Nor have you even
remotely addressed the issue of IE6 incompatibility within 9X to start with.
And cram the emotional garbage back where it belongs... I respond as
needed. You apparently do as well, don't you... so FO.
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:33:35 -0400
From: MEB <MEB-no...@hotmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer
Jeff Richards wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eWXPrtRU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> snip <
>> It *MAY* contain a fix
>> [within that file], but that also requires *ALL* the other files and
>> their fixes to accomplish the goal.
>
> That statement is completely incorrect. It is quite feasible, and in
fact
> quite common, that a change to a single file provides protection
against the
> exploit.
>
Good job dipstick, now you have this Greg/98 Guy entity spouting the
SAME nonsense you have, with the same lame arguments...
What are you trying to do, drum up more hacked systems for the group to
work with...
I would suggest you make an effort to correct and clarify your ignorant
posting...
>
> And please don't 'handle' the trolls - there weren't any trolls here until
> you started 'handling' them.
Really, so explain 98 Guy and Sunny... and why YOU seem to now be
taking 98 Guy's side ...
Sunny
> Jeff Richards wrote:
>> You have your facts wrong, once again. <snip>
>
> Really, so explain 98 Guy and Sunny... and why YOU seem to now be
> taking 98 Guy's side ...
Once again, YOU do not get to give orders to anyone on Usenet (or anywhere
else).
Has it dawned on you yet, that posters "on your side" seem to be very
scarce?
How about climbing down off your high horse.
MEB
While you're at it, explain the moron who just posted, oh wait, that's
the Sunny entity...
MEB
> You have your facts wrong, once again. I did make an effort to ensure that
> people do understand the variables. Specifically, I corrected your
> assertion that "*ALL* the other files and their fixes" are required in order
> to fix a vulnerability. Drawing attention to such a blatantly and obviously
> incorrect assertion may be quite helpful to people working out what they
> should, or shouldn't do about this patch.
>
> But how you managed to read that correction as somehow advocating the
> installation of the fix is a mystery to me. I think your paranoia has
> affected your comprehension. Can you understand how irrational it is to
> assume that anyone who disagrees with any part of anything you say is in
> full agreement with all the other people who have disagreed with you?
> Because that is exactly what you are assuming.
>
> And please don't 'handle' the trolls - there weren't any trolls here until
> you started 'handling' them.
Oh, in case you missed it...
The other directed post from me to this posting is your third
opportunity to correct your errors or otherwise clarify your statements.
Sunny
> Jeff Richards wrote:
>> You have your facts wrong, once again.<snip>
> The other directed post from me to this posting is your third
> opportunity to correct your errors or otherwise clarify your statements.
You really are a nasty piece of work MEB.
("directed post from me etc.)
Arrogance is high on your "attributes"
Greg
<JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>You have your facts wrong, once again. I did make an effort to ensure that
>people do understand the variables. Specifically, I corrected your
>assertion that "*ALL* the other files and their fixes" are required in order
>to fix a vulnerability. Drawing attention to such a blatantly and obviously
>incorrect assertion may be quite helpful to people working out what they
>should, or shouldn't do about this patch.
>
>But how you managed to read that correction as somehow advocating the
>installation of the fix is a mystery to me. I think your paranoia has
>affected your comprehension. Can you understand how irrational it is to
>assume that anyone who disagrees with any part of anything you say is in
>full agreement with all the other people who have disagreed with you?
>Because that is exactly what you are assuming.
>
Jeff,
No offense is meant to MEB or anyone else. I am trying to be nice
here.
I did understand your post.
Greg
Greg
<pabe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Horse hockey! KB974455 applies to IE6 SP1 running in Windows 2000
>*SP4* (only), WinXP SP2 or SP3 (only), and Win2003 SP2 (only).
>
><QP>
>It should be a priority for customers who have older releases of the
>software to migrate to supported releases to prevent potential
>exposure to vulnerabilities.
></QP>
>Source: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS09-054.mspx
>(FAQ)
>
>Translation: If you're worried about security, migrate to WinXP SP3 or
>higher.
>
>
I know this is off topic, isn't Microsoft going to say that even if
the system is secure?
I never had virus, spyware, or adware, unless it was my doing.
That with windows 95, 95 osr2, 98se.
Only 3 instances which were my fault.
With xp original,
I got infected right away, not my fault. Remember people had to use
another OS, to download a patch before the could get online.
Greg
Greg
To find out who is accurate, has Mike Brangiton Retired from
Microsoft (He is MSFT)? May he can look at those files 98guy
mentioned and tell if it would be secure or not for 98se or unsecure
if they were installed. That would settle this disagreement.
Greg
PA Bear [MS MVP]
> <QP>
> It should be a priority for customers who have older releases of the
> software to migrate to supported releases to prevent potential
> exposure to vulnerabilities.
> </QP>
What part of the above don't you understand? Thousands of security
vulnerabilites have been identified & patched since updates stopped being
issued for Win9x in July 2006. There's simply no way in h*** that a Win9x
box could be consider secure these days.
[Are you thinking of Mike Bannigan?]
Jeff Richards
"Greg" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:7kho00F...@mid.individual.net...
> snip <
>
> Jeff,
> No offense is meant to MEB or anyone else. I am trying to be nice
> here.
>
> I did understand your post.
>
>
> Greg
>
Thanks for confirming that, but I had pretty much taken that for granted, as
the point was not complicated, namely that the statement I quoted was simply
incorrect. I have not commented at all on whether or not it is sensible or
useful to install this particular patch - others have done that more than
adequately.
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------
MEB
> "Greg" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:7kho00F...@mid.individual.net...
>> snip <
>>
>> Jeff,
>> No offense is meant to MEB or anyone else. I am trying to be nice
>> here.
>>
>> I did understand your post.
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>
> Thanks for confirming that, but I had pretty much taken that for granted, as
> the point was not complicated, namely that the statement I quoted was simply
> incorrect. I have not commented at all on whether or not it is sensible or
> useful to install this particular patch - others have done that more than
> adequately.
No your statement was wrong. The files BEING DISCUSSED require the full
NT OS to function properly and fully. IT SAYS:
"to accomplish the goal."
Let me refresh your memory one more time:
You wrote:
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eWXPrtRU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > snip <
> > It *MAY* contain a fix
> > [within that file], but that also requires *ALL* the other files and
> > their fixes to accomplish the goal.
That statement is completely incorrect. It is quite feasible, and in fact
quite common, that a change to a single file provides protection
against the
exploit.
It is unfortunate that you react in such an emotional manner to anyone who
attempts to clarify what you are trying to say, because some of your
comments are correct.
For instance, it is possible that the files that _can_ be installed are not
the files that needed to be changed to protect against the exploit. It is
possible that the exploit exists in W98 regardless of whether the files are
patched or not, because W98 does not contain the features that the patch
relies on in order to provide the claimed protection. It is possible that
the patches are irrelevant for W98 because the vulnerability never existed
in the first place. There are, in fact, a wide range of possibilities.
But
that message is lost in your rudeness and name-calling. And your statement
that I have quoted above is just plain wrong.
----
I wrote:
Jeff Richards wrote:
> > "MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:eWXPrtRU...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> >> snip <
>> >> It *MAY* contain a fix
>> >> [within that file], but that also requires *ALL* the other files and
>> >> their fixes to accomplish the goal.
> >
> > That statement is completely incorrect. It is quite feasible, and
in fact
> > quite common, that a change to a single file provides protection
against the
> > exploit.
> >
> > It is unfortunate that you react in such an emotional manner to
anyone who
> > attempts to clarify what you are trying to say, because some of your
> > comments are correct.
> >
> > For instance, it is possible that the files that _can_ be installed
are not
> > the files that needed to be changed to protect against the exploit.
It is
> > possible that the exploit exists in W98 regardless of whether the
files are
> > patched or not, because W98 does not contain the features that the
patch
> > relies on in order to provide the claimed protection. It is possible
that
> > the patches are irrelevant for W98 because the vulnerability never
existed
> > in the first place. There are, in fact, a wide range of
possibilities. But
> > that message is lost in your rudeness and name-calling. And your
statement
> > that I have quoted above is just plain wrong.
> >
> >
Really, so where is your information which provides the argument to
back your statement?
You ARE correct the vulnerabilities may not even exist [most relate
directly to issues within the NTs AND other updates {such as system}
which do come into play during the usage], you are incorrect or
misleading when trying to indicate that other files from the NTs are not
necessary to provide full security functionality. Nor have you even
remotely addressed the issue of IE6 incompatibility within 9X to start with.
And cram the emotional garbage back where it belongs... I respond as
needed. You apparently do as well, don't you... so FO.
---
For the FULL fix for which these files are to be used for REQUIRES the NTs.
NO? Let's let Pa Bear make the clarifying comment then:
"Horse hockey! KB974455 applies to IE6 SP1 running in Windows 2000
*SP4* (only), WinXP SP2 or SP3 (only), and Win2003 SP2 (only).
<QP>
It should be a priority for customers who have older releases of the
software to migrate to supported releases to prevent potential
exposure to vulnerabilities.
</QP>
Source: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS09-054.mspx
(FAQ)
-----
NO WHERE does MS recommend installation in 9X, nor has MS tested for
any applicability or security fixes or anything else for that matter
related to 9X applicability or functionality... ANY statement of
applicability and install ability, AND usage recommendation within 9X
FOR ANY REASON, requires *careful testing* to ensure that there are NO
incompatibilities, the fixes actually work, and IN PARTICULARLY, that
they introduce no NEW vulnerabilities.
Now where is YOUR clarification?
Better still, provide links to the materials which PROOF these
necessary aspects in Win9X OSs.
Jeff Richards
statement only referred to the files currently being discussed? Go back and
read what you wrote. Your statement, and my disagreement with it, was
clearly a generalisation across any patch ever released for a vulnerability.
That's why it's such as fatuous remark. If you didn't mean to say that,
then you could have pointed it out immediately. You didn't - in fact your
response emphasised that your claim applied in general. Or is the reason
that you didn't point it out is that you have only just realised what a
ridiculous claim it is, and you are now searching for a way to back away
from it?
And if you want to educate yourself as to why it is so incorrect, do this.
Look up "security patch" and "buffer overflow" or similar. Look for the
Windows 2000 examples, because these are most common. Look for cases where
the patch included adding a 'get required buffer size' function - there's
plenty of them. These are the cases where a change to one DLL fixed a
problem in a whole series of other modules. It means that, even though those
other modules were updated and were included in the patch, certain ones that
already included a checked buffer _do_not_have_to_be_installed for the patch
to be effective.
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------
"MEB" <MEB-no...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ol1uHsUV...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> snip <
MEB
> Are you really now going to try and claim that your blatantly incorrect
> statement only referred to the files currently being discussed? Go back and
> read what you wrote. Your statement, and my disagreement with it, was
> clearly a generalisation across any patch ever released for a vulnerability.
> That's why it's such as fatuous remark. If you didn't mean to say that,
> then you could have pointed it out immediately. You didn't - in fact your
> response emphasised that your claim applied in general. Or is the reason
> that you didn't point it out is that you have only just realised what a
> ridiculous claim it is, and you are now searching for a way to back away
> from it?
>
> And if you want to educate yourself as to why it is so incorrect, do this.
> Look up "security patch" and "buffer overflow" or similar. Look for the
> Windows 2000 examples, because these are most common. Look for cases where
> the patch included adding a 'get required buffer size' function - there's
> plenty of them. These are the cases where a change to one DLL fixed a
> problem in a whole series of other modules. It means that, even though those
> other modules were updated and were included in the patch, certain ones that
> already included a checked buffer _do_not_have_to_be_installed for the patch
> to be effective.
You are stating that Pa Bear, Microsoft, and I are wrong... provide
that PROOF.
Post the links to your testing results...
MEB
MEB wrote:
> Jeff Richards wrote:
>> Are you really now going to try and claim that your blatantly incorrect
>> statement only referred to the files currently being discussed? Go back and
>> read what you wrote. Your statement, and my disagreement with it, was
>> clearly a generalisation across any patch ever released for a vulnerability.
>> That's why it's such as fatuous remark. If you didn't mean to say that,
>> then you could have pointed it out immediately. You didn't - in fact your
>> response emphasised that your claim applied in general. Or is the reason
>> that you didn't point it out is that you have only just realised what a
>> ridiculous claim it is, and you are now searching for a way to back away
>> from it?
>>
>> And if you want to educate yourself as to why it is so incorrect, do this.
>> Look up "security patch" and "buffer overflow" or similar. Look for the
>> Windows 2000 examples, because these are most common. Look for cases where
>> the patch included adding a 'get required buffer size' function - there's
>> plenty of them. These are the cases where a change to one DLL fixed a
>> problem in a whole series of other modules. It means that, even though those
>> other modules were updated and were included in the patch, certain ones that
>> already included a checked buffer _do_not_have_to_be_installed for the patch
>> to be effective.
>
>
> You are stating that Pa Bear, Microsoft, and I are wrong... provide
> that PROOF.
>
> Post the links to your testing results...
>
Here is what I did say:
"you are incorrect or misleading when trying to indicate that other
files from the NTs are not necessary to provide full security
functionality."
It says *full security".
Since you will once again deliberately misstate my intentions and what
I posted, let me define what you need to do to prove the three of us [Pa
Bear, Microsoft, and myself] wrong:
There is a series of fixes within this update:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS09-054.mspx
Explain how *each* addressed vulnerability either doesn't exist in 9X
or how these fixes WILL work in 9X with the testing results to *prove*
that AFTER installation in 9X, these issues ARE fixed..
Also explain WHY not being able to install the DX files and others,
WILL NOT be an issue in 9X.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>
>> <QP>
>> It should be a priority for customers who have older releases of the
>> software to migrate to supported releases to prevent potential
>> exposure to vulnerabilities.
>> </QP>
>
>What part of the above don't you understand? Thousands of security
>vulnerabilites have been identified & patched since updates stopped
>being issued for Win9x in July 2006. There's simply no way in h***
>that a Win9x box could be consider secure these days.
I fear you _are_ right, that '98 has some security flaws that have not
been and are unlikely to be patched.
It would be interesting to know (though anyone who tries to answer this
will have difficulty proving any statistics) to what extent, other than
proof-of-concept, any of these vulnerabilities _are_ being exploited. I
would say it is mainly theft of personal information that is a real
concern here: use of hacked machines as part of botnets and the like I
suspect isn't much used, as '98-vintage machines aren't likely to have
other facilities needed, or to some extent be powerful enough, to be of
much use for such. However, this _is_ purely conjecture on my part.
I would almost - though NOT completely! - go to the extent of having
some grudging admiration for any hacker still writing for '98-based
systems, in the same way I do have great respect for those still
producing useful software for '9x-based systems.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. -Galileo
Galilei, physicist and astronomer (1564-1642)
98 Guy
> There's simply no way in hell that a Win9x box could be consider
> secure these days.
Then what accounts for the fact that even though I run no av software or
firewall on my win-98 system, my system has no malware installed /
running on it?
(I occasionally slave my 98 drive to an XP machine running various AV
and anti-malware software, and none has ever been detected)
Greg
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:09:39 -0400, "PA Bear [MS MVP]"
<PABe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <QP>
>> It should be a priority for customers who have older releases of the
>> software to migrate to supported releases to prevent potential
>> exposure to vulnerabilities.
>> </QP>
>
>What part of the above don't you understand? Thousands of security
>vulnerabilites have been identified & patched since updates stopped being
>issued for Win9x in July 2006. There's simply no way in h*** that a Win9x
>box could be consider secure these days.
>
>[Are you thinking of Mike Bannigan?]
>
Yes that Mike,
I never said I didn't understand you.
Will right know I am using outpost firewall freeware version.
I am using Avast, will be switching to claimwin.
I am using Firefox 2.0.0.20
As I said in another post, never got infected unless it was my fault.
Downloading a program. There is a Nemo theme that had spyware,
adware and a key logger. (I had to use Norton ghost to restore, but
before I did that. I copied the sounds, wallpaper, and cursorses )
I am kind of surprise to hear that comment from you, saying windows
98se cant be made to be secure.
My next post will include my hijack log
Greg
Greg
I am on Dial up.
I have the Free download Manager
I have the HP printer installed
I have Avast
I have Outpost Firewall.
I have google toolbar installed in I.E.
I have the Rage PCI graphics driver installed.
Logfile of Trend Micro HijackThis v2.0.2
Scan saved at 9:56:42 AM, on 10/25/09
Platform: Windows 98 SE (Win9x 4.10.2222A)
MSIE: Internet Explorer v6.00 SP1 (6.00.2800.1106)
Boot mode: Normal
Running processes:
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\KERNEL32.DLL
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\MSGSRV32.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\MPREXE.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\AGRSMMSG.EXE
c:\windows\SYSTEM\KB891711\KB891711.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\ALWIL SOFTWARE\AVAST4\ASHSERV.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\AGNITUM\OUTPOST FIREWALL 1.0\OUTPOST.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\mmtask.tsk
C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\SYSTRAY.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\QTTASK.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\HPZTSB10.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\ATIPTAXX.EXE (Graphic Drive/progam)
C:\PROGRAM FILES\MSN MESSENGER\MSNMSGR.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\RunDLL.exe
C:\PROGRAM FILES\FREE DOWNLOAD MANAGER\FUM\FUMOEI.EXE (Free Download
Mananger)
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\SPOOL32.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\DDHELP.EXE
C:\TFLASH210\TFLASH.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\OPENOFFICE.ORG 2.1\PROGRAM\SOFFICE.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\WMIEXE.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\RPCSS.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\OPENOFFICE.ORG 2.1\PROGRAM\SOFFICE.BIN
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\RNAAPP.EXE
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\TAPISRV.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT WORKS\WKSDB.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT WORKS\WKGDCACH.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT WORKS\MSWORKS.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\MOZILLA FIREFOX\FIREFOX.EXE
C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT WORKS\WKSDB.EXE
E:\NEWS\AGENTI\AGENT.EXE
C:\HIJACK\HIJACKTHIS.EXE
R0 - HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main,Start Page =
about:blank
F1 - win.ini: run=hpfsched
O2 - BHO: Google Toolbar Helper -
{AA58ED58-01DD-4d91-8333-CF10577473F7} - c:\program
files\google\googletoolbar1.dll
O2 - BHO: SSVHelper Class - {761497BB-D6F0-462C-B6EB-D4DAF1D92D43} -
C:\Program Files\Java\jre1.5.0_15\bin\ssv.dll
O2 - BHO: FDMIECookiesBHO Class -
{CC59E0F9-7E43-44FA-9FAA-8377850BF205} - C:\PROGRAM FILES\FREE
DOWNLOAD MANAGER\IEFDM2.DLL
O3 - Toolbar: &Radio - {8E718888-423F-11D2-876E-00A0C9082467} -
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\MSDXM.OCX
O3 - Toolbar: &Google - {2318C2B1-4965-11d4-9B18-009027A5CD4F} -
c:\program files\google\googletoolbar1.dll
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [SystemTray] SysTray.Exe
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [Tweak UI] RUNDLL32.EXE TWEAKUI.CPL,TweakMeUp
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [IgfxTray] C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\igfxtray.exe
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [HotKeysCmds] C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\hkcmd.exe
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [QuickTime Task] "C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\QTTASK.EXE"
-atboottime
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [agrsmMSG] agrsmMSG.exe
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [HP Component Manager] "C:\PROGRAM
FILES\HP\HPCORETECH\HPCMPMGR.EXE" (Disabled-Renamed)
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [HPDJ Taskbar Utility]
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\hpztsb10.exe (Hp printer taskbar)
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [AtiPTA] Atiptaxx.exe (Graphic program)
O4 - HKLM\..\Run: [Outpost Firewall] C:\Program Files\Agnitum\Outpost
Firewall 1.0\outpost.exe /waitservice
O4 - HKLM\..\RunServices: [KB891711]
c:\windows\SYSTEM\KB891711\KB891711.EXE
O4 - HKLM\..\RunServices: [Tweak UI] RUNDLL32.EXE
TWEAKUI.CPL,TweakLogon
O4 - HKLM\..\RunServices: [avast!] C:\Program Files\Alwil
Software\Avast4\ashServ.exe
O4 - HKLM\..\RunServices: [Outpost Firewall] C:\PROGRAM
FILES\AGNITUM\OUTPOST FIREWALL 1.0\outpost.exe /service
O4 - HKCU\..\Run: [MsnMsgr] "c:\Program Files\MSN
Messenger\MsnMsgr.Exe" /background
O4 - HKCU\..\Run: [Taskbar Display Controls] RunDLL
deskcp16.dll,QUICKRES_RUNDLLENTRY
O4 - HKCU\..\Run: [Free Uploader Oe Integration] C:\Program Files\Free
Download Manager\FUM\fumoei.exe
O4 - HKUS\.DEFAULT\..\Run: [MsnMsgr] "c:\Program Files\MSN
Messenger\MsnMsgr.Exe" /background (User 'Default user')
O4 - HKUS\.DEFAULT\..\Run: [Taskbar Display Controls] RunDLL
deskcp16.dll,QUICKRES_RUNDLLENTRY (User 'Default user')
O4 - HKUS\.DEFAULT\..\Run: [Free Uploader Oe Integration] C:\Program
Files\Free Download Manager\FUM\fumoei.exe (User 'Default user')
O4 - .DEFAULT Startup: Microsoft Office.lnk = C:\Program
Files\Microsoft Office\Office\OSA9.EXE (User 'Default user')
O4 - .DEFAULT Startup: Iomega Startup Options.lnk =
C:\Tools_95\IMGSTART.EXE (User 'Default user')
O4 - .DEFAULT Startup: Turn on.lnk = C:\tflash210\tflash.exe (User
'Default user')
O4 - .DEFAULT Startup: OpenOffice.org 2.1.lnk = C:\Program
Files\OpenOffice.org 2.1\program\quickstart.exe (User 'Default user')
O4 - Startup: Microsoft Office.lnk = C:\Program Files\Microsoft
Office\Office\OSA9.EXE
O4 - Startup: Iomega Startup Options.lnk = C:\Tools_95\IMGSTART.EXE
(I have an Iomega zip drive, not install at the moment)
O4 - Startup: Turn on.lnk = C:\tflash210\tflash.exe
O4 - Startup: OpenOffice.org 2.1.lnk = C:\Program Files\OpenOffice.org
2.1\program\quickstart.exe
O8 - Extra context menu item: &Google Search - res://C:\PROGRAM
FILES\GOOGLE\GOOGLETOOLBAR1.DLL/cmsearch.html
O8 - Extra context menu item: Cac&hed Snapshot of Page -
res://C:\PROGRAM FILES\GOOGLE\GOOGLETOOLBAR1.DLL/cmcache.html
O8 - Extra context menu item: Si&milar Pages - res://C:\PROGRAM
FILES\GOOGLE\GOOGLETOOLBAR1.DLL/cmsimilar.html
O8 - Extra context menu item: Backward &Links - res://C:\PROGRAM
FILES\GOOGLE\GOOGLETOOLBAR1.DLL/cmbacklinks.html
O8 - Extra context menu item: Translate into English -
res://C:\PROGRAM FILES\GOOGLE\GOOGLETOOLBAR1.DLL/cmtrans.html
O8 - Extra context menu item: View This Page in Firefox -
file://C:\Windows\Application
Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\f2difo0c.default\extensions\{5D558C43-550F-4b12-84AB-0D8ABDA9F975}\firefoxviewpage.html
O8 - Extra context menu item: Open Link Target in Firefox -
file://C:\Windows\Application
Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\f2difo0c.default\extensions\{5D558C43-550F-4b12-84AB-0D8ABDA9F975}\firefoxviewlink.html
O8 - Extra context menu item: Download with Free Download Manager -
file://C:\Program Files\Free Download Manager\dllink.htm
O8 - Extra context menu item: Download all with Free Download Manager
- file://C:\Program Files\Free Download Manager\dlall.htm
O8 - Extra context menu item: Download selected with Free Download
Manager - file://C:\Program Files\Free Download Manager\dlselected.htm
O8 - Extra context menu item: Download video with Free Download
Manager - file://C:\Program Files\Free Download Manager\dlfvideo.htm
O9 - Extra button: (no name) - {08B0E5C0-4FCB-11CF-AAA5-00401C608501}
- C:\PROGRAM FILES\JAVA\JRE1.5.0_15\BIN\SSV.DLL
O9 - Extra 'Tools' menuitem: Sun Java Console -
{08B0E5C0-4FCB-11CF-AAA5-00401C608501} - C:\PROGRAM
FILES\JAVA\JRE1.5.0_15\BIN\SSV.DLL
O9 - Extra button: Upload - {FD4E2FF8-973C-4A19-89BD-8E86B3CFCFE1} -
C:\PROGRAM FILES\FREE DOWNLOAD MANAGER\FUM\FUMIEBTN.DLL
O16 - DPF: {CAFEEFAC-0015-0000-0000-ABCDEFFEDCBA} (Java Plug-in 1.5.0)
(Domain and Nameserver removed for privacy)
MEB
EVERY hack ever created for the 9X OS, and there were several thousand,
still works in 9X. NO ONE is testing for new vulnerabilities [unless you
can provide documentation which indicates otherwise] - that includes no
AV producers. If you need verification of what hacks WERE known as used
and available when 9X was being extensively tested and sufficient
numbers of users still provided hack information, hack code, and
otherwise, go through the extensive documentation available upon or
within, the AV producer's web site or help or other documentation
available upon the Internet.
Here is your part necessary for the PROOF of these issues or lack thereof:
Explain WHY you would expect any AV program to contain any protection
for potential 9X vulnerabilities, AND why these programs would provide
protection for any new modified versions of old hacks, unless someone
+provides the information from which to work* or the applicable hack
code or other necessary to create that protection.
PA Bear [MS MVP]
Clamwin is useful though it does NOT include real-time protection.
We don't deal with HJT logs in public newsgroups. In any event, HJT is
pretty useless on Win9x boxes.
Jeff Richards
> snip<
>
> Here is what I did say:
>
> "you are incorrect or misleading when trying to indicate that other
> files from the NTs are not necessary to provide full security
> functionality."
No. That's not what you said at all. The substantive part of your statement
was:
"Merely because a file or files installs DOES NOT MEAN it provides anything
to an OS
"for which it was not designed."
which is, of course, quite correct. The file may well be completely ignored
by the operating system - the code in that file might never get executed.
and
"It *MAY* contain a fix [within that file], but that also requires *ALL* the
other files
"and their fixes to accomplish the goal, e.g., the security issues attempted
to be fixed."
That's the statement that I quoted and that is the statement that is wrong.
The fact is that, in the case that it does contain a fix, it is quite
possible the the goal of that fix will be accomplished (the security issue
patched) even if some of the other files are not installed.
> It says *full security".
No it doesn't.
> Since you will once again deliberately misstate my intentions and what
> I posted, let me define what you need to do to prove the three of us [Pa
> Bear, Microsoft, and myself] wrong:
I have no idea where you are getting the idea that PA Bear or Microsoft
support your contention that it is not possible for a file to fix a problem
even if other files in the patch are not installed.
If I have mis-stated your intentions, why don't you correct that
mis-statement? Did you or did you not mean to state that _all_ files
contained in a security patch must be installed in order for _any_ file to
be effective in patching the problem?
> There is a series of fixes within this update:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS09-054.mspx
>
> Explain how *each* addressed vulnerability either doesn't exist in 9X
> or how these fixes WILL work in 9X with the testing results to *prove*
> that AFTER installation in 9X, these issues ARE fixed..
Why? It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not installing
one file out of several will fix the problem that that file was designed to
address.
> Also explain WHY not being able to install the DX files and others,
> WILL NOT be an issue in 9X.
Do you mean that not being able to instal those files means that the fix is
ineffective for 9X(because that's the only way I can make your question
relevant to the issue). If that's what you mean, then the answer is No, I
won't, because I have made no comment as to whether or not your incorrect
statement is relevant to this particular fix, and I'm not going to. Why
should I bother? I only need one example to demonstrate that your claim is
wrong, and there are many easier ones than 054.
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------
MEB
Where are your links to tests results and the information as was defined.
MEB
PROVE IT with *THESE* files being discussed. Let me refresh your memory:
Since you will once again deliberately misstate my intentions and what
I posted, let me define what you need to do to prove the three of us [Pa
Bear, Microsoft, and myself] wrong:
There is a series of fixes within this update:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS09-054.mspx
Explain how *each* addressed vulnerability either doesn't exist in 9X
or how these fixes WILL work in 9X with the testing results to *prove*
that AFTER installation in 9X, these issues ARE fixed..
Also explain WHY not being able to install the DX files and others,
WILL NOT be an issue in 9X.
--
Sunny
>
> Where are your links to tests results and the information as was
> defined.
When were you appointed newsgroup police ?
98 Guy
> There is a series of fixes within this update:
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS09-054.mspx
>
> Explain how *each* addressed vulnerability either doesn't exist
> in 9X
There is not enough information published about those vulnerabilities,
as well as not enough information published about the working details of
Windows 98, to be able to "prove" in a court of law that win-9x does not
suffer those vulnerabilities.
You are once again asking for proof of a negative condition, which
logically speaking is a difficult if not impossible task.
> or how these fixes WILL work in 9X with the testing results
> to *prove* that AFTER installation in 9X, these issues ARE
> fixed..
Does anyone else find it interesting that Meb is *demanding* such proof,
testing, etc, when no such "proof" or evidence of testing has ever been
put forward by Microsoft itself as it relates to the target OS for which
the fixes have been created for and applied to?
> Also explain WHY not being able to install the DX files and
> others, WILL NOT be an issue in 9X.
Again, another request for a proof of a negative condition.
I will restate that you hold a double standard with regard to these
patch files.
You demand to see evidence of testing, explanations of how the tests
were performed, etc, for these file with regard to win-9x, while at the
same time you make no similar demands of Microsoft to show how these
patches did pass any level of testing for the target OS which they were
designed for.
The lack of published test methodology and example results (by microsoft
or anyone else) for these patches means there is no precedent for anyone
to follow if they cared to test them on win-98.
Your constant badgering for testing is therefore vaccuous and inane, and
amounts to nothing more than noise.
Greg
98guy
Doesn't Microsoft test files before they are released? I wouldnt be
surprised if they test if on a 9x machine, to make sure it wont be
installed without being modified.
Greg
98 Guy
Greg wrote:
> > The lack of published test methodology and example results
> > (by microsoft or anyone else) for these patches means there
> > is no precedent for anyone to follow if they cared to test
> > them on win-98.
>
> 98guy
> Doesn't Microsoft test files before they are released?
I'm sure they do.
But the point is that they don't release the details of those tests.
They don't describe how they test, they don't give a "score" that
indicates the degree to which the patch files eliminate or reduce the
vulnerability in question or a score that indicates the operational
functionality of the new file compared to the older one. These are all
the things that Meb is asking for as they relate to windows 98.
> I wouldnt be surprised if they test if on a 9x machine, to make
> sure it wont be installed without being modified.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
The files in question were contained in an IE6-Sp1 security roll-up for
win-2k. I *believe* that the installer for those files will simply
refuse to run if it knows it's being run on a win-98 system.
I *would* be surprised if Microsoft did have an in-house testing Q/A
program which would have included testing these patches on win-98,
because what would they do with that information? Of what use would
they make of it? Who outside microsoft would be told or benefit from
the results?
I would not be surprised if some Microsoft software engineer did in fact
test those files on win-98 on a casual basis for his own curiosity, but
again nothing useful (for the outside world) would come of those results
because they would never be known to the outside world.
PA Bear [MS MVP]
MEB
> Please don't full-quote when you reply.
Greg can do what ever... if falls on Greg...
You don't run this group...
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>> The lack of published test methodology and example results
>>> (by microsoft or anyone else) for these patches means there
>>> is no precedent for anyone to follow if they cared to test
>>> them on win-98.
>> 98guy
>> Doesn't Microsoft test files before they are released?
>
> I'm sure they do.
>
> But the point is that they don't release the details of those tests.
MICROSOFT doesn't need to post those results; *YOU* do though:
1. Microsoft CREATED the files, hence knows [supposedly] how those files
work and their function.
2. Microsoft TESTS those files internally, SUPPOSEDLY against the
present KNOWN vulnerability or flaw which THAT particular file or group
of files fixes [supposedly]. Microsoft does NOT create hotfix and like
files just because it wants too, it does it to address a specific issue
IN A SPECIFIC OS to keep its customer base.
3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
the issuer.
The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
[which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
5. Post the links to *your* test results which prove: fitness for 9X;
how they fix the supposed errors WITHIN the *9X OS* and *IE6 SP1 at its
resultant EOL level*; and which PROOFS they produce NO NEW
VULNERABILITIES. Provide the materials which proof that NOT installing
the other files DOES NOT IMPACT 9X or cause issues. PLACE the links to
resultant materials HERE, so 9X users know: VALID to install or not.
6. YOU [98 Guy] personally suggest that MAYBE some programmer(s) at
Microsoft might have tested these. SO WHAT, that relies upon the skill
of that/those programmers. Look at ALL of the issues with XP, VISTA, and
Windows7 [or the history of 9X since that is where we are discussing
this]; look at WHY *these* particular fixes being discussed HAD TO BE
PRODUCED: now, who [single or group] are *YOU* suggesting would be
skilled enough potentially AT/FROM MICROSOFT to know whether these
purported potential tests were valid, PARTICULARLY as those potential
programmers HAVE NOT RUN 9X [and in particular a standard system] as
their sole accessing OS on the Internet for YEARS....
7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
8. Don't bother trying to play stupid Usenet games like Jeff did.
MEB
> When I deputized him 2 years ago!
<sniff> but you were going {uhhhuhh} taaatttooo send mmaeeeme my
tinfoil badge, I I I sttttill haven't got iiittttt yyyetttt <sniffle>
98 Guy
> >> Doesn't Microsoft test files before they are released?
> >
> > I'm sure they do.
> >
> > But the point is that they don't release the details of
> > those tests.
>
> MICROSOFT doesn't need to post those results; *YOU* do though:
I never said that Microsoft needs to post thost results.
I mearly pointed out that they don't.
And because they don't, we (I, you, anyone else) have no basis to
formulate or design any tests that would satisfy your criteria for what
constitutes a successful and fully operable patch for win-98.
> 1. Microsoft CREATED the files, hence knows [supposedly] how
> those files work and their function.
I never disputed that, or claimed otherwise. But because they fixed
specific files, any rational person would conclude that those specific
files contained certain vulnerabilities or allowed them to propagate
within the OS, and that the fixed versions no longer do that.
> 2. Microsoft TESTS those files internally (...)
A self-obvious statement that does not advance this argument.
> 3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN
> isn't *Microsoft* the issuer. The THREE of you haven't
> a CLUE as to whether these files do any good or bad, or
> even supply any function whatsoever.
Any rational person would understand that Microsoft does not release new
versions of important system files unless they absolutely have to. We
can therefore conclude that the new versions operate differently (from a
vulnerability POV) while operating exactly the same (from a user or
application POV) to avoid "breaking" existing applications that rely on
them.
There are two possibe outcomes outcomes from taking those new IE6 files
and substituting them on a win-98 system:
1) The win-98 system becomes unstable, or IE itself becomes
unstable. The user can no longer surf the web with IE6.
2) There is no noticable change to system functionality. IE
seems to function as well as it did prior to the change.
If condition (1) is encountered, no permanent dammage to the system is
expected, and the previous files can be rolled back and the system can
be restored to it's previous state.
If instead we have condition (2), then there are several possibilities
for the actual state of the system:
A) The win-98 system gains the same immunity from
specific exploits as a win-2k system does and does
not gain any new vulnerabilities.
B) The win-98 system does not gain the same immunity
from the targeted expoits as win-2k, but neither
does it gain any new vulnerabilities.
C) The win-98 system may or may not gain the intended
immunity, but it does gain new vulnerabilities.
I believe the above conditions (1, 2, A, B, C) comprise all of the
possible outcomes of the file substitions being considered, at least on
the scales that we are most interested in. If you believe there are
other outcomes that should be mentioned - then please do.
(There is one additional outcome I can think of - that the system
becomes *more* stable, or IE performs *better* than it did before, but
the possibility of that outcome is not necessary for us to ponder the
rest of this analysis)
Now, most of us here (including you and I) are either incapable or
unwilling to determine which of the above outcomes have actually
happened. You are either unwilling or unable to determine if outcome 1
or 2 will result. I have determined (based on trial and error) that
outcome 2 will result, but I am unable to determine which of A, B or C
will be the ultimate end-point.
Now, I can claim that outcome 2 has happened, and you can claim that I
have not sufficiently proved it has happened, and quite likely nobody
could ever post enough supporting material to satisfy you that outcome 2
will result.
But I can say that any user that performs the file substitutions and
*does* experience system instability can revert back to the previous
files and suffer no cost during the effort.
If you want to argue that there *could be* some measureable loss or
important cost experienced by the user during the effort, and that any
potential benefit is smaller than this potential loss, then that is a
dark road that you can go travel down if you want.
Given that we are talking about windows 98, and that likely there is no
win-98 system performing mission-critical or life-sustaining functions
in any setting, your cost/benefit analysis would be hard-pressed to show
a cost that's higher than the potential benefit.
Proceeding on the premis that any reasonable person would find that
outcome 2 could, or has indeed happened, then we are left with three
possible, final outcomes (A, B or C).
One of those is benefical to the end user. Another is of no benefit
(but also of no cost). A third is detrimental - in a way that the user
would not likely be aware of. You are now pondering that one potential
bad outcome:
> MORE importantly, you haven't a clue whether installing them
> creates *NEW vulnerabilities* [which they likely do when
> compared to Microsoft's history].
Mechanistically, we could take our windows 98 system apart and spend
several man-years determining if we've created any new vulnerabilities
by substituting those files. If it sounds absurd that win-98
aficionados would undertake such a task, then even more so would be
absurd to think that malware writers would as well.
So, we have the potential of introducing new vulnerabilities into our
win-98 system. Is this:
(D) a vulnerability that is known to the malware community -
one that our win-98 system did not have before the file
substition?
or
(E) a vulnerability completely new and not previously
known to or identified by the malware community.
If D, then presumably the AV or AM (anti-malware) software running on
our win-98 system will afford us some protection. If we have no
first-line protection against this new vulnerability, then we have to
weigh the cost-benefit of the situation: The substituted files *may* be
protecting us from some exploits, but *may* be exposing us to new ones.
If E, then we have nothing to fear, because if nobody knows anything
about this vulnerability (even it's very existance) then nobody will (or
can) exploit it.
> 4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files
> into a 9X system.
Microsoft has and will say nothing more about Windows 98 since it's EOL
in June 2006. Microsoft's policy on win-98 gives us no guidance at all
in this regard. No conclusions can be drawn about these file
substitutions on the basis of Microsoft's silence on all matters that
relate to win-98.
> 6. YOU [98 Guy] personally suggest that MAYBE some programmer(s)
> at Microsoft might have tested these. (on win-98)
Yes, I did suggest that might have happened.
> SO WHAT, that relies upon the skill of that / those
> programmers.
No, it relies on the desire or motivation of those programmers.
The competentcy or thoroughness of any such tests could be ranked
according to the skill, knowledge or experience of the programmer, but
my point was not to speculate about such matters - only that some
testing by some MS people might happen at an informal or casual level.
If there are testing protocals or internal utilities that do exist for
win-98, then presumably they are available to all MS programmers or
technicians regardless of their skill level.
> look at WHY *these* particular fixes being discussed HAD TO BE
> PRODUCED:
Why does it matter *WHY* these fixes were created and implimented?
Obviously, when ever a vulnerability for a supported product is
discovered, the vendor can create a fix and distribute it. Why must the
"WHY" of that situation be examined?
> now, who [single or group] are *YOU* suggesting would be skilled
> enough potentially AT/FROM MICROSOFT to know whether these
> purported potential tests were valid, PARTICULARLY as those potential
> programmers HAVE NOT RUN 9X [and in particular a standard system] as
> their sole accessing OS on the Internet for YEARS....
So you are saying (in a very convoluted way) that not even Microsoft
itself can render a trustworthy verdict as to if these fixes are
effective and not harmful to windows 98. You are saying that because
you are raising the issue that there may be no programmers at microsoft
who are competent in/with windows 98 at this point.
I was answering a previous post that suggested that Microsoft likely
does test these fixes on win-98. I believe the opposite. I believe
that internally, Microsoft has no testing progam in effect that would
test these IE6 patches on win-98 systems because there is no outward
usefullness for those test results from their POV.
I speculated that perhaps some engineer might "test" these fixes on an
ad-hoc, informal or casual basis, but we are unlikely to ever learn of
those results. But that doesn't mean the results can't be as
authoritative, complete, or competent as any offical test program would
be. In the universe of possible outcomes, that *is* one potential
outcome (ie - a competent test).
> 7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into
> 9X makes NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the
> underlaying OS.
I don't believe that IE6-sp1 files are necessarily "non-standard" when
we are talking about win-98 and 2K. Are you saying that when you
compare various system, driver or API files between a win-98 and 2K
system from the same era, that you wouldn't find examples of identical
files being used on both systems?
If a given file substition causes system instability, then reverse the
substitution. If no instability is noted, then how would you support
the argument that the system is *more* vulnerable to malware compared to
it's previous state? Even if I could not claim it was less vulnerable,
you similarly can't claim it is *more* vulnerable from the POV of your
armchair.
In fact, you would be hard pressed to prove it was *more* vulnerable and
that such an increase in vulnerability was (a) knowable to malware
authors, (b) anticipated by malware authors, and (c) would result in
exploitation by malware authors.
> 8. Don't bother trying to play stupid Usenet games like Jeff
> did.
I could be posting this from Microsoft's discussion-group web interface
- and you wouldn't know it. Would you still call it a usenet game if I
did?
MEB
1. Microsoft CREATED the files, hence knows [supposedly] how those files
work and their function.
2. Microsoft TESTS those files internally, SUPPOSEDLY against the
present KNOWN vulnerability or flaw which THAT particular file or group
of files fixes [supposedly]. Microsoft does NOT create hotfix and like
files just because it wants too, it does it to address a specific issue
IN A SPECIFIC OS to keep its customer base.
3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
the issuer.
The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
[which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
5. Post the links to *your* test results which prove: fitness for 9X;
how they fix the supposed errors WITHIN the *9X OS* and *IE6 SP1 at its
resultant EOL level*; and which PROOFS they produce NO NEW
VULNERABILITIES. Provide the materials which proof that NOT installing
the other files DOES NOT IMPACT 9X or cause issues. PLACE the links to
resultant materials HERE, so 9X users know: VALID to install or not.
6. YOU [98 Guy] personally suggest that MAYBE some programmer(s) at
Microsoft might have tested these. SO WHAT, that relies upon the skill
of that/those programmers. Look at ALL of the issues with XP, VISTA, and
Windows7 [or the history of 9X since that is where we are discussing
this]; look at WHY *these* particular fixes being discussed HAD TO BE
PRODUCED: now, who [single or group] are *YOU* suggesting would be
skilled enough potentially AT/FROM MICROSOFT to know whether these
purported potential tests were valid, PARTICULARLY as those potential
programmers HAVE NOT RUN 9X [and in particular a standard system] as
their sole accessing OS on the Internet for YEARS....
7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
8. Don't bother trying to play stupid Usenet games like Jeff did.
--
98 Guy
> >> Doesn't Microsoft test files before they are released?
> >
> > I'm sure they do.
> >
> > But the point is that they don't release the details of
> > those tests.
>
> MICROSOFT doesn't need to post those results; *YOU* do though:
I never said that Microsoft needs to post thost results.
I mearly pointed out that they don't.
And because they don't, we (I, you, anyone else) have no basis to
formulate or design any tests that would satisfy your criteria for what
constitutes a successful and fully operable patch for win-98.
> 1. Microsoft CREATED the files, hence knows [supposedly] how
> those files work and their function.
I never disputed that, or claimed otherwise. But because they fixed
specific files, any rational person would conclude that those specific
files contained certain vulnerabilities or allowed them to propagate
within the OS, and that the fixed versions no longer do that.
> 2. Microsoft TESTS those files internally (...)
A self-obvious statement that does not advance this argument.
> 3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN
> isn't *Microsoft* the issuer. The THREE of you haven't
> a CLUE as to whether these files do any good or bad, or
> even supply any function whatsoever.
Any rational person would understand that Microsoft does not release new
> MORE importantly, you haven't a clue whether installing them
> creates *NEW vulnerabilities* [which they likely do when
> compared to Microsoft's history].
Mechanistically, we could take our windows 98 system apart and spend
several man-years determining if we've created any new vulnerabilities
by substituting those files. If it sounds absurd that win-98
aficionados would undertake such a task, then even more so would be
absurd to think that malware writers would as well.
So, we have the potential of introducing new vulnerabilities into our
win-98 system. Is this:
(D) a vulnerability that is known to the malware community -
one that our win-98 system did not have before the file
substition?
or
(E) a vulnerability completely new and not previously
known to or identified by the malware community.
If D, then presumably the AV or AM (anti-malware) software running on
our win-98 system will afford us some protection. If we have no
first-line protection against this new vulnerability, then we have to
weigh the cost-benefit of the situation: The substituted files *may* be
protecting us from some exploits, but *may* be exposing us to new ones.
If E, then we have nothing to fear, because if nobody knows anything
about this vulnerability (even it's very existance) then nobody will (or
can) exploit it.
> 4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files
> into a 9X system.
Microsoft has and will say nothing more about Windows 98 since it's EOL
in June 2006. Microsoft's policy on win-98 gives us no guidance at all
in this regard. No conclusions can be drawn about these file
substitutions on the basis of Microsoft's silence on all matters that
relate to win-98.
> 6. YOU [98 Guy] personally suggest that MAYBE some programmer(s)
> at Microsoft might have tested these. (on win-98)
Yes, I did suggest that might have happened.
> SO WHAT, that relies upon the skill of that / those
> programmers.
No, it relies on the desire or motivation of those programmers.
The competentcy or thoroughness of any such tests could be ranked
according to the skill, knowledge or experience of the programmer, but
my point was not to speculate about such matters - only that some
testing by some MS people might happen at an informal or casual level.
If there are testing protocals or internal utilities that do exist for
win-98, then presumably they are available to all MS programmers or
technicians regardless of their skill level.
> look at WHY *these* particular fixes being discussed HAD TO BE
> PRODUCED:
Why does it matter *WHY* these fixes were created and implimented?
Obviously, when ever a vulnerability for a supported product is
discovered, the vendor can create a fix and distribute it. Why must the
"WHY" of that situation be examined?
> now, who [single or group] are *YOU* suggesting would be skilled
> enough potentially AT/FROM MICROSOFT to know whether these
> purported potential tests were valid, PARTICULARLY as those potential
> programmers HAVE NOT RUN 9X [and in particular a standard system] as
> their sole accessing OS on the Internet for YEARS....
So you are saying (in a very convoluted way) that not even Microsoft
itself can render a trustworthy verdict as to if these fixes are
effective and not harmful to windows 98. You are saying that because
you are raising the issue that there may be no programmers at microsoft
who are competent in/with windows 98 at this point.
I was answering a previous post that suggested that Microsoft likely
does test these fixes on win-98. I believe the opposite. I believe
that internally, Microsoft has no testing progam in effect that would
test these IE6 patches on win-98 systems because there is no outward
usefullness for those test results from their POV.
I speculated that perhaps some engineer might "test" these fixes on an
ad-hoc, informal or casual basis, but we are unlikely to ever learn of
those results. But that doesn't mean the results can't be as
authoritative, complete, or competent as any offical test program would
be. In the universe of possible outcomes, that *is* one potential
outcome (ie - a competent test).
> 7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into
> 9X makes NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the
> underlaying OS.
I don't believe that IE6-sp1 files are necessarily "non-standard" when
we are talking about win-98 and 2K. Are you saying that when you
compare various system, driver or API files between a win-98 and 2K
system from the same era, that you wouldn't find examples of identical
files being used on both systems?
If a given file substition causes system instability, then reverse the
substitution. If no instability is noted, then how would you support
the argument that the system is *more* vulnerable to malware compared to
it's previous state? Even if I could not claim it was less vulnerable,
you similarly can't claim it is *more* vulnerable from the POV of your
armchair.
In fact, you would be hard pressed to prove it was *more* vulnerable and
that such an increase in vulnerability was (a) knowable to malware
authors, (b) anticipated by malware authors, and (c) would result in
exploitation by malware authors.
> 8. Don't bother trying to play stupid Usenet games like Jeff
> did.
I could be posting this from Microsoft's discussion-group web interface
MEB
MICROSOFT doesn't need to post those results; *YOU* do though:
1. Microsoft CREATED the files, hence knows [supposedly] how those files
work and their function.
2. Microsoft TESTS those files internally, SUPPOSEDLY against the
present KNOWN vulnerability or flaw which THAT particular file or group
of files fixes [supposedly]. Microsoft does NOT create hotfix and like
files just because it wants too, it does it to address a specific issue
IN A SPECIFIC OS to keep its customer base.
3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
the issuer.
The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
[which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
5. Post the links to *your* test results which prove: fitness for 9X;
how they fix the supposed errors WITHIN the *9X OS* and *IE6 SP1 at its
resultant EOL level*; and which PROOFS they produce NO NEW
VULNERABILITIES. Provide the materials which proof that NOT installing
the other files DOES NOT IMPACT 9X or cause issues. PLACE the links to
resultant materials HERE, so 9X users know: VALID to install or not.
6. YOU [98 Guy] personally suggest that MAYBE some programmer(s) at
Microsoft might have tested these. SO WHAT, that relies upon the skill
of that/those programmers. Look at ALL of the issues with XP, VISTA, and
Windows7 [or the history of 9X since that is where we are discussing
this]; look at WHY *these* particular fixes being discussed HAD TO BE
PRODUCED: now, who [single or group] are *YOU* suggesting would be
skilled enough potentially AT/FROM MICROSOFT to know whether these
purported potential tests were valid, PARTICULARLY as those potential
programmers HAVE NOT RUN 9X [and in particular a standard system] as
their sole accessing OS on the Internet for YEARS....
7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
8. Don't bother trying to play stupid Usenet games like Jeff did.