R
Roger Fink
ANONYMOUS said:He has joined the geriatric society of United States {where Obama
promises everything and delivers nothing} but you seem to lick his
ass!
Oh oh. Sounds like another eToughguy.
ANONYMOUS said:He has joined the geriatric society of United States {where Obama
promises everything and delivers nothing} but you seem to lick his
ass!
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...
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
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.
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...
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.
THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT OSs which require patches SPECIFIC to the OS
intended AND per whatever present level.... e.g., in the NTs the
specific Service pack level... the meory handling is different, the file
handling is different, the systems react in different ways...
DUUUUUHHHHHHH
Microsoft has just announced a patch for IE6, wonder which OS it will be
aimed at
(I still use IE6 in Win98SE, and the Update site still shows me a few
critical updates avail)
Roger said:Hey Robear, you used to be smart enough to answer my questions. Now you
just
post links. What happened?
PA said:Now I'm working smart, too!
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.
MEB said:That's a choice you make.
What supposed criticals?
Since EOL?
My guess would be the NT based systems as usual. I would look for a
potential pull of IE6 or NT support sooner than expected. Maybe not,
since W2K is still under support..
You are confusing your sciences; biology (penises and brains) is not
physics. Now that you have displayed your ignorance for all to see, I'll
just leave you to play with your lettered building blocks.
Hot-text said:But Not For Us with 98
2000 and up
that stop making Update for 9x to ME>>>
"Critical" only one
GDI Detection Tool
Others :
DirectX 9.0
Net 1.1
Mapped Drives shutdown
Agent 2.0
Does EOL mean "End of Life" ((End of support 11 Jul 2006)
Sunny said:How do you know ? The "Security Patch" for IE6 has not appeared
on XP WU site yet.
Top-Poaster Hot-text said:But Not For Us with 98
2000 and up
that stop making Update for 9x to ME>>>
Before the white man came to the USA!
We spoken language of the Children of the middle water here first!!
We are Not like the White Eye Who Read Right to left!
Why With out us your spoken language <<< JP >>> it was are
spoken language that Save Your WORLD FROM <<< G-MAN and J-MAN >>
And when the time came are spoken language WILL SAVE YOU FROM THE
RIGHT TO LEFT READERS TOO! For they like keeping you on the Sodom!
Keywords ::: Arabic
Before the white man came to the USA!
We spoken language of the Children of the middle water here first!!
We are Not like the White Eye Who Read Right to left!
Why With out us your spoken language <<< JP >>> it was are
spoken language that Save Your WORLD FROM <<< G-MAN and J-MAN >>
And when the time came are spoken language WILL SAVE YOU FROM THE
RIGHT TO LEFT READERS TOO! For they like keeping you on the Sodom!
Keywords ::: Arabic
Still waiting for MEB to comment on what Hot-text said above.
What's the matter MEB?
I know you've read it. What are you waiting for?