Re: FIREFOX 3.0 and lower vulnerability
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
>> --
>> _________
>>
>>
>
>