What's the deal with MS05-002 (KB891711.EXE) and Windows 98?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:50:26 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>
>> I can tell you this much, everything is working over here, including the
>> troubleshooters!
>
>> Well, except for that stupid file copy/delete problem in copying a large
>> number of files in Windows Explorer (with IE 6 and Win98SE) - but that's
>> been fixed by swapping those two DLL files.
>
> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?

browseui.dll
browselc.dll

If you swap these two with the older IE 5.5 versions, that problem goes
away. But be sure to put the newer IE6 ones in \program files\intenet
explorer

You'll (obviously) have to do some of this in DOS, since the files are used
by windows.

Here is the reference article:
http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm

>
>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?

cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without having to swap
to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's official grand
hero! <vbg>

The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it by holding the
Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary - and that seems
to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get this fixed
correctly once and for all !

I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for parallel
installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do that, and other
things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can resolves this
issue for us too.

Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

But the issue has been effectively resolved, for all "practical purposes",
by swapping those two DLL files (IMO). Works GREAT over here!

Rick Chauvin wrote:
> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>
>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
>
> cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without having to
swap
> to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's official grand
> hero! <vbg>
>
> The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it by holding
the
> Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary - and that
seems
> to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get this fixed
> correctly once and for all !
>
> I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for parallel
> installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do that, and
other
> things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can resolves
this
> issue for us too.
>
> Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:05:40 -0500, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:

>Also, I'm sure, some of the security "flaws" MS are always fixing
>don't need a virus to cause harm, but just a malicious WEB site.

Read between the lines - for "web site", usually that means HTML, and
that can include unsolicited email "message text".



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

OK. But I'm thinking a WEB site can get one infected or otherwise be
malicious in a many ways.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
in message news:mcp841hvuh3bmq3m5nk9gbh6sd5n80srfm@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:05:40 -0500, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
|
| >Also, I'm sure, some of the security "flaws" MS are always fixing
| >don't need a virus to cause harm, but just a malicious WEB site.
|
| Read between the lines - for "web site", usually that means HTML, and
| that can include unsolicited email "message text".
|
|
|
| >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
| Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
| >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:42:47 -0500, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:

>I would go for my full system backup in that circumstance. Although I've
>created a ton of partitions now, still I'm not that complex to restore.
>Good for you, though, to beat them in hand to hand combat, Colorado.

(referring to "difficult" malware)

At a basic theory level, the concept of "backup" is inherently broken:
- retain all wanted changes
- lose all unwanted changes

On what magical basis is "backup" supposed to separate these, before
you know what these unwanted changes are?

The answer is, dividing content by scope, so as to include all wanted
changes and exclude all unwanted changes. The classic scope is that
universal X-axis; time. You make your full system backup before
unwanted changes occur, and before you create further wanted changes.

Then when you have a problem, you restore that backup, losing no
wanted changes but losing all unwanted changes.

That's how I use SR (System Restore) when I'm about to do something I
know is risky, such as upgrade a Windows subsystem like DirectX when I
don't trust it will have a clean and effective uninstaller.

But it is the nature of malware to confound time-scoped backups. The
malware typically arrives without drawing attention to itself, is
incorporated into your full system backups, and only later (after
creating many wanted changes) do you realize you have a problem.

How does your "full system backup" magically fix that?



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

You are right; timing is everything, & a good virus scan before doing
the backup could also be helpful, if not infallible. I suppose the best
protection would be to keep a bootable partition totally off of the NET,
but that can't be an easy option for everyone. Also, it, too, wouldn't
be infallible.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
in message news:46s841trd25uq54qk5l6buat04rp90q37m@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:42:47 -0500, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
|
| >I would go for my full system backup in that circumstance. Although
I've
| >created a ton of partitions now, still I'm not that complex to
restore.
| >Good for you, though, to beat them in hand to hand combat, Colorado.
|
| (referring to "difficult" malware)
|
| At a basic theory level, the concept of "backup" is inherently broken:
| - retain all wanted changes
| - lose all unwanted changes
|
| On what magical basis is "backup" supposed to separate these, before
| you know what these unwanted changes are?
|
| The answer is, dividing content by scope, so as to include all wanted
| changes and exclude all unwanted changes. The classic scope is that
| universal X-axis; time. You make your full system backup before
| unwanted changes occur, and before you create further wanted changes.
|
| Then when you have a problem, you restore that backup, losing no
| wanted changes but losing all unwanted changes.
|
| That's how I use SR (System Restore) when I'm about to do something I
| know is risky, such as upgrade a Windows subsystem like DirectX when I
| don't trust it will have a clean and effective uninstaller.
|
| But it is the nature of malware to confound time-scoped backups. The
| malware typically arrives without drawing attention to itself, is
| incorporated into your full system backups, and only later (after
| creating many wanted changes) do you realize you have a problem.
|
| How does your "full system backup" magically fix that?
|
|
|
| >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
| Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
| >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

Well, that's not really true, Bill. It works for you, but may or may not work for
others. On some systems it may cause problems or strange behaviours. That's a long
way from "effectively resolved for all practical purposes"
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OVVN0TYMFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> But the issue has been effectively resolved, for all "practical purposes",
> by swapping those two DLL files (IMO). Works GREAT over here!
>
> Rick Chauvin wrote:
> > cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> >
> >> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
> >
> > cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without having to
> swap
> > to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's official grand
> > hero! <vbg>
> >
> > The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it by holding
> the
> > Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary - and that
> seems
> > to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get this fixed
> > correctly once and for all !
> >
> > I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for parallel
> > installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do that, and
> other
> > things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can resolves
> this
> > issue for us too.
> >
> > Rick
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

For the few that have reported in here on this issue, it has seemed to work
for them too.

glee wrote:
> Well, that's not really true, Bill. It works for you, but may or may not
> work for others. On some systems it may cause problems or strange
> behaviours. That's a long way from "effectively resolved for all
practical
> purposes" --

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OVVN0TYMFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> But the issue has been effectively resolved, for all "practical
purposes",
>> by swapping those two DLL files (IMO). Works GREAT over here!
>>
>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>>
>>>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
>>>
>>> cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without having to
>> swap
>>> to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's official
grand
>>> hero! <vbg>
>>>
>>> The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it by
holding
>> the
>>> Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary - and that
>> seems
>>> to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get this fixed
>>> correctly once and for all !
>>>
>>> I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for parallel
>>> installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do that, and
>> other
>>> things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can resolves
>> this
>>> issue for us too.
>>>
>>> Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

For the few, yes......but still a long way from "effectively resolved for all
practical purposes" <s>
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


"Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OZxHQ4bMFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> For the few that have reported in here on this issue, it has seemed to work
> for them too.
>
> glee wrote:
> > Well, that's not really true, Bill. It works for you, but may or may not
> > work for others. On some systems it may cause problems or strange
> > behaviours. That's a long way from "effectively resolved for all
> practical
> > purposes" --
>
> > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >
> >
> > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:OVVN0TYMFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >> But the issue has been effectively resolved, for all "practical
> purposes",
> >> by swapping those two DLL files (IMO). Works GREAT over here!
> >>
> >> Rick Chauvin wrote:
> >>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
> >>>
> >>> cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without having to
> >> swap
> >>> to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's official
> grand
> >>> hero! <vbg>
> >>>
> >>> The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it by
> holding
> >> the
> >>> Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary - and that
> >> seems
> >>> to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get this fixed
> >>> correctly once and for all !
> >>>
> >>> I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for parallel
> >>> installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do that, and
> >> other
> >>> things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can resolves
> >> this
> >>> issue for us too.
> >>>
> >>> Rick
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

And there's *still* no knowing what got broken by employing this "fix".

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
news:uv5xPgcMFHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> For the few, yes......but still a long way from "effectively
resolved for all
> practical purposes" <s>
> --
> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OZxHQ4bMFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > For the few that have reported in here on this issue, it has seemed
to work
> > for them too.
> >
> > glee wrote:
> > > Well, that's not really true, Bill. It works for you, but may or
may not
> > > work for others. On some systems it may cause problems or strange
> > > behaviours. That's a long way from "effectively resolved for all
> > practical
> > > purposes" --
> >
> > > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
> > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:OVVN0TYMFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> > >> But the issue has been effectively resolved, for all "practical
> > purposes",
> > >> by swapping those two DLL files (IMO). Works GREAT over here!
> > >>
> > >> Rick Chauvin wrote:
> > >>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
> > >>>
> > >>> cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without
having to
> > >> swap
> > >>> to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's
official
> > grand
> > >>> hero! <vbg>
> > >>>
> > >>> The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it
by
> > holding
> > >> the
> > >>> Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary -
and that
> > >> seems
> > >>> to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get
this fixed
> > >>> correctly once and for all !
> > >>>
> > >>> I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for
parallel
> > >>> installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do
that, and
> > >> other
> > >>> things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can
resolves
> > >> this
> > >>> issue for us too.
> > >>>
> > >>> Rick
> >
> >
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

Bill in Co. wrote:
> But the issue has been effectively resolved, for all "practical purposes",
> by swapping those two DLL files (IMO). Works GREAT over here!

Yes Bill we know full well your feelings about the issue, and others.
...been there done that...
Hey that reminds me of George Bindar Dundat <g> ...which I hope he is
doing well.

Bill you are probably a really big guy that no one would want to mess with in
a bar, and you have you own way and ideas about everything you do and you do
everything your own way - no matter what anyone tells you on countless
issues over the past years whether they are technically right or wrong. You
remind me of a stubborn bull in a china closet ...and over the years you buck
everything and everybody

Technically speaking the dll swap is a backwards hack in so many obvious
ways; however, I do totally understand and respect that you want to use it
and hey afterall I used it for 6 months myself and through that time
supported others in doing it just like you are. Yes I agree and it's
true that the way IE6 is stock with this problem is unacceptable.

I vote to get it fixed properly though so that those two dll's are inclusive
of all Numerous Updates that are Missing if swapped, no to mention any code
disconnects causing the other anomalies you will experience eventually. Yeah
Yeah I know I know, you don't care about updates anymore... Well, I do
If something is worth doing then it's worth doing right.

peace,
...and my post is not a putdown at you - it's just 'call it like it is' bar
talk over a few beers, and so take it in that context.

Rick


>
> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>
>>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
>>
>> cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without having to
>> swap to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's official
>> grand hero! <vbg>
>>
>> The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it by holding
>> the Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary - and
>> that seems to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get
>> this fixed correctly once and for all !
>>
>> I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for parallel
>> installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do that, and
>> other things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can
>> resolves this issue for us too.
>>
>> Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

I'll let ya know when I encounter it!
Speaking of "there's still no way of knowing"..., the same logic applies to
taking in some of those updates!

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> And there's *still* no knowing what got broken by employing this "fix".
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:uv5xPgcMFHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> For the few, yes......but still a long way from "effectively
resolved
>> for all practical purposes" <s>
>> --
>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:OZxHQ4bMFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> For the few that have reported in here on this issue, it has seemed to
work
>>> for them too.
>>>
>>> glee wrote:
>>>> Well, that's not really true, Bill. It works for you, but may or may
not
>>>> work for others. On some systems it may cause problems or strange
>>>> behaviours. That's a long way from "effectively resolved for all
practical
>>>> purposes" --
>>>
>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:OVVN0TYMFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>> But the issue has been effectively resolved, for all "practical
purposes",
>>>>> by swapping those two DLL files (IMO). Works GREAT over here!
>>>>>
>>>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>>>>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without having
to
>>>>>> swap to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's
official
>>>>>> grand hero! <vbg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it
> by
>>> holding
>>>>> the
>>>>>> Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary - and
that
>>>>>> seems to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get
this
>>>>>> fixed correctly once and for all !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for
parallel
>>>>>> installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do that,
and
>>>>>> other things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can
>>>>>> resolves this issue for us too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

Rick Chauvin wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> But the issue has been effectively resolved, for all "practical
purposes",
>> by swapping those two DLL files (IMO). Works GREAT over here!
>
> Yes Bill we know full well your feelings about the issue, and others.
> ..been there done that...

Not just my feeling - several others in here too.

> Hey that reminds me of George Bindar Dundat <g> ...which I hope he is
> doing well.
>
> Bill you are probably a really big guy that no one would want to mess with
in
> a bar, and you have you own way and ideas about everything you do and you
do
> everything your own way - no matter what anyone tells you on countless
> issues over the past years whether they are technically right or wrong.
You
> remind me of a stubborn bull in a china closet ...and over the years you
buck
> everything and everybody

Not a big guy, but a stubborn ornery one, one not easily swayed by "the
crowd".

Remember Emerson? "whoso would be a man, must be a non-conformist", and
that comes naturally for me.

> Technically speaking the dll swap is a backwards hack in so many obvious
> ways; however, I do totally understand and respect that you want to use it
> and hey afterall I used it for 6 months myself and through that time
> supported others in doing it just like you are. Yes I agree and it's
> true that the way IE6 is stock with this problem is unacceptable.

TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!. If I had to live with THAT, I'd almost consider
switching back to IE 5.5 SP2, but I can't do that easily anyways, besides
which, at least now I have a little more protection, without "relying" on
those "sometimes problematic" "windows updates"

> I vote to get it fixed properly though so that those two dll's are
inclusive
> of all Numerous Updates that are Missing if swapped, no to mention any
code
> disconnects causing the other anomalies you will experience eventually.
Yeah
> Yeah I know I know, you don't care about updates anymore... Well, I do

> If something is worth doing then it's worth doing right.

Yeah, but do you really think it's gonna happen in our lifetime? Come on
now, let's not be naive. (Of course I never thought I'd live to see the
Berlin Wall come down either)

> peace,
> ..and my post is not a putdown at you - it's just 'call it like it is' bar
> talk over a few beers, and so take it in that context.
>
> Rick

Good enough, Rick!

>>
>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>>
>>>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
>>>
>>> cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without having to
>>> swap to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's official
>>> grand hero! <vbg>
>>>
>>> The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it by
holding
>>> the Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary - and
>>> that seems to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get
>>> this fixed correctly once and for all !
>>>
>>> I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for parallel
>>> installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do that, and
>>> other things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can
>>> resolves this issue for us too.
>>>
>>> Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

Yea, but OTOH, I *do* know what got broken by this one this thread is all
about!! Or rather, I'm hearing about it in here - now.

So, "you takes your choices...."

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> And there's *still* no knowing what got broken by employing this "fix".
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:uv5xPgcMFHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> For the few, yes......but still a long way from "effectively
resolved
>> for all practical purposes" <s>
>> --
>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:OZxHQ4bMFHA.3076@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> For the few that have reported in here on this issue, it has seemed to
work
>>> for them too.
>>>
>>> glee wrote:
>>>> Well, that's not really true, Bill. It works for you, but may or may
not
>>>> work for others. On some systems it may cause problems or strange
>>>> behaviours. That's a long way from "effectively resolved for all
practical
>>>> purposes" --
>>>
>>>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+
>>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bill in Co." <someone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:OVVN0TYMFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>>> But the issue has been effectively resolved, for all "practical
purposes",
>>>>> by swapping those two DLL files (IMO). Works GREAT over here!
>>>>>
>>>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>>>>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cquirke, if you can find a way to solve this problem without having
to
>>>>>> swap to the old 5.5 dlls and what that means, you will be W9x's
official
>>>>>> grand hero! <vbg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is real and is a royal p.i.t.a ..I get around it
> by
>>> holding
>>>>> the
>>>>>> Shift key when I want to delete anything out of the ordinary - and
that
>>>>>> seems to keep me out of the problem, but I would really like to get
this
>>>>>> fixed correctly once and for all !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen the work you did with the TS-BATS setup you made for
parallel
>>>>>> installs and what that represented in know-how for you to do that,
and
>>>>>> other things, and so I'm complementing you forward to see if you can
>>>>>> resolves this issue for us too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update,alt.windows98 (More info?)

Huh? Well, OK, then!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eRi9MuaMFHA.2788@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| The latest from MS:
|
| "Microsoft has received reports about issues with KB891711 on Windows
| 98,
| Windows 98 SE and Windows ME. At this point, we have been able to
| confirm these reports and are currently working on a resolution.
|
| "Please note that by uninstalling the current update, the machine will
| return to a vulnerable state. At this point, we are currently not
aware
| of customer's being exploited by way of the vulnerability fixed in
| MS05-002 on Windows 98, Windows 98 SE and Windows ME. If you need
| additional assistance regarding this update, please contact +1 (866)
| PCSAFETY."
|
| I'm now assured, and fairly confident, that anyone who answers that
| number will be up to speed on the issue.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS MVP Shell/User
| http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
| http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
|
| "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
| news:OJ6$CGWMFHA.3340@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| > Again, according to at least one person who's tried this latest
| number,
| > the right hand still doesn't know what the left hand is doing at MS.
| An
| > honest to God SNAFU. Unless you are stout of heart, I now recommend
| > holding off on those calls until I get *real* assurances.
| >
| > --
| > Gary S. Terhune
| > MS MVP Shell/User
| > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
| > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
| >
| > "Jack E Martinelli" <jemartin_DELETE@NO_SPAM_gis.net> wrote in
message
| > news:Owz1r8VMFHA.3852@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| > > I've received a request from the team that's working on the
| > > KB891711 issue. They would like everyone in the USA who has had
| > problems
| > > with KB891711 to call 1-866-PCSafety (1-866-727-2338). If you can
| help
| > > them with some info, they say they're close to reproducing the
| > > problem--first step toward solving it. I have asked for, though
not
| > yet
| > > received, assurances that callers will be taken more seriously
than
| > has
| > > been reported thus far.
| > >
| > > (According to at least a couple of people, when they called PSS
they
| > > were told that KB891711 wasn't a critical problem on Win98 and to
| just
| > > uninstall it. KB891711 deals with a very *serious* vulnerability,
| > > affecting pretty much all Windows systems, and anyone who can't
get
| > > patched decently should don at *least* a dozen condoms before
| > journeying
| > > out onto the internet.)
| > >
| > > --
| > > Gary S. Terhune
| > > MS MVP Shell/User
| > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
| > > http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
| > >
| > >
| > > --
| > > Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
| > > Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
| > >
| > > http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx
| > > In Memorium: Alex Nichol
| > >
| http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexperts/nichol.mspx
| > > Your cooperation is very appreciated.
| > > ------
| > > "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message
| > news:42330B5D.1F0A641A@Guy.com...
| > > >
| > > > If you don't know what I'm talking about, look here:
| > > >
| > > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS05-002.mspx
| > > >
| > > > If you're running Win 98, and have recently (within the past
week)
| > > > gone to Windows Updates and updated your computer, you almost
| > > > certainly now have the file "KB891711.EXE" running in the
| > background.
| > > > It is set to run automatically at startup. First time any such
| > update
| > > > or security patch has been configured to operate (instead of
| simply
| > > > replacing an existing file).
| > > >
| > > > Even though Micro$loth sez that MS05-002 (KB891711.EXE) is
| critical
| > > > for Win-98, I've read where some (many) people are simply
| > deactivating
| > > > it (via msconfig).
| > > >
| > > > Does anyone really know the truth regarding Win-98 and
| KB891711.EXE?
| > > >
| > > > Is there anything special about it (like running it in safe mode
| to
| > > > properly install it) ?
| > > >
| > > > Is it really needed? (for win-98) ?
| > > >
| > > > Is Win-98 really vulnerable to MS05-002 ???
| > >
| > >
| >
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

Bill in Co. wrote:
> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>> Bill in Co. wrote:

[...snips for brevity..]

> Not a big guy, but a stubborn ornery one, one not easily swayed by "the
> crowd".

Me neither, but a genuine right balance is the key.

> Remember Emerson? "whoso would be a man, must be a non-conformist", and
> that comes naturally for me.

<smile>

> Yeah, but do you really think it's gonna happen in our lifetime? Come on
> now, let's not be naive.

Yes, and I'm far from being naive or a dreamer <g>

> (Of course I never thought I'd live to see the Berlin Wall come down
> either)

exactly

> Good enough, Rick!

Take good care

Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:39:23 -0500, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:

>OK. But I'm thinking a WEB site can get one infected or otherwise be
>malicious in a many ways.

Yep - increase in broadband and servers has changed things a bit.

First it was viruses spreading via disks, then via email.

Once you infect and spread between servers, things change in that
because servers don't get rebooted often and are always online,
there's less need to persist across reboots. So pure worms can run
purely as an in-memory process without ever existing as files; sure,
they die when the server's rebooted, but it's easy to re-infect the
server from some other infected server that's "watching" it.

OTOH, malware's generally gone pro, and there are so many
opportunities to make money in so many ways that are not legally
challenged, that it's easier to run your own site and exploit
visitors. In fact, web browsers and script-exteded HTML are designed
for exactly this purpose. As long as you stick to first-generation
spread (i.e. from site to victim, or via spam to victim) you're just
an aggressive business enterprise, not a virus bad guy.

In that sense; yes, both HTML via web pages and via spam are likely to
pose risks to your system.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

OK. Protection against HTML is important, & against Script, too. Too bad
such wonderful tools must be emasculated, though. That might go a long
way toward protection against non-malicious WEB sites, that just somehow
picked up an infection. But a truly malicious site likely can destroy a
computer in any number of other ways, I'm still thinking.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
in message news:hq8b41985dvdbfbta57mpc18v5n4uigfrr@4ax.com...
| On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:39:23 -0500, "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote:
|
| >OK. But I'm thinking a WEB site can get one infected or otherwise be
| >malicious in a many ways.
|
| Yep - increase in broadband and servers has changed things a bit.
|
| First it was viruses spreading via disks, then via email.
|
| Once you infect and spread between servers, things change in that
| because servers don't get rebooted often and are always online,
| there's less need to persist across reboots. So pure worms can run
| purely as an in-memory process without ever existing as files; sure,
| they die when the server's rebooted, but it's easy to re-infect the
| server from some other infected server that's "watching" it.
|
| OTOH, malware's generally gone pro, and there are so many
| opportunities to make money in so many ways that are not legally
| challenged, that it's easier to run your own site and exploit
| visitors. In fact, web browsers and script-exteded HTML are designed
| for exactly this purpose. As long as you stick to first-generation
| spread (i.e. from site to victim, or via spam to victim) you're just
| an aggressive business enterprise, not a virus bad guy.
|
| In that sense; yes, both HTML via web pages and via spam are likely to
| pose risks to your system.
|
|
|
| >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
| Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
| >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:33:35 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:50:26 -0700, "Bill in Co."

>>> Well, except for that stupid file copy/delete problem in copying a large
>>> number of files in Windows Explorer (with IE 6 and Win98SE) - but that's
>>> been fixed by swapping those two DLL files.

>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?

>browseui.dll
>browselc.dll

>If you swap these two with the older IE 5.5 versions, that problem goes
>away. But be sure to put the newer IE6 ones in \program files\intenet
>explorer

OK. Jeez, that problem took a long time to get sorted out... and no
thanks to MS, by the look of it.

>Here is the reference article:
>http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm

When you say "IE5.5", do you mean IE 5.5 SP0, SP1 or SP2?



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:33:35 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:50:26 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>
>>>> Well, except for that stupid file copy/delete problem in copying a
large
>>>> number of files in Windows Explorer (with IE 6 and Win98SE) - but
that's
>>>> been fixed by swapping those two DLL files.
>
>>> More on that, please? Which two .DLL files?
>
>> browseui.dll
>> browselc.dll
>
>> If you swap these two with the older IE 5.5 versions, that problem goes
>> away. But be sure to put the newer IE6 ones in \program files\intenet
>> explorer
>
> OK. Jeez, that problem took a long time to get sorted out... and no
> thanks to MS, by the look of it.

Nope. And I wouldn't hold my breath either (on MS fixing it).

>> Here is the reference article:
>> http://www.frankprovo.com/win98ie6filesproblem.htm
>
> When you say "IE5.5", do you mean IE 5.5 SP0, SP1 or SP2?

I believe you can use any of them. (I happened to have had IE 5.5 SP2
installed at the time, before I "upgraded" to IE 6 SP1).

The point being: the problem developed with the newer versions (IE 6) of
browseui.dll and browselc.dll (although I think the main problem is due to
browseui.dll)

>
>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>> ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:37:27 -0700, "Bill in Co."

>Speaking of "there's still no way of knowing"..., the same logic applies to
>taking in some of those updates!

Aye, and that's the problem - with fixes like this, as well as lack of
acknoledgement and fixing of the "fix", patches become just another
risky type of software that are best avoided in the interests of
stability. Patches fix real issues, and you may have only days before
these issues blow up (Lovesan vs. RPC, 30 days; Sasser vs. LSASS, 14
days; some recent events have negative lead times).

The problem is, you can't tell in advance which patches will turn out
to be as uber-crucial as RPC and LSASS (both affecting NT, not Win9x,
it's worth noting) and which will be a snore (remember ASN.1?).

With so many defects and patches - if MS didn't limit these to
once-a-month release, it's almost as real-time as av updates - it
becomes difficult to keep your eye on the details. It beciomes:

"My PC keeps getting malware'd, and I don't click anything!"
' Are you up to date with your patches? '

So we're between a rock (need to patch) and a hard place (dubious
quality control and follow-up of patches). Dumping the whole platform
and moving to (say) Linux isn't a solution, because any
similarly-complex platform that attracts significant market share
*will* have the same problem with one-in-a-thousand defects coming up
regularly, given there are so many million lines of code.

For example, notice how Firefox subversions have been a revolving door
lately, remeniscent of AdAware SE 1.00 through 1.05? The plan was for
Firefox 1.1 to come out this month, but we've had 1.0.01 and now 1.0.2
instead. Firefox is getting popular (I love it!) and that means it's
beginning to attract malware attention. Patches inevitably follow.

>Gary S. Terhune wrote:
>> And there's *still* no knowing what got broken by employing this "fix".

My specific worry is the MIME-spoofing defects that are prevelant in
SP 5.5 SP0 and SP1. That's why I want to know whether using the SP2
versions of those .DLL will fix the problem (my hunch is, they may
not). That defect is IMO too dangerous to leave in the water, given
how pervasive HTML and the IE HTML renderer are, and how malware have
routinely exploited that hole since BadTrans.B in 2001.

The fix says; keep the fixed .DLL local in IE's dir, and have the old
ones visible system-wide (to keep Windows Explorer happy) in
%WinDir%\System. Which .DLL gets used if IE's renderer gets called
upon to read HTML content in an arbitrary location - say, a .TXT that
is internally HTML, or a .CHM in some free app's base dir, or HTML
passed through %Temp% by an email app, or a toxic "ReadMe" that you
clicked on to view from the middle of a .Zip in WinZip?

There may be more than one devil in the details.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:44:05 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>Rick Chauvin wrote:
>> Bill in Co. wrote:

Today's fun link:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhiteBicycleTechnology

That's how MS approached "HTML everywhere!", and we still feel the
echoes of that pain today.

>Remember Emerson? "whoso would be a man, must be a non-conformist", and
>that comes naturally for me.

Oh great, thanks for reminding me I'm a nut-swinger. Mind you, I'm
happy if this puts me in the same company as so many virtual
nut-swingers, from Susan B Anthony, the Pankhursts etc. to the more
recent Atwoods, Piercys and Moorheads of the world.

>> I agree that the way IE6 is stock with this problem is unacceptable.

>TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!.

Agreed - and thesre's no face-saving PR solution for MS on this one.
"We decided to let Win9x bleed because we're promoting a move to XP"
may well be the truth, but that's just another scandal - the leverage
of product defects to compel sales. I don't think MS would like legal
and regulatory eyes to dwell too long on that.

>> I vote to get it fixed properly though so that those two dll's are
>> inclusive of all Numerous Updates that are Missing if swapped

If I had resources to fix this (as one presumes MS has) I'd do this:
- get documentation on what's changed in those two .DLL
- any crucial exploits that depend on those files to fix?
- determine most recent .DLL that work via the fix (IE 5.5 SP2?)
- FC these against the IE 6 ones that don't work
- see if what FC finds can be mapped to particular functions
- if offset dependencies allow:
- paste across functions from IE 6 to old until old breaks
- paste across functions from old to IE 6 until IE 6 works
- zoom in and disassemble the problemetic function
- see if a logic error etc. can be found
- fix the function and issue fixed .DLLs as on-request hotfix
- after testing, issue as downloadable hotfix, then WinUpate

MS wouldn't have to hack around with FC, given they'd have the source
code. It would also be easier from them to read up on what changes
were made to these .DLL, and whether any exploits need these changes
to remain blocked. It would be a sad commentary on MS, if within a
few months of reading this post, somene ITW came up with a fix, even
though they lacked MS's advantage of source code and documentation.

Well, there's the gauntlet. Anyone care to pick it up?



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update (More info?)

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:44:05 -0700, "Bill in Co."
>> Rick Chauvin wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> Today's fun link:
>
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhiteBicycleTechnology
>
> That's how MS approached "HTML everywhere!", and we still feel the
> echoes of that pain today.
>
>> Remember Emerson? "whoso would be a man, must be a non-conformist", and
>> that comes naturally for me.
>
> Oh great, thanks for reminding me I'm a nut-swinger. Mind you, I'm
> happy if this puts me in the same company as so many virtual
> nut-swingers, from Susan B Anthony, the Pankhursts etc. to the more
> recent Atwoods, Piercys and Moorheads of the world.
>
>>> I agree that the way IE6 is stock with this problem is unacceptable.
>
>> TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!.
>
> Agreed - and thesre's no face-saving PR solution for MS on this one.
> "We decided to let Win9x bleed because we're promoting a move to XP"
> may well be the truth, but that's just another scandal - the leverage
> of product defects to compel sales. I don't think MS would like legal
> and regulatory eyes to dwell too long on that.
>
>>> I vote to get it fixed properly though so that those two dll's are
>>> inclusive of all Numerous Updates that are Missing if swapped
>
> If I had resources to fix this (as one presumes MS has) I'd do this:
> - get documentation on what's changed in those two .DLL
> - any crucial exploits that depend on those files to fix?
> - determine most recent .DLL that work via the fix (IE 5.5 SP2?)

IE 5.5 SP2 does work (that's what I've been using). However, whether or
not "browseui" and "browselc" changed between IE 5.5, IE 5.5 SP1, and IE 5.5
SP2, I don't know for sure, but if I were a betting man, I would guess at
least one of them did.

Well let's see, I notice the file dates on those two files are 12/03 and
7/01, respectively (in my particular case), so presumably the "browseui" one
was upgraded a tad with SP2.

> - FC these against the IE 6 ones that don't work
> - see if what FC finds can be mapped to particular functions
> - if offset dependencies allow:
> - paste across functions from IE 6 to old until old breaks
> - paste across functions from old to IE 6 until IE 6 works
> - zoom in and disassemble the problemetic function
> - see if a logic error etc. can be found
> - fix the function and issue fixed .DLLs as on-request hotfix
> - after testing, issue as downloadable hotfix, then WinUpate
>
> MS wouldn't have to hack around with FC, given they'd have the source
> code. It would also be easier from them to read up on what changes
> were made to these .DLL, and whether any exploits need these changes
> to remain blocked. It would be a sad commentary on MS, if within a
> few months of reading this post, somene ITW came up with a fix, even
> though they lacked MS's advantage of source code and documentation.
>
> Well, there's the gauntlet. Anyone care to pick it up?

Oh yeah. I can see all of them running right over and picking up that
gauntlet! (LOL).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.setup,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.win98.internet.windows_update,alt.windows98 (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:39:09 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune"

>Again, according to at least one person who's tried this latest number,
>the right hand still doesn't know what the left hand is doing at MS. An
>honest to God SNAFU. Unless you are stout of heart, I now recommend
>holding off on those calls until I get *real* assurances.

Time to apply the Slim Shady Algorithm ...

http://mrpalmguru.com/uncyclopedia/index.php?title=Slim_Shady_Algorithm

.... will the real MS support policy please stand up? <g>



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -