A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » Improving Performance
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's the deal with MS05-002 (KB891711.EXE) and Windows 98?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old March 28th 05, 03:13 AM
Ivan Bútora
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

IE 5.5 SP2 does work (that's what I've been using). However, whether or
not "browseui" and "browselc" changed between IE 5.5, IE 5.5 SP1, and IE 5.5
SP2, I don't know for sure, but if I were a betting man, I would guess at
least one of them did.

Well let's see, I notice the file dates on those two files are 12/03 and
7/01, respectively (in my particular case), so presumably the "browseui" one
was upgraded a tad with SP2.


I think the browselc.dll file has stayed the same for all versions of IE 5.5.
The browseui.dll file has been modified by recent security updates, the latest one being MS05-014. The version of browseui.dll from that patch is 5.50.4948.700.
  #92  
Old March 28th 05, 03:13 AM posted to microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update
Ivan Bútora[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default What's the deal with MS05-002 (KB891711.EXE) and Windows 98?

IE 5.5 SP2 does work (that's what I've been using). However, whether or
not "browseui" and "browselc" changed between IE 5.5, IE 5.5 SP1, and IE 5.5
SP2, I don't know for sure, but if I were a betting man, I would guess at
least one of them did.

Well let's see, I notice the file dates on those two files are 12/03 and
7/01, respectively (in my particular case), so presumably the "browseui" one
was upgraded a tad with SP2.


I think the browselc.dll file has stayed the same for all versions of IE 5.5.
The browseui.dll file has been modified by recent security updates, the latest one being MS05-014. The version of browseui.dll from that patch is 5.50.4948.700.
  #93  
Old March 28th 05, 03:16 AM
Rick Chauvin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
Rick Chauvin wrote:


[....]

I vote to get it fixed properly though so that those two dll's are
inclusive of all Numerous Updates that are Missing if swapped


If I had resources to fix this (as one presumes MS has) I'd do this:
- get documentation on what's changed in those two .DLL
- any crucial exploits that depend on those files to fix?
- determine most recent .DLL that work via the fix (IE 5.5 SP2?)


...any version of those dll's from 5.5 worked just fine, it was the first
release of IE6 and absolutely irregardless of what others think, even SP1
still has the same exact problem. About the dll's though and mostlikely it
is them, but just because swapping the dll's do appear on the surface to
eliminate the problem does not mean 100% it is the dll's that's the issue in
the first place - it could be other things closely related. In circuit
troubleshooting and no doubt it's the same with software, I've seen time and
time again where you think it may be one component causing a problem where in
the end it may end up have been another down the line causing the
malfunction. Always had to keep an open mind.

- FC these against the IE 6 ones that don't work
- see if what FC finds can be mapped to particular functions
- if offset dependencies allow:
- paste across functions from IE 6 to old until old breaks
- paste across functions from old to IE 6 until IE 6 works
- zoom in and disassemble the problemetic function
- see if a logic error etc. can be found
- fix the function and issue fixed .DLLs as on-request hotfix
- after testing, issue as downloadable hotfix, then WinUpate


Okay, sounds good to me Who's the programmer at MS that has the know how
and access to do this?

Chris, would you do me a favor, there is the other thread in this group that
has two conversations going on within it, if you want to please read it and
reply to your other fellow MVP's as to any pertinent facts that you can help
let them know there is a problem, because as it stands surprisingly to me
they do not think there is a problem at all and that it was already fixed -
which I am baffled at why they think that.
Please look for this header:

From: "Jerry Bryant [MSFT]"
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion............. ...
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:06 AM
Subject: MS05-002 on 9x and ME

Thank you,
Rick




MS wouldn't have to hack around with FC, given they'd have the source
code. It would also be easier from them to read up on what changes
were made to these .DLL, and whether any exploits need these changes
to remain blocked. It would be a sad commentary on MS, if within a
few months of reading this post, somene ITW came up with a fix, even
though they lacked MS's advantage of source code and documentation.

Well, there's the gauntlet. Anyone care to pick it up? :-)



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -





  #94  
Old March 28th 05, 06:27 PM
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:16:04 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
Rick Chauvin wrote:


(about Explorer.exe bogging down after bulk file operations)

If I had resources to fix this (as one presumes MS has) I'd do this:
- get documentation on what's changed in those two .DLL
- any crucial exploits that depend on those files to fix?
- determine most recent .DLL that work via the fix (IE 5.5 SP2?)


..any version of those dll's from 5.5 worked just fine, it was the first
release of IE6 and absolutely irregardless of what others think, even SP1
still has the same exact problem.


I can confirm IE 6 SP1 has the same problem - that's what I have!

About the dll's though and most likely it is them, but just because
swapping the dll's do appear on the surface to eliminate the problem
does not mean 100% it is the dll's that's the issue in the first place - it
could be other things closely related.


Sure; it may be a point of fix, though.

BrowseUI.dll is quite large, nearly 1M, so it's likely there's a lot
of action there. BrowseLC.dll is a little 62k wisp of a thing, so
it's interesting that it is cited as a co-defendent - especially as
similar-wildcard-matching BrowseWM.dll was not.

- FC these against the IE 6 ones that don't work
- see if what FC finds can be mapped to particular functions
- if offset dependencies allow:
- paste across functions from IE 6 to old until old breaks
- paste across functions from old to IE 6 until IE 6 works
- zoom in and disassemble the problemetic function
- see if a logic error etc. can be found
- fix the function and issue fixed .DLLs as on-request hotfix
- after testing, issue as downloadable hotfix, then WinUpate


Okay, sounds good to me


I've started looking for IE 5.5 SP0, SP1 and SP2 versions of those
files, which I'll keep as templates .5S0, .5S1 and .5S2 along with my
regular .6S1 copy. I'll write a .BAT that will copy these into place
over the active ones after testing it's in DOS mode (they are
otherwise "in use"). Then I'll play, renaming each pair, and then
individual ones, into place for long enough to test-to-fix (about a
week per pass before I'd say it's OK).

Chris, would you do me a favor, there is the other thread in this group that
has two conversations going on within it, if you want to please read it and
reply to your other fellow MVP's as to any pertinent facts that you can help
let them know there is a problem, because as it stands surprisingly to me
they do not think there is a problem at all and that it was already fixed -
which I am baffled at why they think that.


Please look for this header:


From: "Jerry Bryant [MSFT]"
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion............. ...
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:06 AM
Subject: MS05-002 on 9x and ME


I'm not on least-significant-byte terms with .kb articles or patch
numbers, but AFAIK what's happening is that this discussion we are in
now, is in fact in the middle of a thread on an unrelated and far more
recent patch (the one that runs as a resident process).

Both are problems, but different ones. Certainly the one that Jerry
is chasing up for MS is the new one, and it's good that this is being
pursued. What we are talking about - unless I'm badly confused - is a
far older issue that was raised as e.g. of previous patch gone wrong



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

  #95  
Old March 28th 05, 07:23 PM
Rick Chauvin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:16:04 -0500, "Rick Chauvin"
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
Rick Chauvin wrote:


(about Explorer.exe bogging down after bulk file operations)

If I had resources to fix this (as one presumes MS has) I'd do this:
- get documentation on what's changed in those two .DLL
- any crucial exploits that depend on those files to fix?
- determine most recent .DLL that work via the fix (IE 5.5 SP2?)


..any version of those dll's from 5.5 worked just fine, it was the first
release of IE6 and absolutely irregardless of what others think, even SP1
still has the same exact problem.


I can confirm IE 6 SP1 has the same problem - that's what I have!



Yes I know, but this thread we have flagged is now lost in eternity of posts
and is also as the other one under a different heading.


About the dll's though and most likely it is them, but just because
swapping the dll's do appear on the surface to eliminate the problem
does not mean 100% it is the dll's that's the issue in the first place - it
could be other things closely related.


Sure; it may be a point of fix, though.

BrowseUI.dll is quite large, nearly 1M, so it's likely there's a lot
of action there. BrowseLC.dll is a little 62k wisp of a thing, so
it's interesting that it is cited as a co-defendent - especially as
similar-wildcard-matching BrowseWM.dll was not.

- FC these against the IE 6 ones that don't work
- see if what FC finds can be mapped to particular functions
- if offset dependencies allow:
- paste across functions from IE 6 to old until old breaks
- paste across functions from old to IE 6 until IE 6 works
- zoom in and disassemble the problemetic function
- see if a logic error etc. can be found
- fix the function and issue fixed .DLLs as on-request hotfix
- after testing, issue as downloadable hotfix, then WinUpate


Okay, sounds good to me


I've started looking for IE 5.5 SP0, SP1 and SP2 versions of those
files, which I'll keep as templates .5S0, .5S1 and .5S2 along with my
regular .6S1 copy. I'll write a .BAT that will copy these into place
over the active ones after testing it's in DOS mode (they are
otherwise "in use"). Then I'll play, renaming each pair, and then
individual ones, into place for long enough to test-to-fix (about a
week per pass before I'd say it's OK).


Okay that's great, thanks much.
In the end others will thank you too.

Chris, would you do me a favor, there is the other thread in this group
that has two conversations going on within it, if you want to please read
it and reply to your other fellow MVP's as to any pertinent facts that you
can help let them know there is a problem, because as it stands
surprisingly to me they do not think there is a problem at all and that it
was already fixed - which I am baffled at why they think that.


Please look for this header:


From: "Jerry Bryant [MSFT]"
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion............. ...
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:06 AM
Subject: MS05-002 on 9x and ME


I'm not on least-significant-byte terms with .kb articles or patch
numbers, but AFAIK what's happening is that this discussion we are in
now, is in fact in the middle of a thread on an unrelated and far more
recent patch (the one that runs as a resident process).


Yes I realize that, but so is this one!

I suppose a new thread can be started, but I don't choose to be that leader
and it's not my own personal cross to bear although I do care and want to
make it right and I'm only trying to help others out to actually get the
problem fixed for a change. I sincerely think now though that those in
position didn't realize they had a problem with this, but I feel it warrants
just as much attention as that KB891711 post Jerry made and is why I tagged
onto it; although I wish some of the others that have jumped into that
thread would just kept it to a more professionally dialogue of helping
instead of some of the unhelpful sputterings that detracts from the positive
goal I'd like to see come about.

Both are problems, but different ones. Certainly the one that Jerry
is chasing up for MS is the new one, and it's good that this is being
pursued. What we are talking about - unless I'm badly confused - is a
far older issue that was raised as e.g. of previous patch gone wrong


Yes I agree, just like this thread is though.
Jerry's made his post, and I took the opportunity at that moment to bring up
the other subject just to get his attention, perhaps it should of been in a
different thread and I'm sorry about that now, but I can't change that. You
can start a new thread if you want - You have more hands on qualifications
than I do to effect change and to properly technically discuss the situation.
I will always help where I can.

I have to amend something in that other thread now though.

Thank you,
Rick




---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -








  #96  
Old April 9th 05, 03:01 AM
Leonard F Kiesling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

have problem since update of kb891711. win 98se, ie 6.0, high speed cable
modem, dell desktop xpst-450, norton av 2002. i have found the sequence of
events i performed to cause blue screen 06 error:
open windows media player 7.1; play songs from media guide; close media
player. open ie; error screen occurs. or open ie; open media player; close
ie; re-open ie; error occurs.

if i do NOT open media player, all seems ok. open & close ie as needed; no
errors. shut down normal.

when error screen comes on, i press any key once to return to windows, & it
does. then i alt-ctl-del & end task kb981711. i can go on ie with no
problem. re-start is best fix. i just don't use the media player.

does this info help?

i hope microsoft sends auto update to fix. any ideas when?

thank you, len kiesling

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
Just read the Win98.Gen_Discussion group, or the WindowsME.General
group, and you'll see several examples of KB891711 causing BSODs.
Believe me, there *is* a problem, and MS *is* working on a solution. The
biggest problem we have, now, is most people who are having trouble with
KB891711 don't seem to be willing to perform some rather simple tests
and return the results.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"SFB - KB3MM" wrote in message
...
Well, we live in an era of 'instant PC Experts'

the typical'my brother in law-sez, ......., and the secretary at

work.....

roof is needed not rumors.

I've had the update for 4 days and nothing has raised an ugly head

yet.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
It is just what people are saying. I don't have any proof.

"SFB - KB3MM" wrote in message
...
: Any particular boards?
:
: Is this well founded and some one has absolute proof, or just some

one
: saying it must be ...?
:
: "Dan" wrote in message
: ...
: Read the discussion boards and you will see that it is causing

havoc
with
: some user's machines and associated software and/or hardware.

For
some
of
: the users baddies are definately involved but definately not

with all
the
: users.
:
: "SFB - KB3MM" wrote in message
: ...
: : Whata's the downside of this update?
: :
: : "Ivan Bútora" wrote in message
: : ...
: : Dan, please. ANY update is optional. It is up to me if I

want to
: install
: : it on my machine or not. Yes, I think it's good to install

these
updates
: in
: : general, and I have installed all of them except KB891711. But

on
the
: other
: : hand, there are upsides and downsides. In the case of

KB891711, the
: : inconvenience and trouble that is likely to be caused by this

patch
is
: far
: : greater than the risk of a hacker exploiting your machine.

Keep in
mind
: that
: : there have been several updates this year considered

"important" for
: Windows
: : 98 that have not been released publicly. As Gary Terhune

pointed
out,
: the
: : difference between "important" and "critical" is actually not

so
: significant
: : in terms of the security threat. So yeah, your machine

probably *is*
: : vulnerable to something. But that's life, you can't be 100%

secure
all
: the
: : time. I don't see the point in making such a big fuss about

not
having
: this
: : one patch installed.
: :
: : And FYI, since September 2004, my computer has been running

WITHOUT
: : anti-virus protection, anti-spyware, etc. So yesterday I

decided I
would
: run
: : a SpyBot check just for the hell of it, and guess what -

nothing
found
: other
: : than a couple of IE cookies. My point: The most important

thing is
being
: : aware of what you're doing with your computer and on the

Internet.
: :
: : Frankly, I don't know what your letter to Bill Gates was,

but what
I
: do
: : know is that MS should be ashamed for releasing a patch in

this
manner,
: : without informing the users of the potential caveats, and

apparently
: without
: : testing in dial-up systems, etc.
: :
: :
: :
: : "Dan" wrote in message
: : ...
: : According to PC Today, April issue it is a critical update

that
has
: as
: : of now
: : not been exploited by hackers. Guys and Gals you need

this
critical
: : update
: : because I am guessing within 3 weeks someone will find a

way to
: : compromise
: : all 98SE and associated 9x machines that need the patch

and have
not
: : been
: : updated. My best guess is that the time for the hackers

will be
a
: : maximum of
: : 3 weeks and it may be even faster so if your machine is

connected
to
: the
: : Internet do whatever it takes to keep "KB891711.EXE"

running
because
: I
: : am
: : sure down the line Microsoft will be able to do a better

fix but
: this
: is
: : a
: : temporary solution, hopefully to allow users to be safe

while
: on-line.
: : If
: : programs are not responding then discover why. People you

need
this
: : CRITICAL
: : PATCH and it is not optional. If Windows will not run

with the
: patch
: : because
: : of BSOD then disconnect from the Internet -- remove

Ethernet
cable,
: USB
: : cable
: : or phone cable until the problem is resolved because if

you do
not
: do
: : this
: : and have exited this CRITICAL PATCH then you are just

asking for
: your
: : system
: : to be hacked and no it will not be by me or my friends

although
I
: know
: a
: : lot
: : about security on computers and weak access points and

could
: probably
: do
: : it
: : without too much trouble if I wanted to but my heart is

with
keeping
: the
: : U.S.A and its Allies and businesses and finally consumers

to try
and
: get
: : one
: : small leg up on the PEOPLE who hack machines for a hobby,

the
: : terriorists and
: : finally the script kiddies. Let me know how I and others

can
help
: you
: : with
: : your computer problems. Have a nice day!
: :
: : "98 Guy" wrote in message
: ...
: : :
: : : If you don't know what I'm talking about, look he
: : :
: : :

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../MS05-002.mspx
: : :
: : : If you're running Win 98, and have recently (within the

past
week)
: : : gone to Windows Updates and updated your computer, you

almost
: : : certainly now have the file "KB891711.EXE" running in

the
: background.
: : : It is set to run automatically at startup. First time

any
such
: update
: : : or security patch has been configured to operate

(instead of
: simply
: : : replacing an existing file).
: : :
: : : Even though Micro$loth sez that MS05-002 (KB891711.EXE)

is
: critical
: : : for Win-98, I've read where some (many) people are

simply
: deactivating
: : : it (via msconfig).
: : :
: : : Does anyone really know the truth regarding Win-98 and
: KB891711.EXE?
: : :
: : : Is there anything special about it (like running it in

safe
mode
: to
: : : properly install it) ?
: : :
: : : Is it really needed? (for win-98) ?
: : :
: : : Is Win-98 really vulnerable to MS05-002 ???
: :
: :
: :
:
:
:






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KB891711.EXE Chris General 99 March 27th 05 07:51 AM
kb891711.exe John Doe General 22 March 16th 05 02:18 AM
My wnidows 98 takes 10 minutes to start how shud i deal with it rest all it work ABC General 4 June 21st 04 04:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.