Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

On 12/18/2009 01:08 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Peter Foldes top-poasted and full-quoted:

Meb

Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread
to sleep. Only my opinion

Hello Peter. Don't see you here very often. What's the occasion?

Care to share your opinions with us?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how mysterious vulnerabilities can form
from the unlikely yet functional combination of win-2K IE6 patch files
used on a win-98 system.

And even more - how those vulnerabilities would even become discovered
and leveraged against it.

The depths of irrationality, fear and dread as expressed by a few here
are astounding.

Files developed and released by none other than Microsoft itself,
designed to address KNOWN vulnerabilities in IE6, files known to
function with no apparent incompatibility with Win-98, are feared and
demonized as possibly, no - actually conveying as of yet unknown,
unidentified, uncataloged vulnerabilities uniquely to the win-98
platform for which will never be discovered except by those ever
industrious hackers who are renoun for making their own discoveries of
arcane system vulnerabilities.

Since fiction is the topic this evening, what are you and MEB getting
from Santa this Christmas?

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X, now what part of they
aren't designed for 9X are you friggin missing... Hey, how about we put
some C code from Linux in Windows, think it will work... it makes as
much of an argument as this stupidity you continue to spout...

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

On 12/18/2009 01:08 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Peter Foldes top-poasted and full-quoted:

Meb

Really not worth arguing with ignorance. Best to put this thread
to sleep. Only my opinion

Hello Peter. Don't see you here very often. What's the occasion?

Care to share your opinions with us?

Perhaps you'd like to explain how mysterious vulnerabilities can form
from the unlikely yet functional combination of win-2K IE6 patch files
used on a win-98 system.

And even more - how those vulnerabilities would even become discovered
and leveraged against it.

The depths of irrationality, fear and dread as expressed by a few here
are astounding.

Files developed and released by none other than Microsoft itself,
designed to address KNOWN vulnerabilities in IE6, files known to
function with no apparent incompatibility with Win-98, are feared and
demonized as possibly, no - actually conveying as of yet unknown,
unidentified, uncataloged vulnerabilities uniquely to the win-98
platform for which will never be discovered except by those ever
industrious hackers who are renoun for making their own discoveries of
arcane system vulnerabilities.

Since fiction is the topic this evening, what are you and MEB getting
from Santa this Christmas?

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X, now what part of they
aren't designed for 9X are you friggin missing... Hey, how about we put
some C code from Linux in Windows, think it will work... it makes as
much of an argument as this stupidity you continue to spout...

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

Full-quoter MEB wrote:

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.

Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

Full-quoter MEB wrote:

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.

Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

On 12/18/2009 08:48 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Full-quoter MEB wrote:

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

You really have no brain do you...

They were created for NT, and tada, so was IE6. DUUUUHHHHH.

NEITHER the browser [which literally BROKE Win9x] or the files during
support. where actually designed for 9X, HOWEVER, during support for 9X
Microsoft had to at minimum, make sure they caused no compatibility
issues [beyond the originals anyway] AND worked to plug the
vulnerabilities SPECIFIC to 9X. *NOW* Microsoft does none of this. MSFN
and other others {including Maximus Decium} DO NONE OF THIS.
NO AV/MALWARE providers test or create their programs to work with
these AND provide protections for ANY NEW VULNERABILITIES these would
create *in 9X*.


now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.


YES, I can specifically state they are not created for or designed for
ANYTHING but EXACTLY what Microsoft provided them for, AND ONLY FOR
THOSE OSs. IN FACT, they are *only* for the *Service Pack levels* AS
DESIGNED FOR AND DEFINED by Microsoft. To function FULLY AND PROPERLY
requires EXACTLY what Microsoft designed them for.

Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

WRONG, I have a web page devoted to EXACTLY THE FACT, that IE6 was
never properly ported to Win9X. IN FACT, it was the first crap Microsoft
produced which FORCED XP code into the 9X environment; WHICH BROKE many
functions within 9X AND CAUSED massive incompatibilities within
applications developed for the TRUE 9X OS, AND cause internal system
breakage. THIS GROUP and other support for Win9X were over-filled with
complaints and pleadings from hundreds of thousands of user ATTEMPTING
to fix incompatibilities and broken aspects with Win9X.
The continued "shoe horning" of this NT code into 9X literally FORCED,
several times, application programmers to re-develop their code *during
the 9X support period*. NO PROGRAMMERS will be doing that now.

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

The last four (4) or so years of supposed 9X support were almost
entirely NOT for the OS, but for the crap IE6 browser stuffed into 9X,
not EVEN to fix the broken 9X environment produced by the installation
of the browser. The OS changes were to MINIMALLY correct the most
blatant and critically broken aspects caused by IE6 installation into Win9X.
Were it a COMPLETELY and *separate* browsing environment, then what you
and your like are TRYING to foster MIGHT be viable, however, it isn't.
IE6 replaced essential system files with crap from XP AND OTHER NTs NOT
DESIGNED FOR 9X but STRICTLY an NT based OS environment for full and
proper functioning. IE6 REQUIRED Microsoft do this to 9X JUST TO GET IE6
TO INSTALL and *partially function*.


Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

They do nothing of the sort... to function PROPERLY AND FULLY *requires
EXACTLY* what Microsoft designed them for, PERIOD.
Installing these files NOW will produce more issues and vulnerabilities
into an OS environment they are NOT designed for, SPECIFICALLY the 9X OS.

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

On 12/18/2009 08:48 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Full-quoter MEB wrote:

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

You really have no brain do you...

They were created for NT, and tada, so was IE6. DUUUUHHHHH.

NEITHER the browser [which literally BROKE Win9x] or the files during
support. where actually designed for 9X, HOWEVER, during support for 9X
Microsoft had to at minimum, make sure they caused no compatibility
issues [beyond the originals anyway] AND worked to plug the
vulnerabilities SPECIFIC to 9X. *NOW* Microsoft does none of this. MSFN
and other others {including Maximus Decium} DO NONE OF THIS.
NO AV/MALWARE providers test or create their programs to work with
these AND provide protections for ANY NEW VULNERABILITIES these would
create *in 9X*.


now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.


YES, I can specifically state they are not created for or designed for
ANYTHING but EXACTLY what Microsoft provided them for, AND ONLY FOR
THOSE OSs. IN FACT, they are *only* for the *Service Pack levels* AS
DESIGNED FOR AND DEFINED by Microsoft. To function FULLY AND PROPERLY
requires EXACTLY what Microsoft designed them for.

Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

WRONG, I have a web page devoted to EXACTLY THE FACT, that IE6 was
never properly ported to Win9X. IN FACT, it was the first crap Microsoft
produced which FORCED XP code into the 9X environment; WHICH BROKE many
functions within 9X AND CAUSED massive incompatibilities within
applications developed for the TRUE 9X OS, AND cause internal system
breakage. THIS GROUP and other support for Win9X were over-filled with
complaints and pleadings from hundreds of thousands of user ATTEMPTING
to fix incompatibilities and broken aspects with Win9X.
The continued "shoe horning" of this NT code into 9X literally FORCED,
several times, application programmers to re-develop their code *during
the 9X support period*. NO PROGRAMMERS will be doing that now.

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

The last four (4) or so years of supposed 9X support were almost
entirely NOT for the OS, but for the crap IE6 browser stuffed into 9X,
not EVEN to fix the broken 9X environment produced by the installation
of the browser. The OS changes were to MINIMALLY correct the most
blatant and critically broken aspects caused by IE6 installation into Win9X.
Were it a COMPLETELY and *separate* browsing environment, then what you
and your like are TRYING to foster MIGHT be viable, however, it isn't.
IE6 replaced essential system files with crap from XP AND OTHER NTs NOT
DESIGNED FOR 9X but STRICTLY an NT based OS environment for full and
proper functioning. IE6 REQUIRED Microsoft do this to 9X JUST TO GET IE6
TO INSTALL and *partially function*.


Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

They do nothing of the sort... to function PROPERLY AND FULLY *requires
EXACTLY* what Microsoft designed them for, PERIOD.
Installing these files NOW will produce more issues and vulnerabilities
into an OS environment they are NOT designed for, SPECIFICALLY the 9X OS.

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

On 12/18/2009 12:54 PM, MEB wrote:
On 12/18/2009 08:48 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Full-quoter MEB wrote:

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

You really have no brain do you...

They were created for NT, and tada, so was IE6. DUUUUHHHHH.

NEITHER the browser [which literally BROKE Win9x] or the files during
support. where actually designed for 9X, HOWEVER, during support for 9X
Microsoft had to at minimum, make sure they caused no compatibility
issues [beyond the originals anyway] AND worked to plug the
vulnerabilities SPECIFIC to 9X. *NOW* Microsoft does none of this. MSFN
and other others {including Maximus Decium} DO NONE OF THIS.
NO AV/MALWARE providers test or create their programs to work with
these AND provide protections for ANY NEW VULNERABILITIES these would
create *in 9X*.


now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.


YES, I can specifically state they are not created for or designed for
ANYTHING but EXACTLY what Microsoft provided them for, AND ONLY FOR
THOSE OSs. IN FACT, they are *only* for the *Service Pack levels* AS
DESIGNED FOR AND DEFINED by Microsoft. To function FULLY AND PROPERLY
requires EXACTLY what Microsoft designed them for.

Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

WRONG, I have a web page devoted to EXACTLY THE FACT, that IE6 was
never properly ported to Win9X. IN FACT, it was the first crap Microsoft
produced which FORCED XP code into the 9X environment; WHICH BROKE many
functions within 9X AND CAUSED massive incompatibilities within
applications developed for the TRUE 9X OS, AND cause internal system
breakage. THIS GROUP and other support for Win9X were over-filled with
complaints and pleadings from hundreds of thousands of user ATTEMPTING
to fix incompatibilities and broken aspects with Win9X.
The continued "shoe horning" of this NT code into 9X literally FORCED,
several times, application programmers to re-develop their code *during
the 9X support period*. NO PROGRAMMERS will be doing that now.

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Dang it, I did it again, the proper and correct URL is:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm


The last four (4) or so years of supposed 9X support were almost
entirely NOT for the OS, but for the crap IE6 browser stuffed into 9X,
not EVEN to fix the broken 9X environment produced by the installation
of the browser. The OS changes were to MINIMALLY correct the most
blatant and critically broken aspects caused by IE6 installation into Win9X.
Were it a COMPLETELY and *separate* browsing environment, then what you
and your like are TRYING to foster MIGHT be viable, however, it isn't.
IE6 replaced essential system files with crap from XP AND OTHER NTs NOT
DESIGNED FOR 9X but STRICTLY an NT based OS environment for full and
proper functioning. IE6 REQUIRED Microsoft do this to 9X JUST TO GET IE6
TO INSTALL and *partially function*.


Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

They do nothing of the sort... to function PROPERLY AND FULLY *requires
EXACTLY* what Microsoft designed them for, PERIOD.
Installing these files NOW will produce more issues and vulnerabilities
into an OS environment they are NOT designed for, SPECIFICALLY the 9X OS.



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

On 12/18/2009 12:54 PM, MEB wrote:
On 12/18/2009 08:48 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Full-quoter MEB wrote:

HEY STUPID2. they were DESIGNED FOR NT,,, NOT 9X

And isin't it amazing that they function just fine on win-9x?

To the point where you have to suggest that they *might* cause some
imaginary vulnerability as the only weakness or caveat to their use?

And you totally disregard the significantly greater likelyhood that they
might *remove* one or several vulnerabilities as that was the purpose
they were created for in the first place.

You really have no brain do you...

They were created for NT, and tada, so was IE6. DUUUUHHHHH.

NEITHER the browser [which literally BROKE Win9x] or the files during
support. where actually designed for 9X, HOWEVER, during support for 9X
Microsoft had to at minimum, make sure they caused no compatibility
issues [beyond the originals anyway] AND worked to plug the
vulnerabilities SPECIFIC to 9X. *NOW* Microsoft does none of this. MSFN
and other others {including Maximus Decium} DO NONE OF THIS.
NO AV/MALWARE providers test or create their programs to work with
these AND provide protections for ANY NEW VULNERABILITIES these would
create *in 9X*.


now what part of they aren't designed for 9X are you friggin
missing...

You can only speculate that they are not FULLY OPERABLE AND COMPATIBLE
on win-9x because Microsoft will not announce that fact at this point in
time if it were true.

You can't claim that they were designed ONLY for win-2K's version of
IE6-SP1 since you are not a Microsoft programmer or employee so you have
no inside information. It could easily be the case that Microsoft need
not do anything differently when compiling these files for either
platform.


YES, I can specifically state they are not created for or designed for
ANYTHING but EXACTLY what Microsoft provided them for, AND ONLY FOR
THOSE OSs. IN FACT, they are *only* for the *Service Pack levels* AS
DESIGNED FOR AND DEFINED by Microsoft. To function FULLY AND PROPERLY
requires EXACTLY what Microsoft designed them for.

Hey, how about we put some C code from Linux in Windows,
think it will work...

Now you're making a distinction between code that works, and code that
conveys a vulnerability.

It's a known fact that these files work under win-9x - you've never
disputed that before.

WRONG, I have a web page devoted to EXACTLY THE FACT, that IE6 was
never properly ported to Win9X. IN FACT, it was the first crap Microsoft
produced which FORCED XP code into the 9X environment; WHICH BROKE many
functions within 9X AND CAUSED massive incompatibilities within
applications developed for the TRUE 9X OS, AND cause internal system
breakage. THIS GROUP and other support for Win9X were over-filled with
complaints and pleadings from hundreds of thousands of user ATTEMPTING
to fix incompatibilities and broken aspects with Win9X.
The continued "shoe horning" of this NT code into 9X literally FORCED,
several times, application programmers to re-develop their code *during
the 9X support period*. NO PROGRAMMERS will be doing that now.

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Dang it, I did it again, the proper and correct URL is:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm


The last four (4) or so years of supposed 9X support were almost
entirely NOT for the OS, but for the crap IE6 browser stuffed into 9X,
not EVEN to fix the broken 9X environment produced by the installation
of the browser. The OS changes were to MINIMALLY correct the most
blatant and critically broken aspects caused by IE6 installation into Win9X.
Were it a COMPLETELY and *separate* browsing environment, then what you
and your like are TRYING to foster MIGHT be viable, however, it isn't.
IE6 replaced essential system files with crap from XP AND OTHER NTs NOT
DESIGNED FOR 9X but STRICTLY an NT based OS environment for full and
proper functioning. IE6 REQUIRED Microsoft do this to 9X JUST TO GET IE6
TO INSTALL and *partially function*.


Given the fundamental differences between NT/2K and 9X in SOME aspects
of their construction, these files illustrate how IE6-SP1 is very
similar as executed on both platforms.

They do nothing of the sort... to function PROPERLY AND FULLY *requires
EXACTLY* what Microsoft designed them for, PERIOD.
Installing these files NOW will produce more issues and vulnerabilities
into an OS environment they are NOT designed for, SPECIFICALLY the 9X OS.



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

MEB wrote:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.

MEB wrote:

http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/gen/ie_XPfiles_errors.htm

Your believe that Win-98 is fatally flawed when IE6 is installed into
it, because you believe that IE6 was never properly "ported" to windows
98.

That is the underlying reason why you believe these IE6 win-2k patches
either are not fully compatible with win-98 or can mysteriously result
in new vulnerabilities.

You cite the above-mentioned output from dependency walker as proof.

What you don't understand is that when one installs IE7 on Win XP,
dependency walker finds the same types of unsatisfied dependencies,
because IE7 was created to run both on XP and on Vista. And since both
are NT-Family OSes, your central argument is therefore flawed. All
these missing dependencies just show that dependency walker is not a
very bright piece of software. It was created before these types of
dual-use files even existed and it knows nothing about them - and hence
it yields false positives.

You partially realize this, because you claim that not even win-2k was
made properly compatible with IE6, because those same dependency walker
false positives also turn up on that platform as well. But therein lies
the answer - that these files ARE dual use, on both Win-98 and 2K
platforms, and that dependency walker is incapable of recognizing that
it should not be reporting platform-dependent unsatisfied dependencies.