Re: What is final, last windows update, security file we should dl for Win98SE?
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23vEuitYcIHA.6024@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| I presumed you were referring to Root Certificates updates, MEB. If such
is
| not the case, ignore my last reply.
Actually, I was referring to that in addition to other certificates which
you might be using or found on the Internet, and/or used within networks or
component applications. remember, not every 9X user is still using IE 6, but
may be using other browsers which CAN use the newer formatted Certs.
For instance, when using SSL, without the proper servers certificate and
its "rights" [such as on live.com] how would you suggest that users ensure
these scripts and other aspects are checked for validity?
Let's continue with Google and any of its offerings such as webmaster
tools, gmail, or other secured aspects. Without verified and valid
certificates, how would you suggest that a user be protected from a "blind
site" attack [a web page placed to ensnare the unsuspecting into the belief
its the actual site]? Merely by checking the address? Surely not...
Let's say your network has been configured with certificate verification
for applications or access generally, how would you suggest this is done
without valid and verified certificates [yous or other created]?
Let's look at IE 7, or one of the still supported browsers for 9X [a better
comparison] which rely heavily upon this type of verification for allowances
within the browser and upon the system, would you then be indicating that
these are unnecessary, and that these checks are, in fact, worthless?
This would be really interesting to those IE 7 users as that impliments
more of the "rights" and restrictions than IE 6 does, is it that IE 7 is
nothing more than a sham with nothing of value but perhaps a prettier [ugh]
interface?.
You, of course, using XP or VISTA, receive your certificate updates
automatically and invisibly, we, the 9X user do not. Would this perhaps then
indicate that we should be unconcered with these issues?
Or is it more, that you may fail to appreciate our needs and desires for
what these cetificates can mean within our systems?
Is it that you are suggesting that we should remain at the "END OF SUPPORT"
level, leaving us potentially vulnerable via ActiveX and the other which
might be encountered upon the Internet?
Or, perhaps, you're suggesting that ONLY via the use of one of Microsoft's
newer OSs can a user safely access the Internet?
Sorry about this, but I still use 9X, and not in a VM.
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
_________
|
| MEB wrote:
| > "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:%23ddPVpTcIHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| >> [That's not a critical security update, MEB.]
| >
| > Huh, I can't believe you said that,,, so from that presentation we can
| > presume that none of the Certificates are critical for any of the
numerous
| > functions they are used for, such as ensuring ActiveX objects, scripts
| > {like
| > one might find in .asp pages or .net apps], and DirectX are signed by
| > qualified and current authorities and that the "rights" assigned thereby
| > are
| > NOT critical nor are part of security , . hmm, okay, so all the hype
about
| > better security in XP and VISTA really IS pure crap then [since they
| > happen
| > to be used for even more functions in those environments and are one of
| > the
| > supposed key elements thereof, particularly in networked
environments]...
| > Thanks for correcting my error... ah yeah..
| >
| >
| >>
| >> MEB wrote:
| >>> Ah, though not officially supported, Microsoft did produce additional
| >>> Certificates updates, the last I downloaded for 9X was version
| >>> 16...12-13-2007.
| >>>
| >>> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >>> news:ex3Q1nMcIHA.1960@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| >>>> MS06-021 Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (916281)
| >>>>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS06-021.mspx
| >>>>
| >>>> MS06-022 Vulnerability in ART Image Rendering Could Allow Remote Code
| >>>> Execution (918439)
| >>>>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS06-022.mspx
| >>>>
| >>>> MS06-023 Vulnerability in Microsoft JScript Could Allow Remote Code
| >>>> Execution (917344)
| >>>>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS06-023.mspx
| >>>>
| >>>> MS06-024 Vulnerability in Windows Media Player Could Allow Remote
Code
| >>>> Execution (917734)
| >>>>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS06-024.mspx
| >>>>
| >>>> MS06-026 Vulnerability in Graphics Rendering Engine Could Allow
Remote
| >>>> Code
| >>>> Execution (918547)
| >>>>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS06-026.mspx
| >>>> ==============================
| >>>> All of the above were released on 13 Jun-06 and are available at
| >>>>
http://windowsupdate/microsoft.com and
| >>>>
http://v4.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/catalog/en/default.asp. No
more
| >>>> updates for Win9x were released after 13 Jun-06; Support fot Win9x
| >>>> ended
| >>>> on
| >>>> 11 Jul-06.
| >>>> --
| >>>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
| >>>> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
| >>>> AumHa VSOP & Admin
http://aumha.net
| >>>> DTS-L
http://dts-l.net/
| >>>>
| >>>> StargateFan wrote:
| >>>>> Thank you!
|