Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
Posted: 22 Oct 2009, 17:57
98 Guy wrote:
> MEB wrote:
>
>> IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was
>> DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS
>> produces prior to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there
>> have been missing function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE
>> NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY
>> elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
>> security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY
>> available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED
>> in 9X, however they DO EXIST.
>
> There is nothing on the internet that supports your claims. If there
> is, post a link to it - and NOT a generic search link that purports to
> address those points.
I did moron, its on MY site.
>
> The truth is that IE5 and up come with NT API emulator which implements
> all missing APIs required for IE on 9x platforms (mostly Unicode
> functions). IE is not tied to NT's security model.
WRONG, full Unicode comes ONLY via non-standard installation of unicows.
>
> IE6 SP1 uses .dlls that were written to work both in the 9x/ME family
> and in the NT-family of OSes. If you open, for instance, iexplor.exe in
> the Dependancy Walker, you'll will find those missing dependencies, too,
> and it works. AFAIK, that is due to the way browseui.dll, shlwapi.dll
> and shdocvw.dll were written: they have code that first checks whether
> those dependencies are satisfied, before calling for them. The known
> false positives are the following (you may not always see all of them):
>
> Missing modules:
>
> * APPHELP.DLL
> * USERENV.DLL
> * UXTHEME.DLL
>
> Missing functions:
>
> * CoWaitForMultipleHandles (in OLE32.DLL)
> * CoAllowSetForegroundWindow (in OLE32.DLL)
> * SHBindToParent (in SHELL32.DLL)
> * SHPathPrepareForWriteW (in SHELL32.DLL)
>
> Hence, lots of programs that do work OK still have, in Dependency Walker
> message window, those two warnings:
>
> "Warning: At least one delay-load dependency module was not found."
> "Warning: At least one module has an unresolved import due to a missing
> export function in a delay-load dependent module."
Nice, shows how you have kept up-to-date on the updates and what they
changed and WHY those DO appear [that's sarcasm].
NOW spend a little time trying to figure out WHY those exist...
HINT - What other files were necessary to modify to *ALLOW* the
installation and usage of IE6 in Win9X?
Then figure out [hint - actually look at] the updates installed ONLY
FOR IE6 and their relationships - HINT - WHY were these files
necessarily and constantly modified to ONLY work with IE6?
When you get that figured out [though I doubt you will] go back through
the updates to the LAST browser designed for the 9X/ME OSs and what
those contained.
HINT - the files necessary for IE6 usage were NOT installed nor were
they constantly modified throughout the IE6 support era.
When you get through all that WITH the proper knowledge and understand
of the inter-interoperability and relational characteristics {which in
your case will not occur} ponder upon *WHY not installing IE6* still
allows the 9X system to function as it was designed and should...
whereas AFTER installing IE6 even such basic elements like copy and move
are affected.
Now, since all you are attempting to prove is the INSTALL ABILITY of
the updates you BROUGHT in ignorance to this group...
SHOW YOUR LINKS TO NEW DEPENDENCY WALKER *PROFILING* LINKS AFTER
INSTALLING THESE PURPORTED UPDATES. Make sure to include profiles for
IE6, Explorer, and some of the other generally installed, like Office.>>>
Put the links to these materials below:
HOWEVER, since merely showing installation ability proves nothing of
value to the 9X user unless these files actually perform some function:
SHOW YOUR LINKS TO TEST RESULTS WHICH ADDRESS THE SUPPOSED FLAWS
AFFECTING THE 9X/ME OSs WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED WITH THE INSTALLATION
OF THESE PURPORTED UPDATES USING 9X/ME SPECIFIC TESTS.>>>>
Put the links to these test results links below:
Moreover, since you, Jeff, and the purported Greg are recommending
installation, provide the links to your CAREFUL and EXTENSIVE
application compatibility testing showing no adverse issues related to
this installation.>>>>>
Put the links to the extensive long term compatibility test results below:
--
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:
>
>> IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was
>> DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS
>> produces prior to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there
>> have been missing function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE
>> NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY
>> elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
>> security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY
>> available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED
>> in 9X, however they DO EXIST.
>
> There is nothing on the internet that supports your claims. If there
> is, post a link to it - and NOT a generic search link that purports to
> address those points.
I did moron, its on MY site.
>
> The truth is that IE5 and up come with NT API emulator which implements
> all missing APIs required for IE on 9x platforms (mostly Unicode
> functions). IE is not tied to NT's security model.
WRONG, full Unicode comes ONLY via non-standard installation of unicows.
>
> IE6 SP1 uses .dlls that were written to work both in the 9x/ME family
> and in the NT-family of OSes. If you open, for instance, iexplor.exe in
> the Dependancy Walker, you'll will find those missing dependencies, too,
> and it works. AFAIK, that is due to the way browseui.dll, shlwapi.dll
> and shdocvw.dll were written: they have code that first checks whether
> those dependencies are satisfied, before calling for them. The known
> false positives are the following (you may not always see all of them):
>
> Missing modules:
>
> * APPHELP.DLL
> * USERENV.DLL
> * UXTHEME.DLL
>
> Missing functions:
>
> * CoWaitForMultipleHandles (in OLE32.DLL)
> * CoAllowSetForegroundWindow (in OLE32.DLL)
> * SHBindToParent (in SHELL32.DLL)
> * SHPathPrepareForWriteW (in SHELL32.DLL)
>
> Hence, lots of programs that do work OK still have, in Dependency Walker
> message window, those two warnings:
>
> "Warning: At least one delay-load dependency module was not found."
> "Warning: At least one module has an unresolved import due to a missing
> export function in a delay-load dependent module."
Nice, shows how you have kept up-to-date on the updates and what they
changed and WHY those DO appear [that's sarcasm].
NOW spend a little time trying to figure out WHY those exist...
HINT - What other files were necessary to modify to *ALLOW* the
installation and usage of IE6 in Win9X?
Then figure out [hint - actually look at] the updates installed ONLY
FOR IE6 and their relationships - HINT - WHY were these files
necessarily and constantly modified to ONLY work with IE6?
When you get that figured out [though I doubt you will] go back through
the updates to the LAST browser designed for the 9X/ME OSs and what
those contained.
HINT - the files necessary for IE6 usage were NOT installed nor were
they constantly modified throughout the IE6 support era.
When you get through all that WITH the proper knowledge and understand
of the inter-interoperability and relational characteristics {which in
your case will not occur} ponder upon *WHY not installing IE6* still
allows the 9X system to function as it was designed and should...
whereas AFTER installing IE6 even such basic elements like copy and move
are affected.
Now, since all you are attempting to prove is the INSTALL ABILITY of
the updates you BROUGHT in ignorance to this group...
SHOW YOUR LINKS TO NEW DEPENDENCY WALKER *PROFILING* LINKS AFTER
INSTALLING THESE PURPORTED UPDATES. Make sure to include profiles for
IE6, Explorer, and some of the other generally installed, like Office.>>>
Put the links to these materials below:
HOWEVER, since merely showing installation ability proves nothing of
value to the 9X user unless these files actually perform some function:
SHOW YOUR LINKS TO TEST RESULTS WHICH ADDRESS THE SUPPOSED FLAWS
AFFECTING THE 9X/ME OSs WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED WITH THE INSTALLATION
OF THESE PURPORTED UPDATES USING 9X/ME SPECIFIC TESTS.>>>>
Put the links to these test results links below:
Moreover, since you, Jeff, and the purported Greg are recommending
installation, provide the links to your CAREFUL and EXTENSIVE
application compatibility testing showing no adverse issues related to
this installation.>>>>>
Put the links to the extensive long term compatibility test results below:
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---