FIREFOX 3.0 and lower vulnerability

[Guest Gary S. Terhune]

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]

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

--

_________