WMF patch includes Win 9X/ME

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Art, Jan 4, 2006.

  1. Art

    Art Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Art

    Peter Guest

    Art wrote:
    >
    > http://www.nod32.ch/en/download/tools.php
    >
    > Art
    >
    > http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg


    Has anyone tried this fix on a win98se system? Does it slow the GDI
    down? (Guess there must be some overhead as it interecepts commands to
    the GDI).

    Until there's a definite reported instance of this wmf vulnerability
    affecting win98 machine -- none so far AFAIK -- might it not be better
    to leve alone? What say ye?
    Peter, Jan 5, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Art

    Guest

    On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:23:44 +0000, Peter <"veryhjdf"@kk.zz$> spewed:
    >> http://www.nod32.ch/en/download/tools.php
    >>
    >> Art
    >>
    >> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

    >
    >Has anyone tried this fix on a win98se system? Does it slow the GDI
    >down? (Guess there must be some overhead as it interecepts commands to
    >the GDI).
    >
    >Until there's a definite reported instance of this wmf vulnerability
    >affecting win98 machine -- none so far AFAIK -- might it not be better
    >to leve alone? What say ye?


    Ya, and what about 95?
    Usually 9x is not vulnerable to the sea of vulnerabilities of 2k/XP.

    --
    _____________________________________________________
    For email response, or CC, please mailto:see.my.sig.4.addr(at)bigfoot.com.
    Yeah, it's really a real address :)
    , Jan 5, 2006
    #3
  4. Art

    Art Guest

    On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:23:44 +0000, Peter <"veryhjdf"@kk.zz$> wrote:

    >Art wrote:
    >>
    >> http://www.nod32.ch/en/download/tools.php


    >Has anyone tried this fix on a win98se system? Does it slow the GDI
    >down? (Guess there must be some overhead as it interecepts commands to
    >the GDI).
    >
    >Until there's a definite reported instance of this wmf vulnerability
    >affecting win98 machine -- none so far AFAIK -- might it not be better
    >to leve alone? What say ye?


    I am not expert enough to give you a definitive answer. Certainly Win
    9X/ME are not targeted by the recent rash of WMF malware which use
    particular weaknesses found in the later OS. Yet many experts point
    out that OS all the back to Win 3.X have WMF vulnerabilities. I doubt
    that NOD antivirus researchers would have bothered to cover the
    Win 98 case if they didn't think it was a potential problem. It will
    be interesting to see if MS offers a patch for Win 98 and ME.

    Besides Win 2K Pro, I also run a Win ME machine. I've installed
    Ilfak's fix on the former and the NOD32 fix on the latter since
    Ilfak's fix doesn't cover the 9X/ME cases. There's no "slowing
    down" on either machine. There would be some small amount of
    RAM useage but I haven't bothered to check how much.

    Art

    http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
    Art, Jan 5, 2006
    #4
  5. Art

    Guest

    On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:34:25 GMT, Art <> spewed:
    >>> http://www.nod32.ch/en/download/tools.php

    >
    >>Has anyone tried this fix on a win98se system? Does it slow the GDI
    >>down? (Guess there must be some overhead as it interecepts commands to
    >>the GDI).
    >>
    >>Until there's a definite reported instance of this wmf vulnerability
    >>affecting win98 machine -- none so far AFAIK -- might it not be better
    >>to leve alone? What say ye?

    >
    >I am not expert enough to give you a definitive answer. Certainly Win
    >9X/ME are not targeted by the recent rash of WMF malware which use
    >particular weaknesses found in the later OS. Yet many experts point
    >out that OS all the back to Win 3.X have WMF vulnerabilities. I doubt
    >that NOD antivirus researchers would have bothered to cover the
    >Win 98 case if they didn't think it was a potential problem. It will
    >be interesting to see if MS offers a patch for Win 98 and ME.
    >
    >Besides Win 2K Pro, I also run a Win ME machine. I've installed
    >Ilfak's fix on the former and the NOD32 fix on the latter since
    >Ilfak's fix doesn't cover the 9X/ME cases. There's no "slowing
    >down" on either machine. There would be some small amount of
    >RAM useage but I haven't bothered to check how much.
    >


    Ah man, I'm already so short on RAM the CPU's dying of thirst!
    Can't upgrade it in this particular badly designed laptop either :(

    I'm assuming the only way I'd be vulnerable is via web browser, so can you
    turn it on and off? That way I could only run it when I'm on the web.

    --
    _____________________________________________________
    For email response, or CC, please mailto:see.my.sig.4.addr(at)bigfoot.com.
    Yeah, it's really a real address :)
    , Jan 6, 2006
    #5
  6. Art

    Lars Guest

    Steve gibson of the "Security Now!" podcast said that he would make a
    win 98 patch if windows didn't make, so hopefully he and Ilfak will put
    one out soon. <http://grc.com/sn/notes-020.htm>
    Lars, Jan 6, 2006
    #6
  7. Art

    Peter Guest

    Lars wrote:
    >
    > Steve gibson of the "Security Now!" podcast said that he would make a
    > win 98 patch if windows didn't make, so hopefully he and Ilfak will put
    > one out soon. <http://grc.com/sn/notes-020.htm>



    Or use the freeware patch here. Works great and is removable if you
    decide not to keep it.

    http://www.nod32.ch/en/download/tools.php

    Peter//
    Peter, Jan 7, 2006
    #7
  8. Art

    Lars Guest

    if you want to avoid installing a aptch, you could always unregister
    the .dll. directions on were microsofts site...
    Lars, Jan 10, 2006
    #8
  9. Art

    Guest

    On 9 Jan 2006 18:15:15 -0800, "Lars" <> spewed:
    >if you want to avoid installing a aptch, you could always unregister
    >the .dll. directions on were microsofts site...


    How, and what would be the effects of such?
    I could swear I heard that wouldn't work, but maybe that was unassociating
    it. Something to do with files other than the dll being able to be
    affected because it can be sensed by internals of the file as well as file
    type. But, I'm vague on that recollection.
    --
    _____________________________________________________
    For email response, or CC, please email .
    Yeah, it's really a real address :)
    , May 9, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,239
  2. Jonny

    WMF Exploit!!!! Install this patch now!

    Jonny, Jan 3, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,283
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
    Jan 6, 2006
  3. Jack

    MS WMF patch bug?

    Jack, Jan 6, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    367
    bigjon
    Jan 6, 2006
  4. Jud Hendrix

    WMF temporary (unofficial) patch

    Jud Hendrix, Jan 1, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    566
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Jan 2, 2006
  5. M. Murcek

    WMF flaw patch released early...

    M. Murcek, Jan 5, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    338
    Randy
    Jan 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page