On 12/16/2009 09:28 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
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.

HAHAHAHAHA, so now you ADMIT that these are part of system activities
rather than your other post's comments... SINCE THEY ARE and do affect
the working within the OS, then the vulnerabilities included within the
files DO affect the other programs AS WELL AS ANY MALWARE PROTECTIONS.


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.

Because you have EVERY PRIOR VULNERABILITY AND FIX listed at CERT as
well as the present ones either now or will in the future.


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.

THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR THE SUPPORTED OSs *ONLY*. There is no need now,
for Microsoft to include any code specific to Win9X activities and its
OS workings in any NEW fixes since 2006, which it did PRIOR to EOL.

That you idiots can't figure that out is telling of your mental facilities.


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.

That's the stupidest argument you've made yet. A vulnerability exist
when someone OUTSIDE the malware writer/hacker community *discovers* it.
OTHERWISE, it *remains* an unknown attack vector to the public.

In Win9X, there aren't a sufficient number of QUALIFIED coders and
programmers looking for any NEW vulnerabilities produced BY THESE
non-standard installations, because NO ONE in the protection community
is looking.


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.

Many did when applied in a specific fashion, others were included
because IE6 was never properly ported for Win9X usage in the first place
and Microsoft was unsure since it was not really interested in Win9X in
the years leading up to EOL. If it were, it would have corrected the
large file manipulation issues and other BROKEN or vulnerable aspects in
the Win9X OS. Microsoft DIDN'T; that should spell it out rather clearly
to even the most dense on the planet.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---