Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?

Harry.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Harry
DETAILS - like |WTF you're talking about - would help a lot.
As it happens, this is fairly easy to discover in this case......
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print/?TYPE [...] -10000025c

AFAIK, the 'vulnerability' is simply that IE crashes - there's nothing else
that happens, so far as anyone's said yet.



--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
news:%233cU54yjFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?
>
> Harry.
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Harry,

I think any security vulnerability in IE is of potential concern,
particularly those that may be deemed critical. From the little that I
know about these two, both were reported for Microsoft Internet Explorer
6.0 SP2 (that would be on an XP system patched with SP2) and MAY affect
earlier versions of IE. There have been no reports of the exploit
occurring in the wild. Until there is more information about these two
issues, it's hard to say how concerned one should be.

FWIW, I switched to Firefox over a year ago and use IE only for Windows
Update. The only consolation is that the security patches seem to be
issued more quickly than for IE. There are also some features that are
unique to Firefox that I like. That being said, you could try an
alternate browser to see if it meets your needs.

HTH
Tom

webster72n wrote:
> Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?
>
> Harry.
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

So much information Harry. Any chance you could tell us what you are
talking about?
--
Mike Maltby
mike.maltby@gmail.com


webster72n <hbethke@copper.net> wrote:

> Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Noel, Tom, Mike and all:

Last night I received that information from ZDNET via their newsletter. My
apologies for not being more specific.
My assumption was that you probably new the details.
It is about a vulnerability in IE JPEG Image, rendering unspecified buffer
overflow.
It was published by ZDNET (UK), Ingrid Marson, on ZDNET News July 21, 2005,
4:12 PM, PT.
Details are to be found on the 'SecurityFocus' website.
I scrambled for this info just now and was not able to do it any more last
night.
Hope this helps.

Harry.



"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:e3256k0jFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Harry
> DETAILS - like |WTF you're talking about - would help a lot.
> As it happens, this is fairly easy to discover in this case......
> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print/?TYPE [...] -10000025c
>
> AFAIK, the 'vulnerability' is simply that IE crashes - there's nothing
else
> that happens, so far as anyone's said yet.
>
>
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> news:%233cU54yjFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?
> >
> > Harry.
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Noel:

"IE simply crashes and nothing else happens"?
If that means the "blue screen", I already was a victim.
Scandisk took care of that.
Thanks for the calming note.

Harry.


"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:e3256k0jFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Harry
> DETAILS - like |WTF you're talking about - would help a lot.
> As it happens, this is fairly easy to discover in this case......
> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print/?TYPE [...] -10000025c
>
> AFAIK, the 'vulnerability' is simply that IE crashes - there's nothing
else
> that happens, so far as anyone's said yet.
>
>
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> news:%233cU54yjFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?
> >
> > Harry.
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

There can be any number of reasons why IE crashes - not just an 'attack' -
look to your settings, and make sure that they are consistent, and rational

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
news:%23xHyS25jFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> Noel:
>
> "IE simply crashes and nothing else happens"?
> If that means the "blue screen", I already was a victim.
> Scandisk took care of that.
> Thanks for the calming note.
>
> Harry.
>
>
> "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:e3256k0jFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Harry
>> DETAILS - like |WTF you're talking about - would help a lot.
>> As it happens, this is fairly easy to discover in this case......
>> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print/?TYPE [...] -10000025c
>>
>> AFAIK, the 'vulnerability' is simply that IE crashes - there's nothing
> else
>> that happens, so far as anyone's said yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>>
>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>
>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>>
>> "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
>> news:%233cU54yjFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> > Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?
>> >
>> > Harry.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Consistent and rational, I like that and my IE seems to be exactly within
those confines.
Thanks again, Noel.

Harry.


"Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:eUrvIp6jFHA.3756@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> There can be any number of reasons why IE crashes - not just an
attack' -
> look to your settings, and make sure that they are consistent, and
rational
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> news:%23xHyS25jFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
> > Noel:
> >
> > "IE simply crashes and nothing else happens"?
> > If that means the "blue screen", I already was a victim.
> > Scandisk took care of that.
> > Thanks for the calming note.
> >
> > Harry.
> >
> >
> > "Noel Paton" <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:e3256k0jFHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> Harry
> >> DETAILS - like |WTF you're talking about - would help a lot.
> >> As it happens, this is fairly easy to discover in this case......
> >>
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/print/?TYPE [...] -10000025c
> >>
> >> AFAIK, the 'vulnerability' is simply that IE crashes - there's nothing
> > else
> >> that happens, so far as anyone's said yet.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
> >>
> >> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> >> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
> >>
> >> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
NG's
> >>
> >> "webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
> >> news:%233cU54yjFHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >> > Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?
> >> >
> >> > Harry.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Tom:

Your reply is favored. Thanks.
I have the latest version of firefox downloaded, but my experience with this
browser is not positive.
Could it be that something went wrong with the installation?
Or should IE be completely uninstalled
I remember having problems and unsinstalling the "fox" after a few days of
usage.
Maybe I ought to give it another try.

Harry.


"TomV" <t@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%23F35br0jFHA.3608@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Harry,
>
> I think any security vulnerability in IE is of potential concern,
> particularly those that may be deemed critical. From the little that I
> know about these two, both were reported for Microsoft Internet Explorer
> 6.0 SP2 (that would be on an XP system patched with SP2) and MAY affect
> earlier versions of IE. There have been no reports of the exploit
> occurring in the wild. Until there is more information about these two
> issues, it's hard to say how concerned one should be.
>
> FWIW, I switched to Firefox over a year ago and use IE only for Windows
> Update. The only consolation is that the security patches seem to be
> issued more quickly than for IE. There are also some features that are
> unique to Firefox that I like. That being said, you could try an
> alternate browser to see if it meets your needs.
>
> HTH
> Tom
>
> webster72n wrote:
> > Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?
> >
> > Harry.
> >
> >

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Harry,

If you want to try Firefox (FF) again, there's no need to uninstall IE.
I don't know what problems you experienced, but it's probably best to
post questions related to FF in the FF forum.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewforum.php?f=38

Tom

webster72n wrote:
> Tom:
>
> Your reply is favored. Thanks.
> I have the latest version of firefox downloaded, but my experience with this
> browser is not positive.
> Could it be that something went wrong with the installation?
> Or should IE be completely uninstalled
> I remember having problems and unsinstalling the "fox" after a few days of
> usage.
> Maybe I ought to give it another try.
>
> Harry.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I definitely will give it another try, Tom.
But not right now.
Should I encounter problems, I will address the FF Forum.
Much obliged.

Harry.


"webster72n" <hbethke@copper.net> wrote in message
news:uf2pCr7jFHA.3148@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> Tom:
>
> Your reply is favored. Thanks.
> I have the latest version of firefox downloaded, but my experience with
this
> browser is not positive.
> Could it be that something went wrong with the installation?
> Or should IE be completely uninstalled
> I remember having problems and unsinstalling the "fox" after a few days
of
> usage.
> Maybe I ought to give it another try.
>
> Harry.
>
>
> "TomV" <t@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:%23F35br0jFHA.3608@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Harry,
> >
> > I think any security vulnerability in IE is of potential concern,
> > particularly those that may be deemed critical. From the little that I
> > know about these two, both were reported for Microsoft Internet Explorer
> > 6.0 SP2 (that would be on an XP system patched with SP2) and MAY affect
> > earlier versions of IE. There have been no reports of the exploit
> > occurring in the wild. Until there is more information about these two
> > issues, it's hard to say how concerned one should be.
> >
> > FWIW, I switched to Firefox over a year ago and use IE only for Windows
> > Update. The only consolation is that the security patches seem to be
> > issued more quickly than for IE. There are also some features that are
> > unique to Firefox that I like. That being said, you could try an
> > alternate browser to see if it meets your needs.
> >
> > HTH
> > Tom
> >
> > webster72n wrote:
> > > Bug# 14282 and 14284, how concerned should we be?
> > >
> > > Harry.
> > >
> > >
>
>