Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 Re: FIREFOX 3.0 and lower vulnerability Doh!!! But I liked the humor, even *before* you had to explain it, <bg>. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message news:eJBTA3n2IHA.5832@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > ABM = Anybody But Microsoft. Sorry, Gary but thought it was a well known > acronym. Pardon my lame attempt at humor. In my working life, fecesious > was a made-up word we often used to denote a BSer, derived from feces +ous > (full of). It was sort of an in joke. Most people thought we were > mispronouncing facetious. > > About 3 months ago I went over to the other side and bought a Dell XP > machine -- last of the breed. My old 300MHz PII W98SE dog just couldn't > hack videos and lots of other stuff I wanted to do. It wasn't 98SE that > was > the culprit -- just the slow processor. I'm using IE7 with a little app > called Quero Toolbar that gives me freedom to move and size all of the > various bars and functions to my satisfaction. It looks and feels like a > windows 98SE/IE6 machine with tabbed browsing but much, much faster. So > far > I've had only one BSOD and none of the problems that some have had with XP > SP-3. And an unexpected bonus was to find PA Bear very active on the XP > board. > > I like to check back on this board occasionally to see how things are in > the > W98 world as I had been a several year beneficiary of the wisdom of folks > like you, the two Ronnies, PA Bear and many others. Good to see you're > still active. > > ============================================================== > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message > news:uFVOLhk2IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > I hate to have to do this, but... ABM? Anti-??? Anyone But Me? > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://grystmill.com > > "bobster" <fauxie@bogus.net> wrote in message > news:OOrraFk2IHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Gary, >> >> You said," I was being facetious, of course". >> >> I think many of the ABMers are also being fecesious. >> >> Oops, that darn MS Spell checker crap failed again -- or did it? ;-) >> >> ============================================================= >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message >> news:eP1rcFl0IHA.2084@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> While you have a legitimate point, think of it as part of an ongoing >> discussion about various OSes and their comparative "vulnerabilities". >> Whenever someone posts a problem with IE or OE it's a good bet that >> someone >> will slam them for even using those apps, saying they should use >> Thunderbird >> or Firefox (or whatever), instead, because these latter are so totally >> safe >> from intrusion. Or they go even further and claim that Windows is a >> disaster >> due to so many vulnerabilities, and some other OS should be used instead, >> ignoring the fact that if their recommendation owned 80% to 90% of the >> market, it would be considered just as bad as Windows is now considered. >> >> Likewise, MEB recently posted two CERTs exposing vulnerabilities in the >> latest QuickTime and SNMPv3, neither of which are MS products but both of >> which are serious problems for Windows users in general. My response was >> that of course EVERY bit of software potentially contains code which >> makes >> it vulnerable to attack in some way, and for that reason, every sane >> person >> should throw away their computers and all computer-based items >> immediately >> (which means nearly every appliance in a modern person's panoply -- cell >> phone, Blackberries, I-whatevers), and stop using things like banks and >> any >> other critical service that uses computers >> >> I was being facetious, of course...I think... My point is that you don't >> totally outlaw automobiles and return to the slow-poke age of horsecrap >> everywhere, just because a relatively few people get hurt or killed every >> year, even when they're driving the most modern automobile available. >> It's >> a >> baby & bathwater kind of thing. >> >> The tie-in to Windows 9x is that more and more companies are no longer >> supporting 9x in any way, and IF you're really worried about all that >> stuff, >> you should definitely quit using 9x altogether. Personally, some standard >> layers of anti-malware protection and sensible habits, plus the fact that >> in >> most cases the problem is fixed before the public (including the bad >> guys) >> even know there is one, make nearly all those vulnerabilities irrelevant, >> even if they remain unpatched. (Just as an added comment, this is why >> auto-updaters, or at least some very in-your-face and timely update >> notifications, ARE so important. Problem is, you can't run them on >> Windows >> 9x because they suck up the puny Resources 9x is cursed with.) The real >> problem for Win98 users will be when there are no longer any AV or other >> anti-malware or firewall apps that work on them. >> >> -- >> Gary S. Terhune >> MS-MVP Shell/User >> http://grystmill.com >> >> "Julie" <julieb@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> news:%23knLZtk0IHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> What does this have to do with Windows 98. Firefox 3.0 is incompatible >>> with >>> Win98. >>> >>> >>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:%234bxhlj0IHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> >>>> Code execution vulnerability found in Firefox 3.0 >>>> >>>> Ryan Naraine: Just hours after the official release of the >>>> latest refresh of Mozilla's flagship browser, an unnamed researcher has >>> sold >>>> a critical code execution vulnerability that puts millions of >>>> Firefox3.0 >>>> users at risk of PC takeover attacks. >>>> >>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1288 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> MEB >>>> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com >>>> -- >>>> _________ >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
Guest MEB Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Re: FIREFOX 3.0 and lower vulnerability In news:878EC510-6550-47FC-9664-37C513093FD8@microsoft.com at , Dan contemplated and posted: | Thanks for letting me know, MEB. | | "MEB" wrote: | |> Actually, a least one or two more were found, which may be what is |> taking so long... |> |> -- |> MEB |> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com |> -- |> _________ |> |> "Dan" <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message |> news:7046D656-F32D-44AD-9B3B-9D48374AE7F8@microsoft.com... |> | <snipped due to length> |> | |> | The final release date now is July 2, 2008. I know many of want |> | the patched version now but we must be patient for it to be |> | released and also to be fully stable. I am guessing it may now |> | even be pushed back again to July 3, 2008 due to the complexities |> | of implementing this patch for this unknown vulnerability. As noted in a newer discussion, the new version 2.0.0.15 has been released. Here's what got fixed: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html#firefox2.0.0.15 Looks like this has fixed several older issues as well as the two major ones noted as were existing in the 3.0.version -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________
Recommended Posts