Interesting comments on ZDNET about Windows 98 and KB891711

Here is the link

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5648595.html


Roman

I think zdnet is wrong.

Microsoft Refutes Vulnerability of Patch
http://www.betanews.com/article/Micr...tch/1112311266
Microsoft also stated that reports claiming the patch does not protect users
are factually incorrect.
--
mae

"roman modic" wrote in message
...
| Here is the link
|
| http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5648595.html
|
|
| Roman
|
|

I went to the site via the link you provided. The source information is a
weblink. This weblink takes me back to what I"ve already read here. I just
get the retake of what's already been discussed here, that is, the posts
already made here in this newsgroup via MSTECH.
The lack of protection statement made by your link is not supported by any
information that I've read.

What's your point? Or, do you have one?

"roman modic" wrote in message
...
Here is the link

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5648595.html


Roman

Hi

"Lil' Dave" wrote in message
...
I went to the site via the link you provided. The source information is a
weblink. This weblink takes me back to what I"ve already read here. I
just
get the retake of what's already been discussed here, that is, the posts
already made here in this newsgroup via MSTECH.
The lack of protection statement made by your link is not supported by any
information that I've read.

What's your point? Or, do you have one?

Well, you are absolutely correct, the article itself is nothing new.
What I meant by "interesting comments" in subject
were comments/messages in "talkback" below the article.

Roman



"roman modic" wrote in message
...
Here is the link

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5648595.html


Roman

In ,
roman modic had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

Hi

"Lil' Dave" wrote in message
...
I went to the site via the link you provided. The source
information is a weblink. This weblink takes me back to what I"ve
already read here. I just
get the retake of what's already been discussed here, that is, the
posts already made here in this newsgroup via MSTECH.
The lack of protection statement made by your link is not supported
by any information that I've read.

What's your point? Or, do you have one?

Well, you are absolutely correct, the article itself is nothing new.
What I meant by "interesting comments" in subject
were comments/messages in "talkback" below the article.

Roman

True. You did say "interesting" and didn't say "valid" or "correct." The
comments are interesting but people seem to write with emotions instead of
thinking at times.

I have to wonder at the logic behind the people who think that using an
alternative browser will help in this matter. The flaw is in the way it's
rendered and anything that can render HTML is vulnerable if I understand it
correctly.

Anyhow, this is sure to go on for a while. I'm reminded of the folks talking
over their fences to one another about the latest news story. While on the
subject of interesting I thought that you might find this up your alley so I
thought I'd sha

http://www.securitypipeline.com/159904465

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.