"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

98Guy posts some references to files, which he says
(without proof) may add some functionality and may
patch some vulnerabilities;

Microsoft is the source of those files. Microsoft claims they fix some
issues with win-2k. Microsoft gives no proof or explanation how they
tested those files, nor can they garantee that they don't contain new
vulnerabilities to be discovered in the future.

There can be no doubt that these files ARE NOT malicious or malware or
contain viruses or trojans. The can be downloaded directly from
Microsoft. These files represent the safest way to enhance and update
win-98.

It's a fact that in the past there have been many files that are common
between win-9x and NT. It is no surprise that many IE6 files remain
compatible between 9x and NT, even these new files.

Of course Microsoft will not say that these files apply to win-9x. Once
the support period for Win-9x ended back in July 2006, Microsoft's
policy is that they simply do not mention win-9x any more for any
reason.

People like MEB that claim that these files are not compatible with
win-9x because Microsoft would have said so if they were. That argument
is retarded because Microsoft stopped saying ANYTHING about win-9x three
years ago. MEB will not address or respond to this simple point of
logic.

post a warning that these have not been tested to military
standards and may introduce new vulnerabilities (also without
proof).

Every patch that Microsoft offers for any OS may introduce new
vulnerabilities. I've asked MEB why he doesn't ask Microsoft to post
evidence that it's tested it's own patches - MEB doesn't respond to that
question either.

If you follow MEB's logic, then even someone with XP shouldn't install
Microsoft's own patches and updates because they could introduce new
vulnerabilities - even if those patches fix certain known
vulnerabilities today. What kind of cracked logic is that?

These hypothetical people have to decide which of you to believe.

Why would anyone believe a blow-hard like MEB? He claims to have all
this background and experience with testing, yet he doesn't lift a
finger to test these files according to his own criteria.

You'd think he would jump at the opportunity to test these files, FIND A
REAL PROBLEM WITH THEM, and then come back here and post his results
along with "I told you so".

We can only conclude the following: Either MEB has tested these files,
found nothing wrong, and kept his results to himself (he doesn't want to
admit that someone else was right about these files) - or - he
doesn't have this testing background that he claims, he has no idea how
to perform these tests, or his understanding of why these files should
work under win-9x is completely faulty.

There is no other rational explanation as to why MEB constantly
criticizes and warns against updating win-9x this way, while posting
nothing to indicate he's done his own investigation to support his own
claims.

BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE... 9X is EOL. It ended support life
with a finite set of vulnerabilities,

As of July 2006, Win-2K also had some vulnerabilities linked to IE6 that
were discovered over time. Those vulnerabilities were addressed with
patches and updates, and many of those same patch files can be applied
to win-98 with no loss of stability or functionality.

It is not generally known if win-9x systems would have been vulnerable
in the same way as 2K systems if those patches are not applied. MEB
makes the assumption that exploit code designed to operate on win-2K
will also operate on win-9x systems - an assumption that largely does
not hold true.

But these win-9x systems continue to operate just fine with these files
(and believe me, the people in the win-9x forums at msfn.org have many
person-years of experience with these files and they would post
observations of problems if they encountered them).

change those and you have NO idea what you do have.

Another frequent comment from MEB that is just totally bogus.

His logic is that even if these files allow win-9x to function normally
and without error, they may not really fix the vulnerability they were
intended to fix, and they may introduce a new vulnerability that remains
to be discovered in the future.

The fact is that you can ALWAYS say that about ANY NEW FILES from
microsoft for any supported operating system. It can always be said
that a new file from microsoft does not properly or completely fix a
problem, or that it introduces a new vulnerability or problem that will
take time for someone to discover.

So - do you replace an existing win-98 file with a more recent file
released for win-2k if it does not cause operational problems for your
system? The upside is that you've probably just closed some
vulnerability on your system, or your system is now a little *more*
stable or more compatible with the internet. The downside is that this
may have fixed a known problem now, but created a new vulnerability down
the road. But that's PURE speculation.

MEB thinks it's better to not patch your system against a KNOWN
vulnerability now, because of the POTENTIAL to give it a new
vulnerability in the future. Tell me that's not cracked logic.

It's like saying it's better to not fix a broken arm now, because you
might break it again in the future.