When I deputized him 2 years ago!
Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uY7MTXgVKHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Where are your links to tests results and the information as was
>> defined.
>
> When were you appointed newsgroup police ?
MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer
Moderators: DllAdmin, DLLADMIN ONLY
-
pa bear [ms mvp]
- Posts: 117
- Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 00:00
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
98 Guy wrote:
> Please don't full-quote when you reply.
Greg can do what ever... if falls on Greg...
You don't run this group...
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>> The lack of published test methodology and example results
>>> (by microsoft or anyone else) for these patches means there
>>> is no precedent for anyone to follow if they cared to test
>>> them on win-98.
>> 98guy
>> Doesn't Microsoft test files before they are released?
>
> I'm sure they do.
>
> But the point is that they don't release the details of those tests.
MICROSOFT doesn't need to post those results; *YOU* do though:
1. Microsoft CREATED the files, hence knows [supposedly] how those files
work and their function.
2. Microsoft TESTS those files internally, SUPPOSEDLY against the
present KNOWN vulnerability or flaw which THAT particular file or group
of files fixes [supposedly]. Microsoft does NOT create hotfix and like
files just because it wants too, it does it to address a specific issue
IN A SPECIFIC OS to keep its customer base.
3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
the issuer.
The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
[which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
5. Post the links to *your* test results which prove: fitness for 9X;
how they fix the supposed errors WITHIN the *9X OS* and *IE6 SP1 at its
resultant EOL level*; and which PROOFS they produce NO NEW
VULNERABILITIES. Provide the materials which proof that NOT installing
the other files DOES NOT IMPACT 9X or cause issues. PLACE the links to
resultant materials HERE, so 9X users know: VALID to install or not.
6. YOU [98 Guy] personally suggest that MAYBE some programmer(s) at
Microsoft might have tested these. SO WHAT, that relies upon the skill
of that/those programmers. Look at ALL of the issues with XP, VISTA, and
Windows7 [or the history of 9X since that is where we are discussing
this]; look at WHY *these* particular fixes being discussed HAD TO BE
PRODUCED: now, who [single or group] are *YOU* suggesting would be
skilled enough potentially AT/FROM MICROSOFT to know whether these
purported potential tests were valid, PARTICULARLY as those potential
programmers HAVE NOT RUN 9X [and in particular a standard system] as
their sole accessing OS on the Internet for YEARS....
7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
8. Don't bother trying to play stupid Usenet games like Jeff did.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
> Please don't full-quote when you reply.
Greg can do what ever... if falls on Greg...
You don't run this group...
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>> The lack of published test methodology and example results
>>> (by microsoft or anyone else) for these patches means there
>>> is no precedent for anyone to follow if they cared to test
>>> them on win-98.
>> 98guy
>> Doesn't Microsoft test files before they are released?
>
> I'm sure they do.
>
> But the point is that they don't release the details of those tests.
MICROSOFT doesn't need to post those results; *YOU* do though:
1. Microsoft CREATED the files, hence knows [supposedly] how those files
work and their function.
2. Microsoft TESTS those files internally, SUPPOSEDLY against the
present KNOWN vulnerability or flaw which THAT particular file or group
of files fixes [supposedly]. Microsoft does NOT create hotfix and like
files just because it wants too, it does it to address a specific issue
IN A SPECIFIC OS to keep its customer base.
3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
the issuer.
The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
[which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
5. Post the links to *your* test results which prove: fitness for 9X;
how they fix the supposed errors WITHIN the *9X OS* and *IE6 SP1 at its
resultant EOL level*; and which PROOFS they produce NO NEW
VULNERABILITIES. Provide the materials which proof that NOT installing
the other files DOES NOT IMPACT 9X or cause issues. PLACE the links to
resultant materials HERE, so 9X users know: VALID to install or not.
6. YOU [98 Guy] personally suggest that MAYBE some programmer(s) at
Microsoft might have tested these. SO WHAT, that relies upon the skill
of that/those programmers. Look at ALL of the issues with XP, VISTA, and
Windows7 [or the history of 9X since that is where we are discussing
this]; look at WHY *these* particular fixes being discussed HAD TO BE
PRODUCED: now, who [single or group] are *YOU* suggesting would be
skilled enough potentially AT/FROM MICROSOFT to know whether these
purported potential tests were valid, PARTICULARLY as those potential
programmers HAVE NOT RUN 9X [and in particular a standard system] as
their sole accessing OS on the Internet for YEARS....
7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
8. Don't bother trying to play stupid Usenet games like Jeff did.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> When I deputized him 2 years ago!
<sniff> but you were going {uhhhuhh} taaatttooo send mmaeeeme my
tinfoil badge, I I I sttttill haven't got iiittttt yyyetttt <sniffle>
>
> Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uY7MTXgVKHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> Where are your links to tests results and the information as was
>>> defined.
>>
>> When were you appointed newsgroup police ?
> When I deputized him 2 years ago!
<sniff> but you were going {uhhhuhh} taaatttooo send mmaeeeme my
tinfoil badge, I I I sttttill haven't got iiittttt yyyetttt <sniffle>
>
> Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uY7MTXgVKHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> Where are your links to tests results and the information as was
>>> defined.
>>
>> When were you appointed newsgroup police ?
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
MICROSOFT doesn't need to post those results; *YOU* do though:
1. Microsoft CREATED the files, hence knows [supposedly] how those files
work and their function.
2. Microsoft TESTS those files internally, SUPPOSEDLY against the
present KNOWN vulnerability or flaw which THAT particular file or group
of files fixes [supposedly]. Microsoft does NOT create hotfix and like
files just because it wants too, it does it to address a specific issue
IN A SPECIFIC OS to keep its customer base.
3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
the issuer.
The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
[which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
5. Post the links to *your* test results which prove: fitness for 9X;
how they fix the supposed errors WITHIN the *9X OS* and *IE6 SP1 at its
resultant EOL level*; and which PROOFS they produce NO NEW
VULNERABILITIES. Provide the materials which proof that NOT installing
the other files DOES NOT IMPACT 9X or cause issues. PLACE the links to
resultant materials HERE, so 9X users know: VALID to install or not.
6. YOU [98 Guy] personally suggest that MAYBE some programmer(s) at
Microsoft might have tested these. SO WHAT, that relies upon the skill
of that/those programmers. Look at ALL of the issues with XP, VISTA, and
Windows7 [or the history of 9X since that is where we are discussing
this]; look at WHY *these* particular fixes being discussed HAD TO BE
PRODUCED: now, who [single or group] are *YOU* suggesting would be
skilled enough potentially AT/FROM MICROSOFT to know whether these
purported potential tests were valid, PARTICULARLY as those potential
programmers HAVE NOT RUN 9X [and in particular a standard system] as
their sole accessing OS on the Internet for YEARS....
7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
8. Don't bother trying to play stupid Usenet games like Jeff did.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
1. Microsoft CREATED the files, hence knows [supposedly] how those files
work and their function.
2. Microsoft TESTS those files internally, SUPPOSEDLY against the
present KNOWN vulnerability or flaw which THAT particular file or group
of files fixes [supposedly]. Microsoft does NOT create hotfix and like
files just because it wants too, it does it to address a specific issue
IN A SPECIFIC OS to keep its customer base.
3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
the issuer.
The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
[which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
5. Post the links to *your* test results which prove: fitness for 9X;
how they fix the supposed errors WITHIN the *9X OS* and *IE6 SP1 at its
resultant EOL level*; and which PROOFS they produce NO NEW
VULNERABILITIES. Provide the materials which proof that NOT installing
the other files DOES NOT IMPACT 9X or cause issues. PLACE the links to
resultant materials HERE, so 9X users know: VALID to install or not.
6. YOU [98 Guy] personally suggest that MAYBE some programmer(s) at
Microsoft might have tested these. SO WHAT, that relies upon the skill
of that/those programmers. Look at ALL of the issues with XP, VISTA, and
Windows7 [or the history of 9X since that is where we are discussing
this]; look at WHY *these* particular fixes being discussed HAD TO BE
PRODUCED: now, who [single or group] are *YOU* suggesting would be
skilled enough potentially AT/FROM MICROSOFT to know whether these
purported potential tests were valid, PARTICULARLY as those potential
programmers HAVE NOT RUN 9X [and in particular a standard system] as
their sole accessing OS on the Internet for YEARS....
7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
8. Don't bother trying to play stupid Usenet games like Jeff did.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
Just a little reminder for those perhaps unfamiliar with the Usenet
culture. There is a common suggestion: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
*Expect though*, that there will be those who MUST *tromp on the
trolls* so the world knows what and who they are and/or to dispel
whatever myth or falsehood may be involved. You can generally recognize
a REAL troll or these other parties rather easily by what they
consistently use [attacks against parties and their viable materials]
and their type of posting style.
These low-life Usenetters [note1], generally without anything of value
to post and lacking the intelligence necessary to do so; they *WILL*
attack [often several trolls and sockpuppets at a time] those posting
viable materials attempting to take over the various groups for their
own usage or to kill the respective group [a personal satisfaction to
these types]; and to discredit viable parties and postings to whatever
extent possible.
There are also those who deliberately post false information with
seemingly legitimate links or arguments, or who actually believe the
"urban myths" regardless of ALL of the materials and arguments
otherwise; it does not, however, change what these people are, the scum
of Usenet and what will bring its ultimate demise.
Please read the below so you might have a better understanding of the
various types of parties [there are other classifications], and what to
expect within Usenet. Here's a hint, if the party posting is using their
REAL name, you can likely, a least, consider their post *might* be of
value, since what they post follows them to their REAL life. Note
though: Usenet is also filled with Identity theft, so look for those
parties including some method of verification of who they are.
Here's a well put idea taken from jonz, a dejanews user/troll's sig
[per a discussion with this entity], who must have forgotten this *was*
the sig being used, unless it was a sub-conscious admission and warning
of what this party is/was:
""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"
So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
statement}:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Int ... 27re_a_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_ ... culture%29
note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.
culture. There is a common suggestion: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
*Expect though*, that there will be those who MUST *tromp on the
trolls* so the world knows what and who they are and/or to dispel
whatever myth or falsehood may be involved. You can generally recognize
a REAL troll or these other parties rather easily by what they
consistently use [attacks against parties and their viable materials]
and their type of posting style.
These low-life Usenetters [note1], generally without anything of value
to post and lacking the intelligence necessary to do so; they *WILL*
attack [often several trolls and sockpuppets at a time] those posting
viable materials attempting to take over the various groups for their
own usage or to kill the respective group [a personal satisfaction to
these types]; and to discredit viable parties and postings to whatever
extent possible.
There are also those who deliberately post false information with
seemingly legitimate links or arguments, or who actually believe the
"urban myths" regardless of ALL of the materials and arguments
otherwise; it does not, however, change what these people are, the scum
of Usenet and what will bring its ultimate demise.
Please read the below so you might have a better understanding of the
various types of parties [there are other classifications], and what to
expect within Usenet. Here's a hint, if the party posting is using their
REAL name, you can likely, a least, consider their post *might* be of
value, since what they post follows them to their REAL life. Note
though: Usenet is also filled with Identity theft, so look for those
parties including some method of verification of who they are.
Here's a well put idea taken from jonz, a dejanews user/troll's sig
[per a discussion with this entity], who must have forgotten this *was*
the sig being used, unless it was a sub-conscious admission and warning
of what this party is/was:
""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"
So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
statement}:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Int ... 27re_a_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_ ... culture%29
note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.
-
pa bear [ms mvp]
- Posts: 117
- Joined: 01 Mar 2009, 00:00
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
Here you go: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
MEB wrote:
> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>> When I deputized him 2 years ago!
>
> <sniff> but you were going {uhhhuhh} taaatttooo send mmaeeeme my
> tinfoil badge, I I I sttttill haven't got iiittttt yyyetttt <sniffle>
>
>>
>> Sunny wrote:
>>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uY7MTXgVKHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> Where are your links to tests results and the information as was
>>>> defined.
>>>
>>> When were you appointed newsgroup police ?
MEB wrote:
> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>> When I deputized him 2 years ago!
>
> <sniff> but you were going {uhhhuhh} taaatttooo send mmaeeeme my
> tinfoil badge, I I I sttttill haven't got iiittttt yyyetttt <sniffle>
>
>>
>> Sunny wrote:
>>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uY7MTXgVKHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> Where are your links to tests results and the information as was
>>>> defined.
>>>
>>> When were you appointed newsgroup police ?
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
98 Guy wrote:
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, tsk, tsk, bruuuuuuhhhhhawwwwwww,,
aaaaaahhhhh hehehehehehhehe
Have them write some other arguments for you, those are worthless.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, tsk, tsk, bruuuuuuhhhhhawwwwwww,,
aaaaaahhhhh hehehehehehhehe
Have them write some other arguments for you, those are worthless.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
MEB wrote:
> 98 Guy wrote:
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, tsk, tsk, bruuuuuuhhhhhawwwwwww,,
> aaaaaahhhhh hehehehehehhehe
>
> Have them write some other arguments for you, those are worthless.
>
Can't write any yourself, can you....
Better still why don't you just post the links TO the materials which
proof the issues as defined for *YOU*;
5. Post the links to *your* test results which prove: fitness for 9X;
how they fix the supposed errors WITHIN the *9X OS* and *IE6 SP1 at its
resultant EOL level*; and which PROOFS they produce NO NEW
VULNERABILITIES. Provide the materials which proof that NOT installing
the other files DOES NOT IMPACT 9X or cause issues. PLACE the links to
resultant materials HERE, so 9X users know: VALID to install or not.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
> 98 Guy wrote:
>
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, tsk, tsk, bruuuuuuhhhhhawwwwwww,,
> aaaaaahhhhh hehehehehehhehe
>
> Have them write some other arguments for you, those are worthless.
>
Can't write any yourself, can you....
Better still why don't you just post the links TO the materials which
proof the issues as defined for *YOU*;
5. Post the links to *your* test results which prove: fitness for 9X;
how they fix the supposed errors WITHIN the *9X OS* and *IE6 SP1 at its
resultant EOL level*; and which PROOFS they produce NO NEW
VULNERABILITIES. Provide the materials which proof that NOT installing
the other files DOES NOT IMPACT 9X or cause issues. PLACE the links to
resultant materials HERE, so 9X users know: VALID to install or not.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
Answers inline.
>3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
>the issuer.
> The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
>or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
>haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
>[which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
You don't work for Microsoft either. That where I disagree with
you, if they create new vulnerabilities, they would create new
vulnerabilities for nt based systems as well. There is still 98 code
in nt system and visa versa. That is a fact.
>4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
>system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
>*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
Of course they are going to say that. They want people to use the
newest operating system.
>7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
>NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
>
Who says they are non-standard? Where are the test? Have you tested
them on 98 system? So, do you have proof that these will cause harm
on a 98se system? Do you have proof they are unsecure or secure?
Greg
>3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
>the issuer.
> The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
>or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
>haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
>[which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
You don't work for Microsoft either. That where I disagree with
you, if they create new vulnerabilities, they would create new
vulnerabilities for nt based systems as well. There is still 98 code
in nt system and visa versa. That is a fact.
>4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
>system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
>*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
Of course they are going to say that. They want people to use the
newest operating system.
>7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
>NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
>
Who says they are non-standard? Where are the test? Have you tested
them on 98 system? So, do you have proof that these will cause harm
on a 98se system? Do you have proof they are unsecure or secure?
Greg
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> Here you go: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
THANKS!!!
Can I make my own badge then?
> MEB wrote:
>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>> When I deputized him 2 years ago!
>>
>> <sniff> but you were going {uhhhuhh} taaatttooo send mmaeeeme my
>> tinfoil badge, I I I sttttill haven't got iiittttt yyyetttt <sniffle>
>>
>>>
>>> Sunny wrote:
>>>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uY7MTXgVKHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are your links to tests results and the information as was
>>>>> defined.
>>>>
>>>> When were you appointed newsgroup police ?
> Here you go: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
THANKS!!!
Can I make my own badge then?
> MEB wrote:
>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>> When I deputized him 2 years ago!
>>
>> <sniff> but you were going {uhhhuhh} taaatttooo send mmaeeeme my
>> tinfoil badge, I I I sttttill haven't got iiittttt yyyetttt <sniffle>
>>
>>>
>>> Sunny wrote:
>>>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uY7MTXgVKHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are your links to tests results and the information as was
>>>>> defined.
>>>>
>>>> When were you appointed newsgroup police ?
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
Greg wrote:
> Answers inline.
>
>> 3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
>> the issuer.
>> The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
>> or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
>> haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
>> [which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
>
> You don't work for Microsoft either. That where I disagree with
> you, if they create new vulnerabilities, they would create new
> vulnerabilities for nt based systems as well. There is still 98 code
> in nt system and visa versa. That is a fact.
Its also a fact that additional fixes WILL be made to correct any
errors or vulnerabilities created by *these* purported fixes for the
SUPPORTED OSs. 9X will not be offered those, and there is NO guarantee
that any of those fixes created for the SUPPORTED OSs will work in 9X,
leaving 9X vulnerable AND unprotected, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, at an
essentially unknown level of vulnerability if these files are installed.
This set of patches was a *ROLL UP* of numerous present and over-rides
for superseded patches. That means PRIOR patches... some of which COULD
NOT BE INSTALLED in 9X.
>
>
>> 4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
>> system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
>> *SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
>
> Of course they are going to say that. They want people to use the
> newest operating system.
No, Microsoft DID NOT say that. They did NOT make any recommendation
for 9X installation, nor mention anything NEAR that OS level. Not even
Win2K is anywhere NEAR the level it was at EOL for 9X [when *some* files
were transferable/cross coded/used].
>
>> 7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
>> NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
>>
>
> Who says they are non-standard? Where are the test? Have you tested
> them on 98 system? So, do you have proof that these will cause harm
> on a 98se system? Do you have proof they are unsecure or secure?
>
> Greg
Microsoft says.
4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
Did you miss the key words: IN FACT EXACTLY WHAT SERVICE PACK LEVEL
DESIGNED FOR.
These are NOT even recommended for *supported* systems at ANY other
prior level.
The AV producers REQUIRE a specific level of standard system and files
to work properly. Applications REQUIRE a specific set of associated
files. Moreover, We DO have the history of 9X to work from, INCLUDING
the breakage of numerous applications after installation of IE6, and at
various times during SL. We also have NUMEROUS hotfixes for 9X/IE6
during SL.
I didn't suggest installation nor have I at any point. There are NO
present test results which would cause me to do so.
Frankly, IMO, this is a stupid way to address "keep Win98 alive".
*IF* one intends to do that, one accepts that *the tests MUST be done*.
YOU [as the modifier or recommender] accept the direct responsibility
to do so, NO DISCLAIMER or stupid argument removes that responsibility.
You are modifying or recommending the modification of a STABLE coded
environment [it won't change from April 2006 to doomsday, UNLESS you
change it] which, if anyone produces applications for, such as
AV/malware providers, *expects* to have there for KNOWN functionality
and other aspects, and their code requirements.
Coders/people who want to "keep Win98 alive" should actually write some
new AV and malware programs and support those that attempt to do so, or
perhaps actually PAY someone else to do so; and should be creating
*safe* STAND ALONE browsers and other applications.
THAT is what will keep Win98 alive...
So, are you going to produce these test results?
If not, I suggest you stop trying to make it appear viable to use these
files unless and until there are some tests to check and compare.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
> Answers inline.
>
>> 3. YOU aren't Microsoft. JEFF isn't Microsoft. MSFN isn't *Microsoft*
>> the issuer.
>> The THREE of you haven't a CLUE as to whether these files do any good
>> or bad, or even supply any function whatsoever. MORE importantly, you
>> haven't a clue whether installing them creates *NEW vulnerabilities*
>> [which they likely do when compared to Microsoft's history].
>
> You don't work for Microsoft either. That where I disagree with
> you, if they create new vulnerabilities, they would create new
> vulnerabilities for nt based systems as well. There is still 98 code
> in nt system and visa versa. That is a fact.
Its also a fact that additional fixes WILL be made to correct any
errors or vulnerabilities created by *these* purported fixes for the
SUPPORTED OSs. 9X will not be offered those, and there is NO guarantee
that any of those fixes created for the SUPPORTED OSs will work in 9X,
leaving 9X vulnerable AND unprotected, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, at an
essentially unknown level of vulnerability if these files are installed.
This set of patches was a *ROLL UP* of numerous present and over-rides
for superseded patches. That means PRIOR patches... some of which COULD
NOT BE INSTALLED in 9X.
>
>
>> 4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
>> system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
>> *SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
>
> Of course they are going to say that. They want people to use the
> newest operating system.
No, Microsoft DID NOT say that. They did NOT make any recommendation
for 9X installation, nor mention anything NEAR that OS level. Not even
Win2K is anywhere NEAR the level it was at EOL for 9X [when *some* files
were transferable/cross coded/used].
>
>> 7. Explain WHY you believe installing NON-STANDARD files into 9X makes
>> NO IMPACT on AV protections, applications, and the underlaying OS.
>>
>
> Who says they are non-standard? Where are the test? Have you tested
> them on 98 system? So, do you have proof that these will cause harm
> on a 98se system? Do you have proof they are unsecure or secure?
>
> Greg
Microsoft says.
4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
Did you miss the key words: IN FACT EXACTLY WHAT SERVICE PACK LEVEL
DESIGNED FOR.
These are NOT even recommended for *supported* systems at ANY other
prior level.
The AV producers REQUIRE a specific level of standard system and files
to work properly. Applications REQUIRE a specific set of associated
files. Moreover, We DO have the history of 9X to work from, INCLUDING
the breakage of numerous applications after installation of IE6, and at
various times during SL. We also have NUMEROUS hotfixes for 9X/IE6
during SL.
I didn't suggest installation nor have I at any point. There are NO
present test results which would cause me to do so.
Frankly, IMO, this is a stupid way to address "keep Win98 alive".
*IF* one intends to do that, one accepts that *the tests MUST be done*.
YOU [as the modifier or recommender] accept the direct responsibility
to do so, NO DISCLAIMER or stupid argument removes that responsibility.
You are modifying or recommending the modification of a STABLE coded
environment [it won't change from April 2006 to doomsday, UNLESS you
change it] which, if anyone produces applications for, such as
AV/malware providers, *expects* to have there for KNOWN functionality
and other aspects, and their code requirements.
Coders/people who want to "keep Win98 alive" should actually write some
new AV and malware programs and support those that attempt to do so, or
perhaps actually PAY someone else to do so; and should be creating
*safe* STAND ALONE browsers and other applications.
THAT is what will keep Win98 alive...
So, are you going to produce these test results?
If not, I suggest you stop trying to make it appear viable to use these
files unless and until there are some tests to check and compare.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
Just a little reminder for those perhaps unfamiliar with the Usenet
culture. There is a common suggestion: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
*Expect though*, that there will be those who MUST *tromp on the
trolls* so the world knows what and who they are and/or to dispel
whatever myth or falsehood may be involved. You can generally recognize
a REAL troll or these other parties rather easily by what they
consistently use [attacks against parties and their viable materials]
and their type of posting style.
These low-life Usenetters [note1], generally without anything of value
to post and lacking the intelligence necessary to do so; they *WILL*
attack [often several trolls and sockpuppets at a time] those posting
viable materials attempting to take over the various groups for their
own usage or to kill the respective group [a personal satisfaction to
these types]; and to discredit viable parties and postings to whatever
extent possible.
There are also those who deliberately post false information with
seemingly legitimate links or arguments, or who actually believe the
"urban myths" regardless of ALL of the materials and arguments
otherwise; it does not, however, change what these people are, the scum
of Usenet and what will bring its ultimate demise.
Please read the below so you might have a better understanding of the
various types of parties [there are other classifications], and what to
expect within Usenet. Here's a hint, if the party posting is using their
REAL name, you can likely, a least, consider their post *might* be of
value, since what they post follows them to their REAL life. Note
though: Usenet is also filled with Identity theft, so look for those
parties including some method of verification of who they are.
Here's a well put idea taken from jonz, a dejanews user/troll's sig
[per a discussion with this entity], who must have forgotten this *was*
the sig being used, unless it was a sub-conscious admission and warning
of what this party is/was:
""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"
So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
statement}:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Int ... 27re_a_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_ ... culture%29
note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.
culture. There is a common suggestion: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
*Expect though*, that there will be those who MUST *tromp on the
trolls* so the world knows what and who they are and/or to dispel
whatever myth or falsehood may be involved. You can generally recognize
a REAL troll or these other parties rather easily by what they
consistently use [attacks against parties and their viable materials]
and their type of posting style.
These low-life Usenetters [note1], generally without anything of value
to post and lacking the intelligence necessary to do so; they *WILL*
attack [often several trolls and sockpuppets at a time] those posting
viable materials attempting to take over the various groups for their
own usage or to kill the respective group [a personal satisfaction to
these types]; and to discredit viable parties and postings to whatever
extent possible.
There are also those who deliberately post false information with
seemingly legitimate links or arguments, or who actually believe the
"urban myths" regardless of ALL of the materials and arguments
otherwise; it does not, however, change what these people are, the scum
of Usenet and what will bring its ultimate demise.
Please read the below so you might have a better understanding of the
various types of parties [there are other classifications], and what to
expect within Usenet. Here's a hint, if the party posting is using their
REAL name, you can likely, a least, consider their post *might* be of
value, since what they post follows them to their REAL life. Note
though: Usenet is also filled with Identity theft, so look for those
parties including some method of verification of who they are.
Here's a well put idea taken from jonz, a dejanews user/troll's sig
[per a discussion with this entity], who must have forgotten this *was*
the sig being used, unless it was a sub-conscious admission and warning
of what this party is/was:
""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"
So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
statement}:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Int ... 27re_a_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_ ... culture%29
note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:46:54 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
>system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
>*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
I never said they did. I said microsoft is going to say that the
files are for xp or above because they want you to install it on
operating systems they support. (That if you ask one)
I really don't know what you mean by service pack level. If it what
I am thinking, service packs has nothing to do with I.E. 6 patch
period.
Do you work for Microsoft?
wrote:
>
>4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
>system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
>*SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
I never said they did. I said microsoft is going to say that the
files are for xp or above because they want you to install it on
operating systems they support. (That if you ask one)
I really don't know what you mean by service pack level. If it what
I am thinking, service packs has nothing to do with I.E. 6 patch
period.
Do you work for Microsoft?
Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explor
Greg wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:46:54 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
>> system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
>> *SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
>
> I never said they did. I said microsoft is going to say that the
> files are for xp or above because they want you to install it on
> operating systems they support. (That if you ask one)
>
> I really don't know what you mean by service pack level. If it what
> I am thinking, service packs has nothing to do with I.E. 6 patch
> period.
>
> Do you work for Microsoft?
>
Look here before you continue:
There is a series of fixes within this update:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/securi ... 9-054.mspx
Explain how *each* addressed vulnerability either doesn't exist in 9X
or how these fixes WILL work in 9X with the testing results to *prove*
that AFTER installation in 9X, these issues ARE fixed..
Also explain WHY not being able to install the DX files and others,
WILL NOT be an issue in 9X.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:46:54 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 4. NO WHERE does Microsoft recommend installing these files into a 9X
>> system. *IN FACT* Microsoft has defined *EXACTLY WHAT* systems and
>> *SERVICE PACK LEVEL* these are *DESIGNED* to work within and *FOR*.
>
> I never said they did. I said microsoft is going to say that the
> files are for xp or above because they want you to install it on
> operating systems they support. (That if you ask one)
>
> I really don't know what you mean by service pack level. If it what
> I am thinking, service packs has nothing to do with I.E. 6 patch
> period.
>
> Do you work for Microsoft?
>
Look here before you continue:
There is a series of fixes within this update:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/securi ... 9-054.mspx
Explain how *each* addressed vulnerability either doesn't exist in 9X
or how these fixes WILL work in 9X with the testing results to *prove*
that AFTER installation in 9X, these issues ARE fixed..
Also explain WHY not being able to install the DX files and others,
WILL NOT be an issue in 9X.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---