MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer

Bill Blanton wrote:
> "Rasta Robert" <rr@dds.nl.ReMoVe_ThIs.invalid> wrote in message news:slrnhek09k.1j8k.rr@xs6.xs4all.nl...
>> On 2009-10-29, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> WARNING DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
>>>
>> Stop spamming the same text over and over, please.
>
> I second the motion..
>
> It's become ridiculous.
>
>
>

Aw, so you were doing nothing but supply bait then huh,, okay I'll play..

Your other later responses were expected, let's see if this explains it
for others elsewhere since you all have supposedly "kill filed" me ....
boo hoo..

It seems to apply to ALL of you that have partaken in this purported
discussion now, since each of you have supplied some form of indication
that you are programmers and/or have intimate knowledge of Windows so
consider that is the direction.


From: 98 Guy <98@Guy.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Subject: Re: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:21:05 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <4AE8DFF1.14BF37AB@Guy.com>

X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)

MEB wrote:

[cut to relevant section]

> > I realize YOU AREN'T a coder, or programmer, or anything
> > related,

I was a programmer, and I can still program in various languages. Even
a team of professional programmers would be hard-pressed to develop,
from scratch, a test protocal for these files. If you know better, then
why don't you do it?

---

Since you have BRAGGED you are a programmer, there is no viable reason
for you to NOT do the tests defined within this discussion. You even
have the defined vulnerabilities *pre-addressed* for you by Microsoft,
CERT, and others. To BEGIN to proof these files you only need to address
the KNOWN factors.
The only modifications necessary is making sure to test for and using
the 9X coding comparable vulnerabilities [as defined] and testing for
new vulnerabilities.
The other tests require ONLY that you test present generally found in
Win9X applications, like adverse effects on:
AVAST and other AV and malware applications;
Office;
and some other generally found applications and within the system [like
new Explorer issues] for any new file handling issues and other like
activities within 9X.
MOREOVER, Since you brought this *from MSFN* and it is their
recommendation as well, AND they claim to be Windows aware programmers,
that should supply several groups of several dozen parties working on
any one of these activities required to be tested.

*YOU* brought this issue to this forum/group and recommended its
installation and specifically stated:

From: 98 Guy <98@Guy.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Subject: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:44:43 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <4ADBD29B.F3C94E64@Guy.com>

"It seems that the files that are part of the IE6 update package for
win-2k are fully compatible with Windows 98.

The kb article is here: support.microsoft.com/kb/974455"

[cut]

"These files will bring the IE6-sp1 component of your win-98 system up to
date and equivalent (security-wise) to any win-2k system running IE6."
----

The preponderance of available materials support my present stance and
my statements. I don't need test to prove my stance, ALL presently
materials available support it. You do to prove your statements.

*YOU AND MSFN* must *prove* these materials to be false by providing
your test results; or you have nothing of value upon which to base your
statements, recommendation/advise to install, or anything further which
you might place *here or within the MSFN forums* regarding Win9X and its
modifications.
In fact, a failure or refusal will proof that: MSFN is; and, you are;
incapable of properly handling 9X modifications WITHOUT subjecting
Windows 9X users to hacks and other malware, and new vulnerabilities.
MOREOVER, that you do NOT care if you do.
What you THINK, ASSUME, BELIEVE, or anything along those lines; and any
further supposed arguments, means NOTHING, only test results will remove
this open and distinctly apparent fraud you and MSFN have created.

So where are these preliminary test results located for others to
review and counter/cross test?


--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

"MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eo7ECqcWKHA.3404@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Bill Blanton wrote:
>> "Rasta Robert" <rr@dds.nl.ReMoVe_ThIs.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhek09k.1j8k.rr@xs6.xs4all.nl...
>>> On 2009-10-29, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> WARNING DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS
>>>>
>>> Stop spamming the same text over and over, please.
>>
>> I second the motion..
>>
>> It's become ridiculous.
>
> Aw, so you were doing nothing but supply bait then huh,, okay I'll
> play..
>
> Your other later responses were expected, let's see if this explains it
> for others elsewhere since you all have supposedly "kill filed" me ....
> boo hoo..
>
> It seems to apply to ALL of you that have partaken in this purported
> discussion now, since each of you have supplied some form of indication
> that you are programmers and/or have intimate knowledge of Windows so
> consider that is the direction.

Bullshit, I have never claimed any "programmers and/or have intimate
knowledge of Windows", so what's
with the "All" crap?

> So where are these preliminary test results located for others to
> review and counter/cross test?

Not your call.

In message <eo7ECqcWKHA.3404@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
>MEB wrote:
>
>[cut to relevant section]
>
>> > I realize YOU AREN'T a coder, or programmer, or anything
>> > related,
>
>I was a programmer, and I can still program in various languages. Even
>a team of professional programmers would be hard-pressed to develop,
>from scratch, a test protocal for these files. If you know better, then
>why don't you do it?
>
>---
>
> Since you have BRAGGED you are a programmer, there is no viable reason

He wasn't bragging; you said he wasn't one, he said he was. That's not
bragging: I could say you're not a human, you could reply that you are,
and that wouldn't be bragging.

>for you to NOT do the tests defined within this discussion. You even

He probably has better things to do with his time - as clearly you have,
as you're not doing them either.

>have the defined vulnerabilities *pre-addressed* for you by Microsoft,
>CERT, and others. To BEGIN to proof these files you only need to address
>the KNOWN factors.

As do you.
[]
>From: 98 Guy <98@Guy.com>
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
>Subject: MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer
>Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:44:43 -0400
>Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>Lines: 41
>Message-ID: <4ADBD29B.F3C94E64@Guy.com>
>
>"It seems that the files that are part of the IE6 update package for
>win-2k are fully compatible with Windows 98.
>
>The kb article is here: support.microsoft.com/kb/974455"
>
>[cut]
>
>"These files will bring the IE6-sp1 component of your win-98 system up to
>date and equivalent (security-wise) to any win-2k system running IE6."

Unless you've done a lot more by your "[cut]" than is evident, it looks
like you've found a bit in a KB article that actually says what you've
been asking everyone to say.
[]
> In fact, a failure or refusal will proof that: MSFN is; and, you are;
>incapable of properly handling 9X modifications WITHOUT subjecting
>Windows 9X users to hacks and other malware, and new vulnerabilities.
>MOREOVER, that you do NOT care if you do.

98g (or whoever you're addressing at this point, it's impossible to
tell) has never said he doesn't care: in fact he's frequently said that
_he_ believes these patches to be OK, but not to take his word for it
(though not exactly in those words): in fact he's often said that anyone
still running 98 as their main OS is laying themselves open anyway
(though, again, not in exactly those words).

> What you THINK, ASSUME, BELIEVE, or anything along those lines; and any
>further supposed arguments, means NOTHING, only test results will remove
>this open and distinctly apparent fraud you and MSFN have created.

What he (whoever) says does not mean nothing (let alone NOTHING); some
evidence (I don't think "test results" is very meaningful in this
context) that the patches as least do not make a system _more_
vulnerable would be nice, but the absence of such certainly does not
constitute fraud. (Incidentally, putting "apparent" before such an
accusation does _not_ absolve you from action, should anyone choose to
take it.)
>
> So where are these preliminary test results located for others to
>review and counter/cross test?
>
Same place as yours.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

The most wasted of all days is one without laughter. -e.e. cummings, poet
(1894-1962)