A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 16th 09, 05:20 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
N. Miller
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 213
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:26:01 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

"N. Miller" wrote:


PA Bear top-poasted:


+1


Care to tell us what that means?


Pretty much the same thing as, "AOL 'Me too!"


So - he's being a dork about this too?


Perhaps. OTOH, I wouldn't mix different Windows version system files, unless
it was tested, and recommended, by Microsoft.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
  #22  
Old December 16th 09, 05:20 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
N. Miller
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 213
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:26:01 -0500, 98 Guy wrote:

"N. Miller" wrote:


PA Bear top-poasted:


+1


Care to tell us what that means?


Pretty much the same thing as, "AOL 'Me too!"


So - he's being a dork about this too?


Perhaps. OTOH, I wouldn't mix different Windows version system files, unless
it was tested, and recommended, by Microsoft.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
  #23  
Old December 16th 09, 06:09 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

"N. Miller" wrote:

So - he's being a dork about this too?


Perhaps. OTOH, I wouldn't mix different Windows version system
files, unless it was tested, and recommended, by Microsoft.


I don't know how much you've been following issues relating to IE (IE6)
after the official end of support for win-98 (which happened in July
2006).

The fact is that after July 2006, there has been no such files, testing,
or recommendations by Microsoft for anything relating to win-98. This
was not a surprise - or unexpected.

IE6 files are not (technically speaking) system files. Files relating
to IE can be stripped out of win-98 (perhaps more easily for win-95).

It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that Microsoft
released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly usable on win-98
because they both use the exact same version (IE6-Sp1). By intention,
Microsoft has never allowed win-2K to be compatible with IE6-SP2 (the
version of IE6 that came with XP-SP2). The binary files for that
version are somewhat different and are not compatible with win-9x.

So, to re-cap:

1) The end of official support of any kind for Win-98 in July 2006
marked the point at which Microsoft would no long make any comment or
statement about win-98 in any of it's advisories or bulletins, and for
which Microsoft would no longer identify any new patch or update file as
being compatible (or incompatible) with win-98.

2) The lack of mention of win-98 in any patch or update file released
for the past 3 years DOES NOT MEAN that the file won't work or is not
compatible with win-98. Practically speaking, this is notable mostly
when we are speaking about patch files released for Windows 2000.

3) Simple file-substitution of new win-2K patch files onto a win-98
system is enough to determine if win-98 is compatible with the files.
If the win-98 system is usable an can perform all operations as expected
with the new files, then that is generally enough of a test to determine
compatibility. No harm can really be done to a system that does not
function as intended during this test, and the original files can be
easily replaced.

4) A respectible-sized user base of win-98 systems with these file
substitutions can be found at msfn.org. These users pay close attention
to the workings and performance of their win-98 systems, and any hint of
file incompatibility are discussed at length. There is a very good
consensus that the various IE6 updates that have been been made for
win-2K over the past 3 years function well on win-98.
  #24  
Old December 16th 09, 06:09 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

"N. Miller" wrote:

So - he's being a dork about this too?


Perhaps. OTOH, I wouldn't mix different Windows version system
files, unless it was tested, and recommended, by Microsoft.


I don't know how much you've been following issues relating to IE (IE6)
after the official end of support for win-98 (which happened in July
2006).

The fact is that after July 2006, there has been no such files, testing,
or recommendations by Microsoft for anything relating to win-98. This
was not a surprise - or unexpected.

IE6 files are not (technically speaking) system files. Files relating
to IE can be stripped out of win-98 (perhaps more easily for win-95).

It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that Microsoft
released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly usable on win-98
because they both use the exact same version (IE6-Sp1). By intention,
Microsoft has never allowed win-2K to be compatible with IE6-SP2 (the
version of IE6 that came with XP-SP2). The binary files for that
version are somewhat different and are not compatible with win-9x.

So, to re-cap:

1) The end of official support of any kind for Win-98 in July 2006
marked the point at which Microsoft would no long make any comment or
statement about win-98 in any of it's advisories or bulletins, and for
which Microsoft would no longer identify any new patch or update file as
being compatible (or incompatible) with win-98.

2) The lack of mention of win-98 in any patch or update file released
for the past 3 years DOES NOT MEAN that the file won't work or is not
compatible with win-98. Practically speaking, this is notable mostly
when we are speaking about patch files released for Windows 2000.

3) Simple file-substitution of new win-2K patch files onto a win-98
system is enough to determine if win-98 is compatible with the files.
If the win-98 system is usable an can perform all operations as expected
with the new files, then that is generally enough of a test to determine
compatibility. No harm can really be done to a system that does not
function as intended during this test, and the original files can be
easily replaced.

4) A respectible-sized user base of win-98 systems with these file
substitutions can be found at msfn.org. These users pay close attention
to the workings and performance of their win-98 systems, and any hint of
file incompatibility are discussed at length. There is a very good
consensus that the various IE6 updates that have been been made for
win-2K over the past 3 years function well on win-98.
  #25  
Old December 16th 09, 06:43 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On 12/15/2009 04:56 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
writes:
On 12/11/2009 03:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[98Guy's putative enhancements/updates/whatever]
Does this set of fixes actually ADD to the vulnerabilities of a system,
or just CHANGE it - i. e. could it be that it introduces some new ones
but closes some (while also adding other things, such as a DirectX and a
web fonts update)?

[]
Good questions. If it were the OSs designed for it might fulfill the


Thank you.

desired effect, temporarily. However, there is no "patch Tuesday" or
"zero day" hotfixes for Win9x and these will contain vulnerabilities IN
THE OSs designed, for which updates will be received, Win9X won't.
These are for the interface to the Internet, the browser, waving in the
breeze...

Just as the last posted suggested junk from 98 Guy was patched in a
week or so, and is NOT part of a normal Win9X installation {MS XML4}, so
rather obviously they introduce vulnerabilities that wouldn't be there


They certainly have the potential to do so, though whether they actually
do so hasn't been tested either.

to start with. NO ONE tests these for 9X vulnerabilities and they DO
introduce new vulnerabilities into the OSs intended; nor even for
compatibility beyond they install...


They are more likely to, yes.

On the other hand, if you want to *manual* check every day to see if
Microsoft has offered any security or file fixes, AND check for whether
they work in 9X, AND are willing to be a "guinea pig" for any new and
COMPLETELY UNKNOWN 9X vulnerabilities, then sure, install; just don't
expect anyone to be able to help fix your system and don't expect your
software will be compatible... including any malware protection.


Equally, if you don't ever install any of these patches, you will not
suffer from any of the new potential vulnerabilities, but you will also
never experience any of the (equally "potential") benefits, either.

Somewhere along the line since EOL, these people lost track of what
they hoped to accomplish, keeping 9X alive... that requires someone
actually test and NOT JUST FOR INSTALLATION, and creation of NEW
browsers and malware programs...

As I've said before, they can choose to preserve in aspic their 98
system as it was at the instant of EOL, or they can choose to take
potential risks for potential benefits. It's their choice. If they
choose the latter, they can be reassured to whatever extent they trust
98g, and worried to whatever extent they believe you.


So you intend to claim the benefit of installation, verses say, a
different application providing BETTER support for new formats...

The cost is???? that to use these DOES AND WILL CONTINUE to place these
parties doing so in the position of NO knowledge of what present
vulnerabilities they have and NO way to protect themselves from them.
The *TESTS* come from the fact that these supposed installable files
WILL be updated by Microsoft *for the supported OSs* and Win9X will not
receive them, nor will any fixes be designed to correct vulnerabilities
within 9X created by their installation.

If MSFN and those doing the same want to "keep Win98 alive" then work
on the well defined vulnerabilities at EOL and correct those. These are
supposed coders and programmers,,,

So it appears this is just more of an attempt to waste some more time
while resting on OLD laurels...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #26  
Old December 16th 09, 06:43 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On 12/15/2009 04:56 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
writes:
On 12/11/2009 03:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[98Guy's putative enhancements/updates/whatever]
Does this set of fixes actually ADD to the vulnerabilities of a system,
or just CHANGE it - i. e. could it be that it introduces some new ones
but closes some (while also adding other things, such as a DirectX and a
web fonts update)?

[]
Good questions. If it were the OSs designed for it might fulfill the


Thank you.

desired effect, temporarily. However, there is no "patch Tuesday" or
"zero day" hotfixes for Win9x and these will contain vulnerabilities IN
THE OSs designed, for which updates will be received, Win9X won't.
These are for the interface to the Internet, the browser, waving in the
breeze...

Just as the last posted suggested junk from 98 Guy was patched in a
week or so, and is NOT part of a normal Win9X installation {MS XML4}, so
rather obviously they introduce vulnerabilities that wouldn't be there


They certainly have the potential to do so, though whether they actually
do so hasn't been tested either.

to start with. NO ONE tests these for 9X vulnerabilities and they DO
introduce new vulnerabilities into the OSs intended; nor even for
compatibility beyond they install...


They are more likely to, yes.

On the other hand, if you want to *manual* check every day to see if
Microsoft has offered any security or file fixes, AND check for whether
they work in 9X, AND are willing to be a "guinea pig" for any new and
COMPLETELY UNKNOWN 9X vulnerabilities, then sure, install; just don't
expect anyone to be able to help fix your system and don't expect your
software will be compatible... including any malware protection.


Equally, if you don't ever install any of these patches, you will not
suffer from any of the new potential vulnerabilities, but you will also
never experience any of the (equally "potential") benefits, either.

Somewhere along the line since EOL, these people lost track of what
they hoped to accomplish, keeping 9X alive... that requires someone
actually test and NOT JUST FOR INSTALLATION, and creation of NEW
browsers and malware programs...

As I've said before, they can choose to preserve in aspic their 98
system as it was at the instant of EOL, or they can choose to take
potential risks for potential benefits. It's their choice. If they
choose the latter, they can be reassured to whatever extent they trust
98g, and worried to whatever extent they believe you.


So you intend to claim the benefit of installation, verses say, a
different application providing BETTER support for new formats...

The cost is???? that to use these DOES AND WILL CONTINUE to place these
parties doing so in the position of NO knowledge of what present
vulnerabilities they have and NO way to protect themselves from them.
The *TESTS* come from the fact that these supposed installable files
WILL be updated by Microsoft *for the supported OSs* and Win9X will not
receive them, nor will any fixes be designed to correct vulnerabilities
within 9X created by their installation.

If MSFN and those doing the same want to "keep Win98 alive" then work
on the well defined vulnerabilities at EOL and correct those. These are
supposed coders and programmers,,,

So it appears this is just more of an attempt to waste some more time
while resting on OLD laurels...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #27  
Old December 16th 09, 06:57 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On 12/16/2009 12:09 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
"N. Miller" wrote:

So - he's being a dork about this too?


Perhaps. OTOH, I wouldn't mix different Windows version system
files, unless it was tested, and recommended, by Microsoft.


I don't know how much you've been following issues relating to IE (IE6)
after the official end of support for win-98 (which happened in July
2006).

The fact is that after July 2006, there has been no such files, testing,
or recommendations by Microsoft for anything relating to win-98. This
was not a surprise - or unexpected.

IE6 files are not (technically speaking) system files. Files relating
to IE can be stripped out of win-98 (perhaps more easily for win-95).

It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that Microsoft
released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly usable on win-98
because they both use the exact same version (IE6-Sp1). By intention,
Microsoft has never allowed win-2K to be compatible with IE6-SP2 (the
version of IE6 that came with XP-SP2). The binary files for that
version are somewhat different and are not compatible with win-9x.

So, to re-cap:

1) The end of official support of any kind for Win-98 in July 2006
marked the point at which Microsoft would no long make any comment or
statement about win-98 in any of it's advisories or bulletins, and for
which Microsoft would no longer identify any new patch or update file as
being compatible (or incompatible) with win-98.

2) The lack of mention of win-98 in any patch or update file released
for the past 3 years DOES NOT MEAN that the file won't work or is not
compatible with win-98. Practically speaking, this is notable mostly
when we are speaking about patch files released for Windows 2000.

3) Simple file-substitution of new win-2K patch files onto a win-98
system is enough to determine if win-98 is compatible with the files.
If the win-98 system is usable an can perform all operations as expected
with the new files, then that is generally enough of a test to determine
compatibility. No harm can really be done to a system that does not
function as intended during this test, and the original files can be
easily replaced.

4) A respectible-sized user base of win-98 systems with these file
substitutions can be found at msfn.org. These users pay close attention
to the workings and performance of their win-98 systems, and any hint of
file incompatibility are discussed at length. There is a very good
consensus that the various IE6 updates that have been been made for
win-2K over the past 3 years function well on win-98.



AND the whole moronic idea by these purported supporters of this
activity is that you just *IGNORE* that prior files were NOT created the
same. Look within the original files during 9X support period and note
the various internal patching AND/OR DISTINCT 2K or 9X files in some of
the files PER OS and directed via the setup. *THAT* is what was once
done by Microsoft to make sure of compatibility AND THAT IT ADDRESSED
THE VULNERABILITIES within the *INTENDED* OSs.

The supposed respectable user base are users who think those creating
the modified files *DO* check for vulnerabilities and are generally as
ignorant as 98 Guy. ALL these supposed modifiers now do is make an
installer from the NT BASED files and are ONLY concerned with that
installation. As for supposed user testing, think of 98 Guy and all this
party DOESN'T know and understand...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #28  
Old December 16th 09, 06:57 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
MEB[_17_]
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 1,830
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On 12/16/2009 12:09 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
"N. Miller" wrote:

So - he's being a dork about this too?


Perhaps. OTOH, I wouldn't mix different Windows version system
files, unless it was tested, and recommended, by Microsoft.


I don't know how much you've been following issues relating to IE (IE6)
after the official end of support for win-98 (which happened in July
2006).

The fact is that after July 2006, there has been no such files, testing,
or recommendations by Microsoft for anything relating to win-98. This
was not a surprise - or unexpected.

IE6 files are not (technically speaking) system files. Files relating
to IE can be stripped out of win-98 (perhaps more easily for win-95).

It was speculated back in 2006 that most IE6 patches that Microsoft
released for Win-2K would be easily and seamlessly usable on win-98
because they both use the exact same version (IE6-Sp1). By intention,
Microsoft has never allowed win-2K to be compatible with IE6-SP2 (the
version of IE6 that came with XP-SP2). The binary files for that
version are somewhat different and are not compatible with win-9x.

So, to re-cap:

1) The end of official support of any kind for Win-98 in July 2006
marked the point at which Microsoft would no long make any comment or
statement about win-98 in any of it's advisories or bulletins, and for
which Microsoft would no longer identify any new patch or update file as
being compatible (or incompatible) with win-98.

2) The lack of mention of win-98 in any patch or update file released
for the past 3 years DOES NOT MEAN that the file won't work or is not
compatible with win-98. Practically speaking, this is notable mostly
when we are speaking about patch files released for Windows 2000.

3) Simple file-substitution of new win-2K patch files onto a win-98
system is enough to determine if win-98 is compatible with the files.
If the win-98 system is usable an can perform all operations as expected
with the new files, then that is generally enough of a test to determine
compatibility. No harm can really be done to a system that does not
function as intended during this test, and the original files can be
easily replaced.

4) A respectible-sized user base of win-98 systems with these file
substitutions can be found at msfn.org. These users pay close attention
to the workings and performance of their win-98 systems, and any hint of
file incompatibility are discussed at length. There is a very good
consensus that the various IE6 updates that have been been made for
win-2K over the past 3 years function well on win-98.



AND the whole moronic idea by these purported supporters of this
activity is that you just *IGNORE* that prior files were NOT created the
same. Look within the original files during 9X support period and note
the various internal patching AND/OR DISTINCT 2K or 9X files in some of
the files PER OS and directed via the setup. *THAT* is what was once
done by Microsoft to make sure of compatibility AND THAT IT ADDRESSED
THE VULNERABILITIES within the *INTENDED* OSs.

The supposed respectable user base are users who think those creating
the modified files *DO* check for vulnerabilities and are generally as
ignorant as 98 Guy. ALL these supposed modifiers now do is make an
installer from the NT BASED files and are ONLY concerned with that
installation. As for supposed user testing, think of 98 Guy and all this
party DOESN'T know and understand...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
  #29  
Old December 16th 09, 03:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

Full-Quoter MEB wrote:

So you intend to claim the benefit of installation, verses say, a
different application providing BETTER support for new formats...


What the hell does that mean?

What do you mean by a "different application"?

If you're trying to ask why someone wouldn't use a different browser
(Firefox, etc) instead of IE6, then why not just say that?

Why are you always obtuse and vague in your use of language?

The reason why you'd want to update these IE6 files is because they ARE
hooked into by the operating system and using another browser is no
garantee that those files will not be called upon for one task or
another.

The cost is???? that to use these DOES AND WILL CONTINUE to
place these parties doing so in the position of NO knowledge
of what present vulnerabilities they have and NO way to
protect themselves from them.


Why are you stating that the use of these patch files *will* confer
vulnerabilities to win-98?

How can you make such a claim?

Give an example (by CVE or some other identifier) of a vulnerability
that will result if these IE6 files are patched into a win-98 system.

The *TESTS* come from the fact that these supposed installable
files WILL be updated by Microsoft *for the supported OSs*
and Win9X will not receive them,


Nothing you just said in that statement makes any sense.

"these supposed installable files WILL be updated by Microsoft"

It's not that they "will" be updated. They *ARE* being updated. What
is the significance of that?

" *for the supported OSs* and Win9X will not receive them"

Microsoft states the applicability for those files. Win-9x WILL receive
them if the user gives them to it.

Microsoft will not place them in the list of files it serves for win-98
updates on the windowsupdate server because it has closed all new
submissions 3 years ago.

Microsoft's silience on ALL THINGS RELATING TO WIN-98 does not equate to
a blanket statement that no files it releases for win-2K might be
operable on win-98.

You continue to ignore the fact that Microsoft's complete silence about
win-98 does not mean that some patch files it has released in the past 3
years are perfectly compatible with it. We expect Microsoft not to tell
us this even when it's true, because their own support policy forbids
it.

nor will any fixes be designed to correct vulnerabilities
within 9X created by their installation.


That is the largest flaw in your argument, for which you will not
address here in public.

Any vulnerability that *might* be caused by a peculiar interaction
between win-98 and these files would presumably be a unique
vulnerability that would not exist on win-2K. You propose that such a
vulnerability would leave win-98 users exposed to a problem that
Microsoft would never create a patch for, because the vulnerability
would not exist under win-2K.

The flaw in that argument is that any such hypothetical vulnerability
would be extremely unlikely to ever be detected, because it would
require that professional analysts, hobbyists or hackers would be
examining the combination of win-98 with installed patches from win-2k
looking for it.

Given that current win-9x usage on the internet is estimated to be 0.1%
(1 out of every 1000 computers in current use) it's highly unlikely that
people are examining standard installations of win-98 for new
vulnerabilities, let alone non-standard installations.

A vulnerability that is never discovered by anyone can never become a
threat.

If MSFN and those doing the same want to "keep Win98 alive"
then work on the well defined vulnerabilities at EOL and
correct those.


How do you know that these "well defined" vulnerabilities are not
corrected by the use of win-2k patch files?

And note that Microsoft has never admitted to the existance of any
vulnerabilities that win-9x has or had at EOL because microsoft became
silent to all things pertaining to win-98 at EOL.

And even before EOL, Microsoft made vague references to win-98 in their
advisory bullitens to make it appear that the bullitens applied to
win-98 - when in fact they did not.
  #30  
Old December 16th 09, 03:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser,alt.windows98
98 Guy
External Usenet User
 
Posts: 2,951
Default Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

Full-Quoter MEB wrote:

So you intend to claim the benefit of installation, verses say, a
different application providing BETTER support for new formats...


What the hell does that mean?

What do you mean by a "different application"?

If you're trying to ask why someone wouldn't use a different browser
(Firefox, etc) instead of IE6, then why not just say that?

Why are you always obtuse and vague in your use of language?

The reason why you'd want to update these IE6 files is because they ARE
hooked into by the operating system and using another browser is no
garantee that those files will not be called upon for one task or
another.

The cost is???? that to use these DOES AND WILL CONTINUE to
place these parties doing so in the position of NO knowledge
of what present vulnerabilities they have and NO way to
protect themselves from them.


Why are you stating that the use of these patch files *will* confer
vulnerabilities to win-98?

How can you make such a claim?

Give an example (by CVE or some other identifier) of a vulnerability
that will result if these IE6 files are patched into a win-98 system.

The *TESTS* come from the fact that these supposed installable
files WILL be updated by Microsoft *for the supported OSs*
and Win9X will not receive them,


Nothing you just said in that statement makes any sense.

"these supposed installable files WILL be updated by Microsoft"

It's not that they "will" be updated. They *ARE* being updated. What
is the significance of that?

" *for the supported OSs* and Win9X will not receive them"

Microsoft states the applicability for those files. Win-9x WILL receive
them if the user gives them to it.

Microsoft will not place them in the list of files it serves for win-98
updates on the windowsupdate server because it has closed all new
submissions 3 years ago.

Microsoft's silience on ALL THINGS RELATING TO WIN-98 does not equate to
a blanket statement that no files it releases for win-2K might be
operable on win-98.

You continue to ignore the fact that Microsoft's complete silence about
win-98 does not mean that some patch files it has released in the past 3
years are perfectly compatible with it. We expect Microsoft not to tell
us this even when it's true, because their own support policy forbids
it.

nor will any fixes be designed to correct vulnerabilities
within 9X created by their installation.


That is the largest flaw in your argument, for which you will not
address here in public.

Any vulnerability that *might* be caused by a peculiar interaction
between win-98 and these files would presumably be a unique
vulnerability that would not exist on win-2K. You propose that such a
vulnerability would leave win-98 users exposed to a problem that
Microsoft would never create a patch for, because the vulnerability
would not exist under win-2K.

The flaw in that argument is that any such hypothetical vulnerability
would be extremely unlikely to ever be detected, because it would
require that professional analysts, hobbyists or hackers would be
examining the combination of win-98 with installed patches from win-2k
looking for it.

Given that current win-9x usage on the internet is estimated to be 0.1%
(1 out of every 1000 computers in current use) it's highly unlikely that
people are examining standard installations of win-98 for new
vulnerabilities, let alone non-standard installations.

A vulnerability that is never discovered by anyone can never become a
threat.

If MSFN and those doing the same want to "keep Win98 alive"
then work on the well defined vulnerabilities at EOL and
correct those.


How do you know that these "well defined" vulnerabilities are not
corrected by the use of win-2k patch files?

And note that Microsoft has never admitted to the existance of any
vulnerabilities that win-9x has or had at EOL because microsoft became
silent to all things pertaining to win-98 at EOL.

And even before EOL, Microsoft made vague references to win-98 in their
advisory bullitens to make it appear that the bullitens applied to
win-98 - when in fact they did not.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Internet Connection Wizard Component Missing Darlene Internet 6 October 2nd 04 03:27 PM
internet explorer update from windows Maurice Internet 2 August 12th 04 02:24 PM
Windows Update: Enternet Explorer and Internet Tools Mordido General 1 June 11th 04 06:05 AM
Windows Update: Enternet Explorer and Internet Tools Mordido Setup & Installation 0 June 10th 04 11:37 PM
Windows Update: Enternet Explorer and Internet Tools Mordido Setup & Installation 0 June 10th 04 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.