On 10 Jun 2003 19:39:22 GMT, "dkg_ctc" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>(E-Mail Removed) (sponge) wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed). com:
>>>And what do you use to support your claim that there is "still
>>>not sufficient bounds checking on IE's handling of IFRAMES"? A
>>>couple "vulnerabilities" which make no mention of IFRAMEs?
>> The flaw you cited.
>The flaw I cited was patched years ago...using that to claim that
>they still do insufficient checking on IFRAMEs today is illogical
>> Also, the flaw I posted a few weeks back in which opening more
>> than such-and-such number of IFRAMES For your edification, I
>> will repost:
>> It's worth pointing out that, while this particular issue was
>> patched (and I think this is what you were getting at) many
>> other issues were not.
>And they are IFRAME issues, right?
Do you mean the first exploit cited in my OP? It would appear so,
based on the story.
Look, after re-reading your posts, it's plain to see that you don't
know the first thing about security. There's more to this business
than playing with programs and setting up firewalls. You also need to
know about plans, fixes, manufacturer data, and -- perhaps most
relevant to this discussion -- usable and practical implementation
methods of procedures, hardware, and software. In this case, I'm
talking about the need for appropriate distribution of fixes and
patches that can readily usable and that won't deter potential users
from implementing them. Requiring full-blown upgrades for serious
security flaws, which means time and maybe money, is poor policy, and
tends to discourage the adoption of needed fixes. That's how it works
in the real world. An while I never discourage anybody from using
needed patches, the problem with Microsoft is that their "fixes" tend
to introduce more problems.
>>>> Which, incidentally, are only one version old -- legacy
>>>> software, perhaps, but we're not talking about ancient history
>>>> here. It is well within expectations for MS to patch such a
>>>> recent version of IE.
>>>And what information do you have which supports your belief that
>>>they won't? Once again, you're making claims with nothing to
>>>back them up.
>> History. What makes you assume that they will, naivete?
>Ooh, name calling, how immature...in any case, I'm not making an
>assumption either way. I'll leave that for you.
Yes, you should. In the real world, software vendors do not always
patch their products, and some that do have terrible methods. Witness
the subject of this thread.
>> This much is known about Microsoft: 1. they do not always patch
>> holes in IE; 2. when they do, it is often as a part of a forced
>> "upgrade", which may introduce new issues.
>And which may have less issues than older versions. Once again,
>you haven't provided any evidence to support that newer versions
>aren't more secure than previous versions.
Nor have you provided any evidence that patched, older versions are
inferior. A properly patched, older version (assuming it has fewer
features) has less chance of dangerous flaws. I have already provided
ample evidence of the many serious flaws with IE6.
>>>>>>>> There is no way to "lock down" the browser; the only
>>>>>>>> possible way to secure yourself from this is to
>>>>>>>> discontinue using Internet Explorer entirely.
>>>>>>>Or install IE6, which as reported by your own links is
>>>>>> A large percentage of people still use pre-6 versions.
>>>>>Which says nothing regarding the fact that "the only possible
>>>>>way to secure yourself from thsi is to discontinue using
>>>>>Internet Explorer entirely" was completely inaccurate.
>>>> No, actually it's entirely accurate.
>>>No it's not. How can you say that "the only possible way to
>>>secure yourself from this is to discontinue using Internet
>>>Explorer entirely" when there are ways to secure against this,
>>>specifically by upgrading to IE6, or following the advice that
>>>others have posted here? In fact, anyone who claims that that
>>>there's no way to secure against would appear very uninformed of
>>>the issue at hand, as there have been numerous ways to secure
>>>against this listed.
>> Once again, there is apparently no fix for users of existing
>> software, specifically, version 5.
>There are numerous fixes, including upgrading to versions 5.01,
>5.5 or 6.0 of IE. In fact, there have even been work-arounds
>posted IN THIS THREAD which will make it so you ARE NOT VULNERABLE
>to this exploit. You claiming that there is no fix is extremely
I get your point. It's also a disingenuous point from a security
perspective. There is no proper patch for existing versions. For the
umpteenth time, must every bug fix require an upgrade? If we are to
follow your (and Microsoft's) present logic, then yes. Download and
install 10-18 megs to patch a few dozen bytes of code, and introduce
more potential risks at the same time. Brilliant.
>> Forcing users to make a major upgrade in order to be safe from
>> design flaws is foolish, extremely dangerous,
>Oh yes, it's terribly more dangerous to upgrade to a browser which
>doesn't have those flaws.
And which may introduce new ones. And does. Read those links I gave
>> and smacks of malice and coercion. It's the stuff good lawsuits
>> are made of.
>Didn't you forget to add "IANAL", because it's clearly obvious
>that you aren't.
Are you sure about that?
>> What better way to force users to abide by some new EULA or DRM
>> scheme than to build in fundamental flaws, which can only be
>> fixed by upgrading, and thus accepting an increasingly
>> questionable agreement...
>Like I said previously, I'm not a big fan of the conspiracy
Generally, I am not either. But it sure would be a good long-range
plan, form MS' point-of-view.
>> More importantly, as stated in my last post, there is no
>> rational reason why a significant security flaw should not have
>> been fixed in such a relatively new version of a product.
>I'm sorry, but how is IE5.0--the version explicitly mentioned in
>the articles that YOU posted--a "relatively new version" when four
>years, three minor releases, and one major release separate IE5.0
It was included with Win2k. That's not exactly old, especially seeing
as Win2k is a major player in business environments. Didn't you know
Hey, also, please explain something: why is it that Microsoft is STILL
releasing patches which carry over to IE5 and 5+? And why is IE 5.01
in an Extended Support phase? That's not much newer than 5.0! They
just didn't release an IFRAME patch for 5. So much for your theories.
>> To apply your line of reasoning to the real world, it would be
>> similar to requiring auto owners to buy a new car to prevent
>> accidents due to a dangerously steering system that should have
>> been recalled.
>No, to apply that line of reasoning to the real world, it would be
>similar to a car company giving cars away for free, and then
>giving the new cars which fix flaws in the old cars away for free
I don't know about you, but I BOUGHT most of my computers and BOUGHT
my OS with it. The only systems and OSes I didn't buy were Linux and
some I did myself.
Do you really think Microsoft poured tens of thousand of man-hours --
and millions of dollars in human labor -- in order to give away it's
products? Please explain, then, why Bill Gates is worth $80 billion.
Bottom line is, Microsoft produced a defective product, one with
serious implications. Rather than fix it properly, they chose to force
users to upgrade, and introduced even more flaws at the same time.
>And bringing it back to the computer world, it would be similar to
>Redhat putting stopping all support after only two years. You
>want to talk about "coercien" and flaws "which can only be fixed
>by upgrading", I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Your argument makes no sense. If I am to interpret this correctly, you
believe that it would be okay for Redhat to drop support for legacy
products after two years? Perhaps. That would be Redhat's problem.
And, some crafty lawyer certainly could try to sue them under a
variety of pretexts, and has a very good chance of being successful.
>>>> The point is that IE is too unsafe to use in any form.
>>>"And I'll prove it by listing 'exploits' which not only require
>>>user intervention to work, but which don't effect the last two
>>>versions (IE6 and IE6SP1) of the browsers!"
>> Kinda like "drive-by" downloads, right?
>Once again, a SEPARATE, *RELEVANT* issue unrelated to either of
>the "exploits" you originally gave.
If you like, go ahead. Let me guess -- formatting the HD? I gave you a
list of almost a dozen exploits which DO affect IE6 just as severely
as 5,. as well as mentioning ActiveX downloads. And THOSE exploits
were just a sample of recent stuff appearing on BugTraq. So, show me
some bugs that require user interaction.
>>>> Not only was that the point of the this thread, but a point
>>>> brought up in posts of mine (and others) too numerous to
>>>Didn't you just get through saying that "The point was to point
>>>out flaws with some commentary"? Now you're saying that's not
>>>the point, and that the point is completely different.
>> The point was that IE is too unsafe to be reasonably used, and
>> that it's flaws can affect other applications as well. That was
>> the point.
>"The point was to point out flaws with some commentary." Back
>pedaling, back pedal, back pedal...
Let's see. First you were bitching that I did not explain myself or
provide enough support for my statements. You posted a reply, and I
explained myself further -- which is what you apparently wanted in
your reply to my OP. Now you are bitching because I elaborated? Can't
you get your story straight?
>> That's pretty much been the point of the upteen IE-related posts
>> I've made in the last several years.
>Then aren't you concerned that you might start sounding like a
Well, that's why I don't post a dozen links and write long, drawn out
treatises in each post. There's no need. The folks here know what's
going on. Perhaps you oughtta stick around here instead of hiding out
in Linux and Buffy groups -- maybe you would too.
>>>> The point is that IE and it's poor coding can affect other
>>>> applications. That's one of the prime reasons I recommend
>>>> against it, and also why I have recommended both in newsgroups
>>>> and on my site that IE be locked down even if users plan on
>>>> using other browsers. I HAVE pointed out that Microsoft has a
>>>> tendency to not simply patch, but add "features" (Read:
>>>> security holes, potential exploits, etc.) in patches and
>>>> upgrades. Since ungrading to IE6 is the only way of fixing
>>>> some flaws in IE, you are dealing with the introduction of a
>>>> new set of problems.
>>>And certainly you have numbers to prove this, right? You
>>>know...the number of patches for IE5 versus IE6? Things like
>>>that? Because no offense, but so far you seem to be pulling
>>>facts from your ass.
>> I haven't counted. If you can, go right ahead -- I have a life,
>> you know.
>Yeah...like repeatedly declaring to people who are already
>security conscious that Internet Explorer is not safe to use, and
>using non-issues to then back up those declarations?
Like backing it up with numerous reports, citations, links, quotes,
etc. I suppose your idea of security is to bury your head in the sand
and hope it doesn't happen to you -- that's security, right? Wrong.
Read. Learn. Enjoy your crow.
>> But the FACT is that MS frequently does not patch problems, and
>> when they do, their "patch" requires an upgrade. Again, if your
>> logic -- and Microsoft's -- were applied to other products, you
>> can see a whole lot more death and destruction.
>No, because the flaw in YOUR logic is that Internet Explorer is a
>FREE product, with FREE upgrades...your situation is using PAID
>FOR products and PAID FOR upgrades.
Internet Explorer is a PAID product as one PAYS for the OS in which it
is packaged and so thoroughly intertwined. One can reasonably expect
support and the fixing of dangerous defects, never minding the ethical
and product-liability problems.
Again, Microsoft does not produce "free" products -- it takes money to
produce product, and the cost is borne by purchasers of their
products, like me. Perhaps you have a pirated version of Windows; I do
>>>> That's not "patching".
>>>Not in your book, anyways.
>> Not in most people's.
>Maybe you should stick to what you believe, and let other people
>speak for themselves, hmm? Because no offense, but if some of the
>reactions to your Kerio rules over in comp.security.firewalls are
>any indication, you really have no room to be speaking for "most
Oh, wow! I don't know where to start picking apart this one, but thank
you for presenting such target-rich foolishness.
Before I begin, for the interest of others who may be reading this,
the full thread to which dkg is referring to is here (note, however,
that the message from the original poster, Mike Liu, was apparently
not pciked up by Google, but is included in one of YK's replies.)
Anyway, let me start picking apart your argument. First, you clearly
have no basis to support your contention, so you resort to an ad
hominem attack. What's worse than a plain old ad hominem attack is
this is a complete non sequitur and is completely irrelevant to the
issue at hand. And you talk about pulling things out of one's a$$?
But, I'll take your bait laughting my a$$ off. And this proves, beyond
any shadow of a doubt, that you know absolutely nothing about
security, because, by publishing the decrypted Kerio rulesets, I was
publishing my source code!!!!!
Okay, so two people don't trust my Kerio lists because, as one poster
(speaking like Tracker) put it, "It's possible they [I'm a 'they?']
could be installing backdoors into kerio.?" The poster(s) Mike Liu and
Dreamweaver clearly had no idea what the purpose of MD5 is -- they
thought it was some kind of code, and other posters as well as I tried
to explain what MD5 is and the fact that my Kerio files contains them
presents no security risk -- indeed, they increase it. All I did was
set the record straight and explain how MD5s work and basically how
Kerio works, and the fact that my MD5s are in there make no
difference, because if your MD5 doesn't match mine, or it doesn't
match null, you'd get an alert. There wasn't exactly a firestorm
following my comments -- in fact, after my posting which was
(incorrectly) shown as posted at 3:24 a.m., the entire subject of MD5s
dropped. Oooh, what a (non) reaction!
So, since were on this subject, what have you contributed to the world
of security? It would seem nothing. If anything, perhaps you're even
contributing to the impairment of it by arguing that a
still-fatally-flawed version of IE (6) is safer than the
dubiously-less-safe IE5. (Which, if we are to follow that logic, means
that it's somehow "safer" to get hacked via the ShowHelp exploit than
via Exploit.SelfExec exploit -- in other words, is it better to have
maliciois code delivered by the former or that latter - I got news for
ya, and any security guru will tell you this, you're gonna get just as
hacked either way.) Moreover, you're detracting from the overall
advancement of security by advocating an arcane and
ethically-questionable practice of not releasing patches for
relatively cuirrent and widely-used products.
One last thing to mention: I don't care for ad hominem attacks, so I
won't rake you over the coals for trolling and arguing in groups like
this or comp.os.linux.advocacy in defense of MS. And, FWIW, I could
make your current argument going on over there more relevant to this
particular discussion than your completely irrelevant citation of a
short "debate" from comp.security.firewalls, which came from
completely out of the blue. However, I won't do that. But I will say
this: you're not doing yourself or security in general any favors by a
blind allegiance to Microsoft. Their products have their merits and
their drawbacks, as does Linux, as does Opera's, as does Eudora's, and
so on. But don't flip out because somebody criticizes them, because
the criticism can often be constructive, and just as importantly is
usually deserved. People are bitching for a reason. And, the whole
reason why this debate (and, I suspect, your other debate in the Linux
group) is happening at all is because -- and, again, don't take
offense, as this is not meant to be insulting or derogatory, but
rather constructive criticism) -- your mentality seems to be virtually
identical to that of Microsoft: rather than fix a problem, foist an
entirely new product on the public, be it IE6, Longhorn, TCPA,
whatever. Rather than take constructive criticism and use it ot better
itself and its products, Microsoft would rather deny problems exist,
do a rather half-assed job of fixing some of those they do
acknowledge, or simply blame users, hardware, other software, and
everyone else but themselves. And the previous two sentences largely
explains a lot of the loathing people feel towards Microsoft and it's
products. And you obviously realize that there is a lot of truth in
this, even though you won't come right out and admit it, because you
even acknowledged that Microsoft's browser is too flawed and insecure
when all is said and done. This not meant to be vituperative, only
>> Using a definition of "patch" that dates back at least a far as
>> Apple days (when I first saw one), a patch is a small piece of
>> code designed to fix a specific problem or set of them, not a
>> major freakin' 18 megabyte monstrosity.
>But if that "18 megabyte monstrosity" increases security by
>patching potential security vulnerabilities which may be found,
>then I would consider it a patch.
Sure, but it makes more sense to patch an existing version with a
little, itty, bitty patch than require an 18 megabyte monstrosity.
Especially when that 18 megabyte monstrosity introduces brand-new
flaws -- putting users back at about the same level of risk.
>> Try and imagine if MS required a full upgrade each time ANY flaw
>> came out! Then you'll see the total lack of logic in your
>No, I think you'll see the total lack of logic in YOUR reasoning,
>because MS doesn't do it with ANY flaw, and MS doesn't even force
>you to upgrade your browser for every flaw. Hell, the IFRAME
>vulnerability you listed above includes patches for versions of IE
>going back to 5.01.
Wait, I'm gonna start laughing my a$$ off again at YET ANOTHER
contradiction you made -- you're whole argument has been that, if you
use IE5, you should just upgrade and fix that problem, and now you're
claiming just the opposite...that Microsoft doesn't require you to
upgrade. Well, they do if you want to be protected from their bug! Oh,
I love it. I'm glad Google is archiving this.
By the way, your statement there also reveals how wrong you are.
"...MS doesn't even force you to upgrade your browser for every flaw,"
you said. But some. And it only takes one serious flaw to do an
incredible amount of damage. Remember Sapphire?
>> The point is that upgrading an entire browser type to fix a few
>> bytes of misbehaving code is completely without logic.
>You act as if this behavior by browser makers is limited to
>Internet Explorer, but Mozilla and Opera both do the same thing.
>But hey...might as well make this post into "Big bad Microsoft",
Mozilla and Opera do not require payment for their products, and they
are not a part of the OS. Microsoft does, and it is a part of an OS.
Nor does Moz or Opera have thousands of professional programmers and
billions of dollars in resources. Moz and Opera as fundamentally
intertwined with the OS as is Internet Explorer.
>>>> In fact, one could credibly argue that Microsoft deliberately
>>>> did not patch prior versions of IE in order to force users to
>>>> upgrade to the most current version.
>>>By all means, feel free to argue that. I'm not a big fan of the
>>>conspiracy theories, though, nor do I think that Microsoft has
>>>any obligation to release patches for IE5, considering there has
>>>been IE5.01, 5.5 and 6.0 (and numerous service packs in
>> If software products were treated by the same liability
>> standards as conventional, physical products, you bet they would
>> be obligated! Software liability law, however, is just in its
>> infancy...it should be interesting to see what happens in the
>> next few years.
>Yes, it will be interesting. However, as far as I'm concerned, if
>the software makers--ANY software makers--provide their software
>with no claim that it will or won't work securely, then that
>should be the end of it. If, as a user, you're unhappy about
>that, then take it up with the software companies by not using
Perhaps. I'm a little split on this issue myself. However, you ARE
aware that in the real world of product liability, simply offering a
disclaimer is not a significant defense against product defects. If a
disclaimer was all it took for immunity, Ford would never get sued,
McDonalds woudl never get sued, doctors would never get sued...well,
>> Microsot, however, can fairly be held to a higher standard that
>> Joe Smith's Software.
>Here comes the, "Oh, well, it's Microsoft, so we should treat them
>differently" argument. Thanks, but no thanks.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and a judge and/or jury will be
entitled to theirs.
>> Even if we were to put the issue of the potential introduction
>> of new problems -- which you still haven't addressed -- we can
>> see that it's an unreasonable tack for Microsoft to take.
>You haven't addressed the fact that newer versions have actually
>become LESS prone to security vulnerabilities, nor do I expect you
Less prone to EXISTING vulnerabilities. I have seen no evidence that
they are significantly less vulnerable overall. In fact, let's look at
your argument logically:
Given - new features are added with newer browsers, and that both are
patched adequately for known defects.
ActiveX controls, VBScripting, CSS
Based on this -- and assuming that the underlying code is the same,
which is more likely to have known serious flaws? Give you a hint --
it ain't Browser 1, because there's less there TO exploit, and because
browser one was given the appropriate PATCHES (something which you are
apparently against) to address it's specific flaws.
This, incidentally, is part of the reason why Opera and Mozilla don't
get victijmized by Drive-By Downloads, while IE does -- they don't
have the capability to be victimized, or at least as severely and
easily. Yet Opera and Mozilla allow the download and scripting of
applications if it's needed.
And there's proof in the pudding: ShowHelp exploit, which affects IE
5.01 through 6SP1, but NOT 5.0!, and the aforementioned DoS, which
ONLY affects 6! As well as a number of others...
>> Patching by upgrading may be acceptable for relatively small
>Or browser-makers like Mozilla and Opera, or OS vendors like
>Redhat and Mandrake and Suse, or...
Please give a citation of a Redhat bug that was cured by a full
installation with no patch offered. I did not have to d/l 1.6 GB of OS
last time I had to fix a bug, atlhough I've d/led some sizeable
"fixes" and minor-version upgrades.
>> Microsoft has the resources to do things the right way.
>And so what? They have the resources, big deal. That doesn't
>make them any more obligated to it.
Sure, it does. For one thing, Windows is a pricey product, so it's not
unreasonable to expect better support.
>>>>>Seems to me that your point was, "You can't use IE safely",
>>>>>and I think that's probably what any sane reader would have
>>>>>seen as the point, considering you actually went so far as to
>>>>>repeat that point. You referred to an "exploit" which
>>>>>requires you to download a ZIP file, open the ZIP file, and
>>>>>run an HTML file in the context of the local zone, and a patch
>>>>>which fixes security holes, as evidence that Internet
>>>>>Explorer can't be used safely.
>>>> The point WAS that you can't use IE safely, and I referred to
>>>> two exploits: one was patched, one was not after how long.
>>>You tell me. How long? When was it first reported to
>>>Microsoft? When was it first publicly reported? It's kind of
>>>hard to claim that something is insecure when you don't even
>>>know if the vulnerability has been reported to Microsoft, isn't
>> Let's see. The second item in my post was reported about mid-May
>> (still a long time!).
>A) Mid-May isn't a long time, and B) how do you know that?
>Certainly neither of the links you gave support that claim. And
>given your aversion for making claims that don't have much
>backing, you'll have to forgive me if I want actual references to
>when these vulnerabilities were reported to MS.
For (B) I got from the article that it was two years. Kind of a long
>> The first trojan was reported around the same time.
>> IFRAME exploits go back as far as 1999.
>> BTW, upon further review, I found more info to prove you are
>> wrong in your "IE6 is immune" logic:
>"...and as stated earlier, this is a minor issue."
>>>> I actually had a better link to browser-specific flaws
>>>> (including some in Opera), although I cannot find it.
>> Nope, much better, with some good POC. I'll find it eventually
>> -- somewhere in 3 megs of bookmarks.
>I'll be interested in seeing it when you find it. Unfortunately,
>Pivx is the only clearing house for unpatched IE vulnerabilities
>that I've come across.
Here's one you might appreciate in the interim:
>>>> Nonetheless, I cited two recent and highly valid flaws.
>>>Highly valid to you...to me, they are non-issues which may--or
>>>may not--have been reported to Microsoft, and which require
>>>either out-of-date browsers (sorry, but you aren't going to
>>>convince me that Microsoft should still be releasing patches for
>>>a browser which has been out since 1999 when they've released IE
>>>5.01, 5.01SP1, 5.01SP2, 5.01SP3, 5.5, 5.5 SP1, 5.5SP2, 6.0, and
>>>6.0SP1 since that time) or user intervention. "Yeah, just
>>>download this zip and view the HTML document!! No, really, it's
>>>safe!!" Sorry, but that's not a security vulnerability.
>> It it is easy enough to convince a user to download a ZIP --
>> people do every day, and unzip it via WinZIP or WINRAR using
>> browser's built-in open feature, which may not even require user
>As far as I know, neither WinRAR or Winzip (not sure on Winzip, as
>I haven't used it in ages) open ZIPs automatically. And then,
>with at least WinRAR, the files aren't extracted until AFTER the
>one of the files is opened, at which point you don't need Internet
I'm think WinZIP is largely automatic. I have it installed (though I
use WINRAR mostly, and have my associations set to that application).
IIRC, WinZIP launched from Mozilla's download menu will only produce a
dialogue box asking if you want ot run WinZIP or close, or choose a
Bear in mind that, even if WinZIP did require user intervention, it's
quite easy to trick a user into believing he downloaded a "legitimate"
ZIP file, and, by unZIPping it via the convenient download menu, can
result in the aforementioned exploit being launched. Come to thing of
it, unZIPping it into any known path should even do the trick. I've
downloaded too many ZIPs to count, and unZIPped many using the
download menu. So, even under the most forgiving circumstances, this
is anything but an unlikely scenario.
>> Morever, it *seems* easy enough for a redirect to take care of
>> viewing the document.
>Once again, I know WinRAR doesn't extract--or even open--archive
>files from a website.
No, but it does extract local ZIP archives, which, as the press
release (and you) described the exploit, as doing. Therefore, any way
you look at it, it's a problem. Less of a potential problem if user
interaction is required, perhaps, but still a problem because it's
commonplace for people to download and run an unZIPper.
>> That's hardly a process that needs lots of user intervention.
>If what you said was accurate, then you'd be correct. However,
>I'm not convinced that what you describe is accurate--at least,
>not for WinRAR.
>>>> And I followed up with recent BugTraq-documented flaws. Sounds
>>>> like you're sore that I'm not representing Pivx,
>>>That's not it at all. What I'm "sore" at is that people like
>>>you would rather use non-issues and vulnerabilities in defunct
>>>software to make a point, when there are plenty of VALID
>>>unpatched security holes out there. Hell, you don't even have
>>>to link to Pivx...in fact, the majority of the time, they don't
>>>even discover the vulnerabilities, they just have an archive of
>>>the ones which are unpatched.
>> Hardly defunct. Here's a little news for ya -- in RealLife land,
>> not everybody jumps on the newest Microsoft product the day it
>> comes out.
>Yeah, and everyone knows that IE 5.01, 5.5 and 6.0 just came out
Hmm, I still see a lot of businesses using 5.0 and the others. You
see, in the real world, it's not so easy upgrading an entire company.
Add to that fact the IE bugs come out on a weekly, sometimes daily,
basis. For example *FOUR* were reported on SecurityFocus in the last
week, and three since this thread began!! One old, the others new. And
all apply only to 5.01 through 6!
>> Not everybody jumps when Microsoft says so. Not everybody even
>> knows to.
>Well, seeing as how Internet Explorer is being listed in the
>Recommended Updates, I don't see how ignorance is an excuse in
Well, not everybody has the knowledge that we do. Unfortunately, the
average Joe does not even know the threats that exist let alone can
afford the services of a security professional. Again, a dose of
>> A browser version one-off is hardly old -- especially since MS
>> is still supporting legacy OS' like 98 (well, somewhat).
>Last I checked, 98SE stopped being supported last summer. That's
>not to say that you can't call up MS and maybe get pay per issue,
>but patches for 98 are no longer. Oh, and seeing as 98SE was
>released in 99 (the same time as IE 5.0), I think it's fair that
>support for IE5.0 be dead and gone.
I had 4.0 packaged with what apparently is a fairly late edition of
98SE which is on my system. I seem to remember 5.0 being out about
Me/2k time -- that's usually where I see it. At any rate, there are
still a few recent patches applicable to Win98, if not designed
expressly for it. So, I apparently it is true that 98 is finally done.
>> And, responsible manufacturers likewise support legacy products.
>> Just because you don't like the version makes it less true.
>Like or dislike is irrelevant (although the fact that you're
>trying to make it look like I have a personal issue with IE5.0 in
>this debate is...well...pathetic). What IS relevant is that IE5.0
>is four years old. It was released in 1999. Since then, there
>have been two minor releases (5.01 and 5.5), one major version,
>and numerous SPs.
It was being sold in 2000 and, I think, even in 2001 as a part of
software lying around on shelves. In any case, Microsoft should still
offer patches for it -- it's not as old as you claim it to be, and IE
5 is still reasonably within the expected viable life cycle of an
application. I think "life cycle" might be better way to explain the
issue, and seems to be the point you're missing.
>> There are still older versions of IE 5 out. Yes, it's true!
>And there are still old versions of Windows 95 out there too.
>Should Microsoft be expected to support those as well? What about
>old versions of Linux distros where support has ended?
>> And, thanks to this "Microsoft Mentality", they -- and,
>> potentially, businesses and other innocent users -- because they
>> chose not to address the issue by a proper patch, but by forcing
>> people to upgrade.
>Yep..."forcing" people to upgrade from a four-year-old browser
>instead of providing patches for it. Bad Microsoft! Bad!!
For a browser still (at least marginally) within a reasonable life
cycle, yes, that's BAD!
>> And, once again, also risking the introduction of a new set of
>And, once again, you're making claims without backing them up...
I did so profusely in past posts, in this one, and will again. Are you
going to complain about my responding to your challenges again? Read
up on the HtmlHelp vulnerability and others I've posted here and in
>> Incidentally, in RealWorld-land, most people upgrade only when
>> forced to, either by a system crash which requires the
>> installation of a fresh OS, or when buying a new computer. So,
>> in practical terms, your "solution" to fixing problems is to
>> force people to lay down anywhere from $150 for XP to $2000 for
>> a new computer. Yes, I'm well aware that IE 6 can be downloaded
>> for free. But
>No, there is no "but" about it. IE6 can be downloaded for free.
>Period. End of discussion.
Well, here we go again. In the real world, not everything is as
cut-and-dried as you seem to think it is. Security professionals exist
to address security issues to others can live their lives and not have
to worry (excessively) about that crap. The average Joe does not. Nor
can the average Joe afford the services of a professional. Not
everybody can be a Jack-of-All-Trades, either. And, while I deeply
wish more people would take online security seriously, the cold, hard
reality of the matter is that the average Joe is too busy with his own
life, job, and problems than to become an security whiz on the side.
And I wish that people would at least take the time to educate
themselves and secure themselves somewhat; I created my website for
precisely these reasons. But not everybody will.
Let me explain it another way:
I also wish that everybody would take an active interest in politics,
because the workings of the political world affect everybody. I wish
everybody would learn to swim and possibly save their own life
someday. I wish people would learn how to do basic preventative
maintenance on their car to spare themseves the headache of costly
repairs. But I can't -- nor have any right outside certain specific
environments -- to force them to do any of the above.
The point of this little missive is that those of us in the real world
recognize that, at least to some extent, these things 'just ain't
gonna happen.' Not on a large scale. People have their own lives and,
although you can try to educate them, there is only so much you can
do. And, while I certainly feel that more CAN always be done with
respect to educating people about online security -- "never give up",
I say -- I'm also a pragmatist. I recognize the fact that, outside an
environment I control, I can't force people to exercise good
judgment, be aware of risks, and be secure.
Therefore, it entirely unrealistic to fall back on 'it's the user's
fault', and expect that people will always play by the book. So-called
"social engineering" attacks are all too common.
Not to mention many attacks can lure even those who do 'go by the
book' to breach security, let alone attacks that don't require human
intervention. People download zipfiles and executables off the net all
the time -- if they didn't, we'd defeat part of the purpose of the
Internet. So, it's unreasonable to say that a bug that Microsoft
should have addressed in the first place is at fault here, not the
behavior of hundreds of millions of people who are using the Internet
for exactly the kind of purpose ifor which it is intended.
In the end, we've got to play the hand we're dealt, and try to
strategize a little to improve our odds. Unfortunately, Microsoft is
of little help -- and sometimes counterproductive -- in achieving
>> out there, in the real world, most people don't voluntarily
>THAT'S NOT MICROSOFT'S FAULT!!
Yes and no. Microsoft could (and does) offer a built-in feature called
Windows Update and Install-on-Demand. (Which, incidentally, I'm
skeptical of from an operational point-of-view, and generally
recommend disabling under normal circumstances. However, they do serve
a legitimate purpose and are not completely without merit -- but
knowing when to enable them and when to disable them, again, is not
for the faint-of-heart.) But, AFAIK, IoD doesn't work for patches and
Windows Update requires manual intervention i.e. you have to recognize
that occasional patching is necessary and then go do them
Don't get the idea that I necessarily favor automatic upgrades and
patching. I don't, necessarily. Many software vendors and
Internet-related services, and one of the most egregious of all being
Microsoft, have an atrocious record privacy-wise. In fact, personally,
I'd rather dispense with automatic phoning-home-for-whatever even if
it serves a legitimate purpose such as patching, because the privacy
implications are too severe. And, I freely admin, I don't trust
Microsoft, nor most product and advertising vendors worth squat. So,
at the end of the day, when all is said and done, I'd prefer to keep
my privacy and endure doing updates manually, as people can be
informed of the need to update via email or snail mail.
But it IS Microsoft's fault for (1) creating code that is wildly
insecure (IE), (2) enabling (by default) wildly insecure features
(remember File & Print Sharing? uPNP?), and (3) not offering a
reasonable upgrade/patching solution (and, particularly from my
point-of-view, one which respects the consumer's privacy while
offering a useful service -- Microsoft does neither.)
>> Even if they knew that they should, most don't know HOW to go
>> about doing it. Most don't know WHY they should.
>Yep...that big "Windows Update" is really buried in the start
>> And most are scared that an upgrade will screw up their system.
>There you go talking about what most people think/feel again.
Comes from experience, which you clearly don't have. It's a major
consideration. Heck, even I worry about the seamlessness of upgrades.
I even worried about that when I "upgraded" to IE6, even though I
rarely use the thing and have no important favorites or other data
stored in it.
>*broken record snipped*
>> You see, the problem here -- and the core point of what you seem
>> to be arguing in all these posts--- is that upgrading a whole 18
>> MEGABYTE BROWSER is a better solution than simply providing a
>> dinky little 500k patch.
>When it comes down to a choice between continuing patching for a
>four-year-old browser which doesn't even run on OS'es supported by
>Microsoft, and providing users an upgrade to a newer version, yes,
>I believe that providing users with an upgrade is the better
Well, then that's an extremely dangerous mentality, especially in
light of that fact that, contrary to your assertion, some OS' are
Incidentally, you are implying in your argument here that OS's like
98, ME, and possibly, even Win2k are "not even OS'es supported by
Microsoft". Then that only proves the case I made earlier about how
Microsoft is effectively forcing users to shell out $150-$2000 to
comply with their "upgrades". And that only lends credence to the
contention that Microsoft is using security flaws to gouge consumers.
>> So, what if that logic were applied to all security fixes in IE:
>> use 36 times the bandwidth and 36 times the amount of time to
>> fix every bug in IE.
>But it's not, and you know it's not. Don't try the straw man with
>me...it won't work.
It is in the case of the Exploit.SelfExec flaw, which you so richly
pointed out. And your statements regarding Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE,
in arguing a similar point, imply the even more ludicrous
acceptability of using this methodology to upgrade (in the case of
Redhat) a 1.6 GB OS.
More to your point, sure, not all flaws are addressed with such
massive downloads. If they were, we'd have a much worse situation on
our hands. But, you have never addressed how it would have so badly
hurt Microsoft to cobble together a dinky 500k patch for SelfExec
>> And, on top of everything else, you still haven't addressed
>> another major flaw in your reasoning that I have brought up of
>> the course of several posts: an entire "upgrade" brings a new
>> set of potential problems due to the introduction or expansion
>> of features.
>Or an entire upgrade brings a new set of potential security tools
>which prevents exploitation. But you'll ignore this, point and
>continue making the claim that newer versions are less secure.
Security tools that could have accomplished the same thing, and you'll
conveniently ignore THAT point. Moreover, you'll also ignore the fact
that a number of exploits DO exist that affect IE6, but not IE5. How
'bout the ClassID DoS, that ONLY affects IE6? Please explain how much
better that is. Or the Fake URL vulnerability, that only affects 5.5
and 6? Or any of the others I've pointed out.
>>>> But BugTraq is considered one of the preeminent tracking
>>>> houses in the security industry, and lists a litany of IE
>>>> flaws as well as other most other known security risks and
>>>> flaws in every kind of software.
>>>You're absolutely right, they are. But you didn't throw out the
>>>Security Focus links at first; you waited until someone
>>>challenged you on the issues (or lack thereof) that you
>>>originally brought up. If you'd simply used ACTUAL issues, like
>>>those listed at Security Focuse, from the get-go, then I
>>>wouldn't have thought twice. As it is, I saw you using flawed
>>>information to come to a correct conclusion; whether it's a
>>>correct conclusion or not, it's still flawed information that
>>>brought you there, and THAT'S why I commented.
>> Must I post a dozen links with each post?
>No...but it'd be helpful if you listed actual, relevant security
>which don't require user intervention or browsers which are four-
I have. We in alt.privacy.spyware see the results of an extremely
severe feature/exploit that causes headaches -- if not outright theft
of information, ID theft, etc. They're called "drive-by" downloads.
And this is by far the only one. If you'd paid any kind of attention,
you'd know that by now. Of course, this gets back to a major point I
made previously: most of the folks here know what's going on, so I
don't have to preach to the choir or rehash what I've posted a zillion
times previously. If you'd bothered to take the time to know what you
were talking about, dropping in out of nowhere and argue foolish
points, you'd know that my short original post in this thread was not
a detailed dissertation on everything that is wrong with Internet
Explorer, but simply yet another reason not to use a severely
defective product, which most of us had already figured out long ago.
I hope this is clear enough for you. I wrote this rather late. If not,
well, maybe I'll waste the time trying to clarify, maybe I won't.
Sponge's Anti-Spyware Source
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (sponge) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) om:
> Look, after re-reading your posts, it's plain to see that you don't
> know the first thing about security.
Oh, good, you've saved me the effort of having to read the rest of
your post...after all, it's safe to assume that if I do, it'll just
be more talking down.
Thanks for preventing me from wasting any further time with you.
"dkg_ctc" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> (E-Mail Removed) (sponge) wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed) om:
>> Look, after re-reading your posts, it's plain to see that you don't
>> know the first thing about security.
> Oh, good, you've saved me the effort of having to read the rest of
> your post...after all, it's safe to assume that if I do, it'll just
> be more talking down.
> Thanks for preventing me from wasting any further time with you.
I am no programming guru, but from personal experience, I know what's
secure and what isn't.
Microsoft Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are not secure. They can
issue updates into eternity, but they are still trying to patch that
Rambler frame which was a rust bucket the day it rolled off the line.
Sorry for the trailer park metaphor, but it seems very appropriate.
sponge, certain NGs are being targeted by M$ trolls, specifically this one
and the Linux ones. The best thing you can do is simply ignore.
M$ will introduce Longhorn and Palladium, and both will become fertile new
playgrounds for the crackers and script kiddies.
James E. Morrow
donut <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> "dkg_ctc" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> (E-Mail Removed) (sponge) wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) om:
>>> Look, after re-reading your posts, it's plain to see that you
>>> don't know the first thing about security.
>> Oh, good, you've saved me the effort of having to read the rest
>> of your post...after all, it's safe to assume that if I do, it'll
>> just be more talking down.
>> Thanks for preventing me from wasting any further time with you.
> I am no programming guru, but from personal experience, I know
> what's secure and what isn't.
> Microsoft Internet Explorer and Outlook Express are not secure.
> They can issue updates into eternity, but they are still trying to
> patch that Rambler frame which was a rust bucket the day it rolled
> off the line.
> Sorry for the trailer park metaphor, but it seems very
> sponge, certain NGs are being targeted by M$ trolls, specifically
> this one and the Linux ones. The best thing you can do is simply
> M$ will introduce Longhorn and Palladium, and both will become
> fertile new playgrounds for the crackers and script kiddies.
The insecurity of IE 5.5 is such that Microsoft has said that they
canít and will not try to remedy it. Future patches for IE 5.5 will not
be made available. I would strongly recommend that you upgrade to IE
6.0 & OE 6.0. Yes, patches on patches unto eternity. Microsoft security
is deplorable. None the less, this is the best available solution.
James E. Morrow
Email to: (E-Mail Removed)
|James E. Morrow|
"James E. Morrow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> I myself use Netscape 7.02, Xnews 06.02.16, Gravity 2.60 and Pegasus
Looks like you have dedicated email and news programs, so why not replace
the Netscape with Phoenix Firebird as I did? Exactly the same browser and
way less bloat. Lots of skins are available as well.
Jay T. Blocksom
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:19:09 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "James E.
Morrow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> The insecurity of IE 5.5 is such that Microsoft has said that they
> canít and will not try to remedy it.
You got that much right.
> I would strongly recommend that you upgrade to IE
> 6.0 & OE 6.0. Yes, patches on patches unto eternity. Microsoft security
> is deplorable. None the less, this is the best available solution.
No, it isn't. Not even close. This is:
Jay T. Blocksom
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|Jay T. Blocksom|
James E. Morrow
Jay T. Blocksom <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) om:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:19:09 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>,
> "James E. Morrow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > The insecurity of IE 5.5 is such that Microsoft has said that
> > they canít and will not try to remedy it.
> You got that much right.
> > I would strongly recommend that you upgrade to IE
> > 6.0 & OE 6.0. Yes, patches on patches unto eternity. Microsoft
> > security is deplorable. None the less, this is the best
> > available solution.
> No, it isn't. Not even close. This is:
Yea, ieradicator and a can of bug spray.
James E. Morrow
Email to: (E-Mail Removed)
|James E. Morrow|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Internet Explorer 8: C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe vs C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe||Nathan Sokalski||Windows 64bit||16||02-22-2010 08:31 AM|
|internet explorer 7 - Internet Explorer cannot display the webpag||sandy j||Windows 64bit||0||05-02-2009 02:12 AM|
|501 PIX "deny any any" "allow any any" Any Anybody?||Networking Student||Cisco||4||11-16-2006 10:40 PM|
|Winfixer constantly popping up on FireFox, Mozilla, and Internet Explorer. Only Avant Browser stops it and all other crap!||John Breckenridge||Computer Support||8||08-14-2005 05:30 PM|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc..
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.