Internet Explorer 6.0 Sp1 Component Update 3.0 for Windows 98

In message , N. Miller
writes:
[]
Tell my mother, my aunt, my cousin, and his wife, that their boxes are being
used for "trivial" stuff! I have a friend who expects things to work safely,
and I could not recommend to him something not warranted to be safe.

Such as an EOL-state 98 ... (-:
[]
If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't
still be using windows-98.

Some people can't afford to upgrade right away when things die.

(By "die", do you mean "reach EOL"?)

And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS
a form of support.

Not really. Unless you consider self-support as a form of "support".

And it's not like it's not a reversable process. You can try those
files, and if you don't like them - you can go back to what you had.

Well, you probably might need to reinstall from scratch, or restore an
earlier image, if you wind up 'pwnd' by malware because of introduced
vulnerabilities.

As opposed to being pwnd by malware because of known vulnerabilities?

So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply.

It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the
bilge on your own when things go wrong.

Why the anger and bitterness over this?

Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and
arrogant manner.

I think there's some pots and kettles going on here.

If things go wrong (which hasn't been detected by anyone yet) you simply
revert to the original files.

Is that remedy too complex for you to carry out?

Better to either not do it in the first place, or at least do it with open
eyes.

That is a matter of opinion - BOTH WAYS, i. e. neither approach is
unarguably wrong or unarguably right.
[]
And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific"
files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and
98.

It is still a *******ized OS at the end of the day.

Correct.
[]
So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these
files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of
as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities?

Yes.

Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.

I think you two are never going to agree; does it matter?
[]
Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will.
But be honest, and add a proper disclaimer; your files are
untested against Windows 98, and unsupported in Windows 98.

98G, it might be easier just to do that - it might stop the reflex
action of MEB and this alter ego of his, and you could still post
details of your patches.

They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure.

Or not.

The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.

But not impossible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from
drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of
course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running
modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.)

And you be honest.

Admit that anyone still running win-98 currently, 3.5 years after the
end of "official" support from Microsoft, needs to take extra steps,
perhaps extraordinary or unconventional steps, to insure their system is
compentent and secure when it comes to internet access, web browsing,
etc.

And you be honest. Admit that introducing new, unknown vulnerabilities by
playing "Mix'N'Match' with OS components is possible.

YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. Now can we please have our newsgroup back (-:?

Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Yes.

Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

No.

Why do you say that?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei

In message , N. Miller
writes:
[]
Tell my mother, my aunt, my cousin, and his wife, that their boxes are being
used for "trivial" stuff! I have a friend who expects things to work safely,
and I could not recommend to him something not warranted to be safe.

Such as an EOL-state 98 ... (-:
[]
If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't
still be using windows-98.

Some people can't afford to upgrade right away when things die.

(By "die", do you mean "reach EOL"?)

And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS
a form of support.

Not really. Unless you consider self-support as a form of "support".

And it's not like it's not a reversable process. You can try those
files, and if you don't like them - you can go back to what you had.

Well, you probably might need to reinstall from scratch, or restore an
earlier image, if you wind up 'pwnd' by malware because of introduced
vulnerabilities.

As opposed to being pwnd by malware because of known vulnerabilities?

So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply.

It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the
bilge on your own when things go wrong.

Why the anger and bitterness over this?

Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and
arrogant manner.

I think there's some pots and kettles going on here.

If things go wrong (which hasn't been detected by anyone yet) you simply
revert to the original files.

Is that remedy too complex for you to carry out?

Better to either not do it in the first place, or at least do it with open
eyes.

That is a matter of opinion - BOTH WAYS, i. e. neither approach is
unarguably wrong or unarguably right.
[]
And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific"
files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and
98.

It is still a *******ized OS at the end of the day.

Correct.
[]
So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these
files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of
as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities?

Yes.

Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.

I think you two are never going to agree; does it matter?
[]
Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will.
But be honest, and add a proper disclaimer; your files are
untested against Windows 98, and unsupported in Windows 98.

98G, it might be easier just to do that - it might stop the reflex
action of MEB and this alter ego of his, and you could still post
details of your patches.

They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure.

Or not.

The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.

But not impossible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from
drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of
course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running
modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.)

And you be honest.

Admit that anyone still running win-98 currently, 3.5 years after the
end of "official" support from Microsoft, needs to take extra steps,
perhaps extraordinary or unconventional steps, to insure their system is
compentent and secure when it comes to internet access, web browsing,
etc.

And you be honest. Admit that introducing new, unknown vulnerabilities by
playing "Mix'N'Match' with OS components is possible.

YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. Now can we please have our newsgroup back (-:?

Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Yes.

Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

No.

Why do you say that?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei

On 12/17/2009 05:59 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , N. Miller
writes:
[]
Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. But be honest,
and add
a proper disclaimer; your files are untested against Windows 98, and
unsupported in Windows 98. They may introduce more vulnerabilities
than they
cure. Use at your own risk.

But they may cure more than they introduce. Don't use them at your own
risk too (-:

Really? Then where are the test results to prove that point...
*IF* you followed the CERT histories and elsewhere, you would think
otherwise...


Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute.




--
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 12/17/2009 05:59 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , N. Miller
writes:
[]
Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will. But be honest,
and add
a proper disclaimer; your files are untested against Windows 98, and
unsupported in Windows 98. They may introduce more vulnerabilities
than they
cure. Use at your own risk.

But they may cure more than they introduce. Don't use them at your own
risk too (-:

Really? Then where are the test results to prove that point...
*IF* you followed the CERT histories and elsewhere, you would think
otherwise...


Excuse me, now, while I go check the 'chute.




--
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 12/17/2009 06:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , N. Miller
writes:
[]
Tell my mother, my aunt, my cousin, and his wife, that their boxes are
being
used for "trivial" stuff! I have a friend who expects things to work
safely,
and I could not recommend to him something not warranted to be safe.

Such as an EOL-state 98 ... (-:
[]
If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't
still be using windows-98.

Some people can't afford to upgrade right away when things die.

(By "die", do you mean "reach EOL"?)

And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS
a form of support.

Not really. Unless you consider self-support as a form of "support".

And it's not like it's not a reversable process. You can try those
files, and if you don't like them - you can go back to what you had.

Well, you probably might need to reinstall from scratch, or restore an
earlier image, if you wind up 'pwnd' by malware because of introduced
vulnerabilities.

As opposed to being pwnd by malware because of known vulnerabilities?

So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply.

It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the
bilge on your own when things go wrong.

Why the anger and bitterness over this?

Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and
arrogant manner.

I think there's some pots and kettles going on here.

If things go wrong (which hasn't been detected by anyone yet) you simply
revert to the original files.

Is that remedy too complex for you to carry out?

Better to either not do it in the first place, or at least do it with
open
eyes.

That is a matter of opinion - BOTH WAYS, i. e. neither approach is
unarguably wrong or unarguably right.
[]
And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific"
files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and
98.

It is still a *******ized OS at the end of the day.

Correct.
[]
So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these
files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of
as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities?

Yes.

Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.

I think you two are never going to agree; does it matter?
[]
Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will.
But be honest, and add a proper disclaimer; your files are
untested against Windows 98, and unsupported in Windows 98.

98G, it might be easier just to do that - it might stop the reflex
action of MEB and this alter ego of his, and you could still post
details of your patches.

You mention me, sooooooo....

Sorry you just don't get it yet, that's your personal problem which
only you can correct. I tolerate no attempts to place 9X users at a
security or legal risk in this group [win98.gen_discussion].

These 2K files ARE DESIGNED FOR 2K, an NT based OS, NOT for Win9X. ANY
fixes are directed towards vulnerabilities in native to THE NT OSs and
the browser IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.

In WIn9X, these are COMPLETELY FOREIGN files definitely bringing new
vulnerabilities.

The malware programmers DESIGNED their products around the EOL 9X. ANY
changes to base files, which these do, changes the ability of the
malware programs to provide adequate and *designed for* protection. The
evidence there is the FACT that most continued testing and actively
supporting EOL 9X at least for a year or so afterwards. Though many just
dropped support...
That means they and several of the malware testing services literally
designed their programs for what Win9X was at EOL in its standard state.

So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do] AND that malware applications CAN PROTECT against any
new vulnerabilities introduced.

They can not claim malware isn't affected, because malware protection
programmers would need to design their programs for the vastly
DIS-SIMILAR potential 9X modified installations one could be running...
they would need hundreds of SPECIFIC malware applications and thousands
[likely hundreds of thousands] of extra lines of code... AND would need
to modify it EVERY TIME one of these changed do to file changes [similar
to when Microsoft made drastic changes during support].


They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure.

Or not.

The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.

But not impossible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from
drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of
course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running
modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.)

And you be honest.

Admit that anyone still running win-98 currently, 3.5 years after the
end of "official" support from Microsoft, needs to take extra steps,
perhaps extraordinary or unconventional steps, to insure their system is
compentent and secure when it comes to internet access, web browsing,
etc.

And you be honest. Admit that introducing new, unknown vulnerabilities by
playing "Mix'N'Match' with OS components is possible.

YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. Now can we please have our newsgroup back (-:?

Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Yes.

Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

No.

Why do you say that?


--
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 12/17/2009 06:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , N. Miller
writes:
[]
Tell my mother, my aunt, my cousin, and his wife, that their boxes are
being
used for "trivial" stuff! I have a friend who expects things to work
safely,
and I could not recommend to him something not warranted to be safe.

Such as an EOL-state 98 ... (-:
[]
If you are so concerned about having a supported system, you wouldn't
still be using windows-98.

Some people can't afford to upgrade right away when things die.

(By "die", do you mean "reach EOL"?)

And in any case, obtaining and using newer versions of patched files IS
a form of support.

Not really. Unless you consider self-support as a form of "support".

And it's not like it's not a reversable process. You can try those
files, and if you don't like them - you can go back to what you had.

Well, you probably might need to reinstall from scratch, or restore an
earlier image, if you wind up 'pwnd' by malware because of introduced
vulnerabilities.

As opposed to being pwnd by malware because of known vulnerabilities?

So your hyperbolic analogy doesn't really apply.

It damned well does apply, unless you don't mind bailing out the
bilge on your own when things go wrong.

Why the anger and bitterness over this?

Because you are making certain, unwarranted assumptions in a haughty, and
arrogant manner.

I think there's some pots and kettles going on here.

If things go wrong (which hasn't been detected by anyone yet) you simply
revert to the original files.

Is that remedy too complex for you to carry out?

Better to either not do it in the first place, or at least do it with
open
eyes.

That is a matter of opinion - BOTH WAYS, i. e. neither approach is
unarguably wrong or unarguably right.
[]
And it's not necessarily the case that these are "Win-2k specific"
files. Other files have been exactly similar in the past between 2K and
98.

It is still a *******ized OS at the end of the day.

Correct.
[]
So you are now part of the strange crowd who thinks that by using these
files, they are replacing a set of known vulnerabilities with a set of
as of yet unknown, potential vulnerabilities?

Yes.

Isin't that a worthy bargain - even if true?

No.

I think you two are never going to agree; does it matter?
[]
Now, it is your computer, so do with it as you will.
But be honest, and add a proper disclaimer; your files are
untested against Windows 98, and unsupported in Windows 98.

98G, it might be easier just to do that - it might stop the reflex
action of MEB and this alter ego of his, and you could still post
details of your patches.

You mention me, sooooooo....

Sorry you just don't get it yet, that's your personal problem which
only you can correct. I tolerate no attempts to place 9X users at a
security or legal risk in this group [win98.gen_discussion].

These 2K files ARE DESIGNED FOR 2K, an NT based OS, NOT for Win9X. ANY
fixes are directed towards vulnerabilities in native to THE NT OSs and
the browser IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.

In WIn9X, these are COMPLETELY FOREIGN files definitely bringing new
vulnerabilities.

The malware programmers DESIGNED their products around the EOL 9X. ANY
changes to base files, which these do, changes the ability of the
malware programs to provide adequate and *designed for* protection. The
evidence there is the FACT that most continued testing and actively
supporting EOL 9X at least for a year or so afterwards. Though many just
dropped support...
That means they and several of the malware testing services literally
designed their programs for what Win9X was at EOL in its standard state.

So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do] AND that malware applications CAN PROTECT against any
new vulnerabilities introduced.

They can not claim malware isn't affected, because malware protection
programmers would need to design their programs for the vastly
DIS-SIMILAR potential 9X modified installations one could be running...
they would need hundreds of SPECIFIC malware applications and thousands
[likely hundreds of thousands] of extra lines of code... AND would need
to modify it EVERY TIME one of these changed do to file changes [similar
to when Microsoft made drastic changes during support].


They may introduce more vulnerabilities than they cure.

Or not.

The discovery and malicious use of which is highly unlikely.

But not impossible.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html

Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from
drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of
course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running
modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.)

And you be honest.

Admit that anyone still running win-98 currently, 3.5 years after the
end of "official" support from Microsoft, needs to take extra steps,
perhaps extraordinary or unconventional steps, to insure their system is
compentent and secure when it comes to internet access, web browsing,
etc.

And you be honest. Admit that introducing new, unknown vulnerabilities by
playing "Mix'N'Match' with OS components is possible.

YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT. Now can we please have our newsgroup back (-:?

Use at your own risk.

Isin't that true even for a standard win-98 system these days?

Yes.

Might it be even more true for a win-98 system that DOES NOT have these
patch files?

No.

Why do you say that?


--
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 in message
...
snip
So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do]

Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ?
(Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?)
You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it.

"MEB" wrote in message
...
snip
So NO argument for installation holds value UNLESS someone provides
tests that these do NOT produce new vulnerabilities [which they can't
because they do]

Are you going to provide "test results" to back up your claim ?
(Or is it just a guess, the same as you accuse others of doing?)
You make the claim that "they" produce new vulnerabilities, prove it.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:17:03 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from
drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of
course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running
modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.)

Yes. But it is akin to stealing sensitive information from one's PC,
nevertheless.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:17:03 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Huh? That's an article about the interception of video feeds from
drones; no indication that the drones were being _controlled_. And, of
course, absolutely no indication at all that the drones were running
modified Windows 98! (No mention of _what_ their OS is.)

Yes. But it is akin to stealing sensitive information from one's PC,
nevertheless.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum