Maxthon ver 1.6 as a substitute for IE6

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roger Fink
  • Start date Start date
R

Roger Fink

This is about the suitability of Maxthon browser as a replacement for IE6.
Hopefully the IE experts here are familiar enough with it to offer some
advice.

Since IE6 has been on the ropes, and since I'm happily ensconced in Win2K
with no IE upgrade path, awhile back I installed the earlier version (1.6)
of Maxthon browser, so called "Maxthon Classic". There is also a newer, more
advanced Maxthon browser, version 2.5, for which Maxthon says Vista is the
recommended OS, as opposed to stating that that is a minimum requirement.

The question is, since Maxthon is supposed to be largely derived from IE in
how it works, does it also have the same security vulnerabilities -
especially the earlier version, which is a contemporary if IE6.

By the way, my default browser is Firefox. This is a back-up. Trust me - I
occasionally have a genuine need for such an arrangement.
 
Post your questions here: http://forum.maxthon.com/index.php

IE is part & parcel of the Windows OS. Use any browser you want but your
computer's still subject to any/all unaddresssed security vulnerabilites,
Roger.

PS: Extended Support for Win2K ends in June 2010. When that happens, there
will be NO further security updates for your computer, no matter what IE
version is installed.
 
PA said:
Post your questions here: http://forum.maxthon.com/index.php

IE is part & parcel of the Windows OS. Use any browser you want but
your computer's still subject to any/all unaddresssed security
vulnerabilites, Roger.

PS: Extended Support for Win2K ends in June 2010. When that happens,
there will be NO further security updates for your computer, no
matter what IE version is installed.
Click to expand...

Ergo?
 
Maxrhon is not a replacement for IE as it uses the IE browwsing engine
and is just a change in the UI.
 
PA said:
No more Cumulative Security Updates for IE, for one.
Click to expand...

Well I don't really use IE6 for anything anymore. Maxthon has an add-on to
access WU, not that that will matter much down the road. But I don't want to
continue to use it if the browser is vulnerable to the same attacks that
plague IE6, which is what prompted the initial post.
 
Jerry said:
Maxrhon is not a replacement for IE as it uses the IE browwsing engine
and is just a change in the UI.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that the same patches released for IE6 have been effective pn
Maxthon?
 
PA Bear said:
No more Cumulative Security Updates for IE, for one.
Click to expand...

What it also means is that after June 2010, you're safer (from a
drive-by exploit POV) running Win-98 than you are running win-2k.

Reason: malware written to exploit IE6 vulnerabilities will most likely
not function properly on win-98 with IE6-sp1 vs win-2k. This has
probably *always* been the case, but it becomes more relevant after June
this year.
 
What it also means is that after June 2010, you're safer (from a
drive-by exploit POV) running Win-98 than you are running win-2k.

Reason: malware written to exploit IE6 vulnerabilities will most likely
not function properly on win-98 with IE6-sp1 vs win-2k. This has
probably *always* been the case, but it becomes more relevant after June
this year.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute 98 Guy, on one hand *you recommend* installation of *IE6
updates from W2K* into Win9X [you have repeatedly done that in the
win98.gen_discussion group], and here you state that leaving Win98 IE6
at SP1 EOL level provides protection...

I previously made similar statements wherein I said I had previously
thought I would NEVER recommend IE6 installation in a discussion
relating to FF2 at its EOL [.20] which has severe vulnerabilities, which
made IE6 SP1 a better recommendation, due in part to most newer IE6
attacks attempting to address the NT aspects and *newer flaws* instilled
via the updates AFTER IE6 SP1 at Win98 EOL level.
And in others where *you* specifically argued and recommended these
installations of W2K update files into 9X IE6 REGARDLESS of any new
vulnerabilities these might install. So perhaps you might want to
explain/clarify *your* obviously conflicting statements and apparent
recommendations.

On the other hand, it takes a malicious website a few milliseconds to
determine *exactly* what a browser supports and what OS is being run [do
to what the OS supports/offers within it], hence its vulnerabilities, so...

--
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 said:
Wait a minute 98 Guy, on one hand *you recommend* installation of
*IE6 updates from W2K* into Win9X [you have repeatedly done that
in the win98.gen_discussion group], and here you state that leaving
Win98 IE6 at SP1 EOL level provides protection...
Click to expand...

What I said was this:

| What it also means is that after June 2010, you're safer
| (from a drive-by exploit POV) running Win-98 than you are
| running win-2k.

The intention being that all 98-operable IE6 updates being made
available for 2K are being applied to 98 all along during the past 3
years - on the off-chance that circulating IE6 exploit code does in fact
execute properly on win-98 (and so the win-2K patches would therefore
provide protection against those exploits).
I previously made similar statements wherein I said
Click to expand...

You are saying that you now believe that a win-98 machine is better off
with IE6 as it existed as of June 2006 vs having FF 2.0.0.20 as it
existed at it's EOL.

I would argue that surfing the web with IE6 is today a joke, and has
been for several years, due to the horrible job that IE6 does with
current web content, and that any vulnerabilities that is exposed by FF
..20 is trivial compared to the decency of the web experience it
provides.
And in others where *you* specifically argued and recommended
these installations of W2K update files into 9X IE6 REGARDLESS
of any new vulnerabilities these might install.
Click to expand...

You continue to flog that bogus argument that these IE6 patches might,
or do, contain new (but undiscovered) vulnerabilities. What a complete
load of horse shit thinking that is.

That logic could be applied to *ANY* patch or update that microsoft
releases *for anything*.

By your logic, if I'm running win-2K, and Microsoft releases a new IE6
patch for 2K, then maybe I shouldn't install it because even if fixes a
known vulnerability, it may give my system a new vulnerability to be
discovered at a later date.

I've pointed that out to you before, and you never provide a
satisfactory response.
On the other hand, it takes a malicious website a few
milliseconds to determine *exactly* what a browser supports
and what OS is being run [do to what the OS supports/offers
within it], hence its vulnerabilities, so...
Click to expand...

And by that you are supposing:

a) operable unpatched IE6 vulnerabilities exists today within
win-98, and

b) hackers actually are aware of the vulnerabilities and have coded
them for correct delivery via web-server user-agent detection.

If you are aware of any real instances of (a), please tell us.

I don't have to tell you that the probability of (b) is low and getting
lower all the time.
 
You may not use it but Windows does! IE is part and parcel of your OS.
Click to expand...

You mean to say that it is thrust on everybody's throat whether they want it
or not - right? Why not say so explicitly. There is no need to be shy to
say that you are a poodle of Microsoft whether or not you like it to be
called as such.

hth
 
You mean to say that it is thrust on everybody's throat whether they want it
or not - right? Why not say so explicitly. There is no need to be shy to
say that you are a poodle of Microsoft whether or not you like it to be
called as such.
Click to expand...

PA Bear is no more an MS "poodle" than you, puddinghead.
 
ANONYMOUS said:
You mean to say that it is thrust on everybody's throat whether they
want it or not - right? Why not say so explicitly. There is no need
to be shy to say that you are a poodle of Microsoft whether or not
you like it to be called as such.

hth
Click to expand...

Robear isn't an MSpoodle. He just has a bit of an autocratic streak that he
uses to get guys like you riled up (seems to work).
 
Roger said:
Robear isn't an MSpoodle. He just has a bit of an autocratic streak that
he
uses to get guys like you riled up (seems to work).
Click to expand...

Bingo! Give the man a cigar.
 
I'm going to re-post this for MEB, because his favorite usenet server
censored this the first time.

-----------
Wait a minute 98 Guy, on one hand *you recommend* installation of
*IE6 updates from W2K* into Win9X [you have repeatedly done that
in the win98.gen_discussion group], and here you state that leaving
Win98 IE6 at SP1 EOL level provides protection...
Click to expand...

What I said was this:

| What it also means is that after June 2010, you're safer
| (from a drive-by exploit POV) running Win-98 than you are
| running win-2k.

The intention being that all 98-operable IE6 updates being made
available for 2K are being applied to 98 all along during the past 3
years - on the off-chance that circulating IE6 exploit code does in fact
execute properly on win-98 (and so the win-2K patches would therefore
provide protection against those exploits).
I previously made similar statements wherein I said
Click to expand...

You are saying that you now believe that a win-98 machine is better off
with IE6 as it existed as of June 2006 vs having FF 2.0.0.20 as it
existed at it's EOL.

I would argue that surfing the web with IE6 is today a joke, and has
been for several years, due to the horrible job that IE6 does with
current web content, and that any vulnerabilities that is exposed by FF
..20 is trivial compared to the decency of the web experience it
provides.
And in others where *you* specifically argued and recommended
these installations of W2K update files into 9X IE6 REGARDLESS
of any new vulnerabilities these might install.
Click to expand...

You continue to flog that bogus argument that these IE6 patches might,
or do, contain new (but undiscovered) vulnerabilities. What a complete
load of horse s.h.i.t thinking that is.

That logic could be applied to *ANY* patch or update that microsoft
releases *for anything*.

By your logic, if I'm running win-2K, and Microsoft releases a new IE6
patch for 2K, then maybe I shouldn't install it because even if fixes a
known vulnerability, it may give my system a new vulnerability to be
discovered at a later date.

I've pointed that out to you before, and you never provide a
satisfactory response.
On the other hand, it takes a malicious website a few
milliseconds to determine *exactly* what a browser supports
and what OS is being run [do to what the OS supports/offers
within it], hence its vulnerabilities, so...
Click to expand...

And by that you are supposing:

a) operable unpatched IE6 vulnerabilities exists today within
win-98, and

b) hackers actually are aware of the vulnerabilities and have coded
them for correct delivery via web-server user-agent detection.

If you are aware of any real instances of (a), please tell us.

I don't have to tell you that the probability of (b) is low and getting
lower all the time.
 
Hey Robear, you used to be smart enough to answer my questions. Now you
just
post links. What happened?
Click to expand...

He has joined the geriatric society of United States {where Obama promises
everything and delivers nothing} but you seem to lick his ass!
 
PA Bear is no more an MS "poodle" than you, puddinghead.
Click to expand...
How the hell did you work this out with your small penis? In physics I have
worked out that people with small penises have smaller brain and
consequently they don't think rationally. they are depressed sods.
 
Back
Top