PDF exploits shown in this comparison as exceeding Flash based

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

| In message , David H. Lipman
| writes:
| []
| Do these exploits affect Foxit (either current versions or the last one
| that works with '98), rather than Adobe?


The latest ones ? No.

Previous one or two, yes.

| Sorry, do you mean:

| The latest exploits don't affect Foxit but previous ones do

| or

| The latest (98-compatible?) Foxit is OK but previous ones aren't

| ?

What version of FoxIt Reader are you using ?


| Oops, another thing on my "to do" list for this (XP) machine. Can't
| remember what version of Foxit I'm using on my '98 machine(s), but they
| rarely go online these days. I was asking more for others' benefit, in
| that if Foxit _is_ safe, then I'd thoroughly recommend it as an
| alternative anyway - it seems to me far better behaved than Acrobat
| Reader.


There are some PDF vulnerabilities that FoxIt is vulnerable to and some that both Adobe
and FoxIt are vulnerable to.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

In message , David H. Lipman
writes:
[]
There are some PDF vulnerabilities that FoxIt is vulnerable to and some
that both Adobe
and FoxIt are vulnerable to.

Is the former a subset of the latter (i. e. Foxit is vulnerable to some,
and Adobe to those and more), or are they overlapping sets (such that
there are some Foxit is vulnerable to that Adobe is _not_)?
--
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outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Who's General Failure & why's he reading my disk? (Stolen from another .sig)

In message , David H. Lipman
writes:
[]
There are some PDF vulnerabilities that FoxIt is vulnerable to and some
that both Adobe
and FoxIt are vulnerable to.

Is the former a subset of the latter (i. e. Foxit is vulnerable to some,
and Adobe to those and more), or are they overlapping sets (such that
there are some Foxit is vulnerable to that Adobe is _not_)?
--
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outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Who's General Failure & why's he reading my disk? (Stolen from another .sig)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , David H. Lipman
writes:
[]
There are some PDF vulnerabilities that FoxIt is vulnerable to and
some that both Adobe
and FoxIt are vulnerable to.

Is the former a subset of the latter (i. e. Foxit is vulnerable to
some, and Adobe to those and more), or are they overlapping sets (such
that there are some Foxit is vulnerable to that Adobe is _not_)?

It sounds like a logical assumption.

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/security.htm

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , David H. Lipman
writes:
[]
There are some PDF vulnerabilities that FoxIt is vulnerable to and
some that both Adobe
and FoxIt are vulnerable to.

Is the former a subset of the latter (i. e. Foxit is vulnerable to
some, and Adobe to those and more), or are they overlapping sets (such
that there are some Foxit is vulnerable to that Adobe is _not_)?

It sounds like a logical assumption.

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/security.htm

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

| In message , David H. Lipman
| writes:
| []
There are some PDF vulnerabilities that FoxIt is vulnerable to and some
that both Adobe
and FoxIt are vulnerable to.

| Is the former a subset of the latter (i. e. Foxit is vulnerable to some,
| and Adobe to those and more), or are they overlapping sets (such that
| there are some Foxit is vulnerable to that Adobe is _not_)?


FoxIt suffers from a subset (so to speak) of the greater amount of vulnerabilities that
afflict Adobe Reader/Acrobat.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

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

| In message , David H. Lipman
| writes:
| []
There are some PDF vulnerabilities that FoxIt is vulnerable to and some
that both Adobe
and FoxIt are vulnerable to.

| Is the former a subset of the latter (i. e. Foxit is vulnerable to some,
| and Adobe to those and more), or are they overlapping sets (such that
| there are some Foxit is vulnerable to that Adobe is _not_)?


FoxIt suffers from a subset (so to speak) of the greater amount of vulnerabilities that
afflict Adobe Reader/Acrobat.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

"David H. Lipman" wrote in message
...
From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

| In message , David H. Lipman
| writes:
| []
There are some PDF vulnerabilities that FoxIt is vulnerable to and
some
that both Adobe
and FoxIt are vulnerable to.

| Is the former a subset of the latter (i. e. Foxit is vulnerable to
some,
| and Adobe to those and more), or are they overlapping sets (such
that
| there are some Foxit is vulnerable to that Adobe is _not_)?


FoxIt suffers from a subset (so to speak) of the greater amount of
vulnerabilities that
afflict Adobe Reader/Acrobat.

I think he's asking a math question.

To define his "sets" he may need to clarify some things. The
vulnerability is in the software used to process the PDF format files
and implement their extensions.

Some vulnerabilities may be for Foxit *only*, some for Adobe *only* and
some for *both*. Intersecting sets.

"David H. Lipman" wrote in message
...
From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

| In message , David H. Lipman
| writes:
| []
There are some PDF vulnerabilities that FoxIt is vulnerable to and
some
that both Adobe
and FoxIt are vulnerable to.

| Is the former a subset of the latter (i. e. Foxit is vulnerable to
some,
| and Adobe to those and more), or are they overlapping sets (such
that
| there are some Foxit is vulnerable to that Adobe is _not_)?


FoxIt suffers from a subset (so to speak) of the greater amount of
vulnerabilities that
afflict Adobe Reader/Acrobat.

I think he's asking a math question.

To define his "sets" he may need to clarify some things. The
vulnerability is in the software used to process the PDF format files
and implement their extensions.

Some vulnerabilities may be for Foxit *only*, some for Adobe *only* and
some for *both*. Intersecting sets.

On 02/20/2010 07:02 PM, Jeff Richards wrote:
You may not be aware that there is an ongoing campaign to introduce as much
irrelevant material as possible, particularly if it relates to security,
into the W98 groups, mostly by casual addition of the W98 groups to postings
in groups related to other versions of Windows. This is done purely to
enhance the status of several trolls who think they are making themselves
appear knowledgeable about W98. All they are doing is completely confusing
the W98 users and creating flame wars which are then fanned as much as
possible. It would be helpful to the W98 groups if this irrelevant
crossposting was removed before replying.

Thanks,

Excuse me, do you have something you wish to say.
Please show us how knowledgeable you are Jeff.

Show us WITH SPECIFICS, that Win98 hacks are not being used and Windows
98 users can rest assured that parties like you are providing the
information they need to protect themselves while on the Internet when
confronted with PDFs, Flash, JAVA, email attacks, and other factors one
finds out here.
While you are explaining these facts [per your thoughts] please explain
your prior support of installation of IE6 files from Win2K AFTER the EOL
of Win98 as recently as the 10th month of last year, into the Win98 OS
and how it would/will protect Win98 users.

Or is it that you believe Win98 users should be "kept in the dark" and
continue to be provided with false information regarding their security
by those apparently without the comprehension to understand the threats
involved?

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