Slashdot Mirror


Uber-patch for Internet Explorer

malevolence writes: "According to The Register, Microsoft has released an Uber-Patch for Internet Explorer that fixes all known security problems, as well as 3 new ones, including the content-type issue that was reported on slashdot a few days ago."

590 comments

  1. Uber Patch by IgnorantKnucklehead · · Score: 4, Funny

    What does the "uber patch" do, install Mozilla?

    1. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Yes, actually it does install Mozilla. Your system then slows to a crawl, locks up and hangs, and then your system is impenetrable by baddies.

    2. Re:Uber Patch by Negadecimal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or better, Magic Lantern.

      It'd be the perfect trojan horse... MS gets leniency from the DOJ in exchange for some...favors.

    3. Re:Uber Patch by NecroPuppy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And will this cause the /. effect on Microsoft?

      That would be neat...

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    4. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I saw that.

      -The FBI

    5. Re:Uber Patch by RetsamYthgimla · · Score: 1

      And will this cause the /. effect on Microsoft?

      That would require that a significant portion of Slashdot users use IE. Otherwise, only the article about the patch would get /.ed.

    6. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry to break it to you, but a significant protion of the readership *does* use IE. Rob used to publish statistics on this and stopped for obvious, embarassing reasons.

    7. Re:Uber Patch by Flamesplash · · Score: 1


      The post "Uber Patch" seems like it's more troll and flamebait than funny.

      --
      "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
    8. Re:Uber Patch by vax · · Score: 1

      does this mean microsoft is "uber leeT" now? This kind of reminds me of when a 40 year old parent tries to act "cool" like thier kids... hmm scary.
      VAX

    9. Re:Uber Patch by ncc74656 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That would require that a significant portion of Slashdot users use IE.
      ...and you're implying that they don't? It's not like there are many options...Konqueror and Mozilla aren't all there yet, there seems to have been some sort of stink lately WRT Opera, and there's no way in hell that I'd use Nutscrape. Not everyone who reads /. is a flaming anti-MS zealot...MS has its warts (you're nuts if you put a Windows box directly on the Internet), but then so does nearly everything/everyone else.
      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    10. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you nuts for putting a Windows box directly on the Internet? Patch it. Learn which services are essential, shut down the rest. Windows is hideously insecure out of the box. So quit complaining and fix it.

      Red Hat is also hideously insecure out of the box. You'd be nuts to put a default RH install on the net as well.

      Try to contain your irrational distain.

    11. Re:Uber Patch by Xerithane · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mozilla isn't where yet, exactly? I find Mozilla to be more capable than IE often times. My current project at work has an extensive CGI front end so I'm having to deal with all the cross-browser issues. Writing standard-compliant HTML/CSS works beautiful in Mozilla, have not had one problem yet.
      What was the last version of Mozilla you used?

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    12. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh thats just rich. Quic script kiddiez go get that patch from unc7e 5am. wonder if it allows me to br0adcast to b1g Br0ther.....

    13. Re:Uber Patch by mickeyreznor · · Score: 2

      IIRC i believe Opera 5.0 was the version that had problems. v 6.0 is out for all platforms, and that one doesn't have any reported problems.

    14. Re:Uber Patch by horster · · Score: 1

      I must be imagining posting this from mozilla with flash, java & ssl fully enabled. my bad.

    15. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla has two problems that prevent its widespread acception...

      1) Its slow
      2) Its unstable

      But aside from those flaws its awesome, if you don't mind waiting 10 minutes for it to launch and having it crash every 5 minutes.

    16. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flash works dandy.
      SSH does as well.

      Java? Well, ya got me there...

    17. Re:Uber Patch by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      *cough* bullshit *cough*

      I have 5 windows open at the moment, which is less than I normally have. Curently has a 64M footprint, which is taking into account the java_vm (which is bloated and the cause of all crashes I have encountered with 0.9.6) and it stays up far longer than IE 5.5 on another box. Renders very quickly (full page load in 2 seconds on the lan, including all graphics and content - while IE and NS4.7 take about 5 seconds)

      Launch time is also relatively short, especially in comparison with IE if Explorer is not your shell and not loading at start up and staying resident which is why everything thinks IE is so quick.

      Mozilla is also conclusivly more stable than Netscape's 4.x series so if you wouldn't mind not being an idiot for a moment and actually looking at the facts and.. oh I don't know.. use it (which is obvious that you haven't recently based on your statements) I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    18. Re:Uber Patch by klui · · Score: 1

      I find that ever since IE 5 and above don't allow me to lock the cookie folder and remain functional for all sites, I tend to use Mozilla to read slashdot, where I only have my slashdot cookie stored in the read-only cookies.txt file.

    19. Re:Uber Patch by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      I dunno about on Windows, but the mozilla version I'm using for Solaris (0.9.1 I think) is incredibly slow, which is the main reason I don't use it. When it takes a full 30-45 seconds to start up the browser, it's not really worth the effort. So I stick with NS4, flaws and all.

    20. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a good one. Anyone owning a Network Appliance filer running a 5.x OS using Mozilla cannot click any of the buttons in its Java interface. It's useless to us and to anyone else in such an enterprise computing situation. Try to get the simple things right before going for the PGP-mouse-motions-wheel-mouse additions.

    21. Re:Uber Patch by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1
      It's not like there are many options...Konqueror and Mozilla aren't all there yet


      Neither is IE, so what's your point? Although individual characteristics differ (speed, rendering results, features), I don't think that in total these three browsers differ a whole lot. They are all very usable and pleasant (or not) in their own way.


      I must admit that I haven't tried Mozilla or Konqueror under Windows yet, even though both are available (Mozilla by default, Konqueror as part of KDE Cygwin. On the other hand, I haven't tried IE under UNIX either, be it the Solaris/HPUX port or through Wine.

    22. Re:Uber Patch by urmensch · · Score: 0

      slolaris?
      hmm. you are 5 releases behind the current. maybe that has something to do with it.

      I'm running galeon on linux and everything is very responsive.

      cheers!

    23. Re:Uber Patch by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Well, when it's a system used by 1000 people, you can't be doing software upgrades every week...

    24. Re:Uber Patch by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Hmmm, I don't recall any version of IE working for linux. Perhaps the underlying truth is more embarrassing than we realize...

      Nah, probably working stiffs who are stuck on NT/2K/Win9X boxes at work...

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    25. Re:Uber Patch by discogravy · · Score: 2, Funny

      or slashdot has an unusually large Mac-user readership.

    26. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is an UltraSparc-II that would explain why mozilla is slow.

    27. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Perhaps slashdot should ban IE when MS bans mozilla again ;)

    28. Re:Uber Patch by Scooby+Snacks · · Score: 1

      I'm using 0.9.6. That said, I downloaded ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pub/netscape6/english/6.2/u nix/linux22/plugins/jre131i.xpi, then started Mozilla as root and used it to open that file. Then I restarted the Mozilla instance that I was running under my own user account. (Not sure if that's required or not.) See if that helps.

      --

      --
      Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
    29. Re:Uber Patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hmmm, I don't recall any version of IE working for linux. Perhaps the underlying truth is more embarrassing than we realize...

      Which underlying truth ? I have enough money to have 2 machines running (Linux for the main one, Windows 2000), plus enough RAM and vmware on the Linux one when I'm too lazy to switch keyboards. Why should I always browse with a Linux browser which is a source of never-ending problems ? (lastest versions Flash, embedded music, videos, etc...)

      I'm tired by all those slashdot kiddies with equate "Linux" with "Microsoft Bashing in all and every occasion"

    30. Re:Uber Patch by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      What was the last version of Mozilla you used?
      I tried building 0.9.6 from source on an LFS system earlier this week. It segfaulted when it tried to start up. I was able to build KDE 2.2.2 on the same system and get Konqueror running with the display going to XFree86 4.1.0 for Cygwin under Win2K. (This was done mainly so that apps like DDD that want to bring up webpages have access to a graphical browser...otherwise, it would've used Lynx.)

      As for Windows versions of Mozilla...it's been a few months. It rendered pages properly without crashing too much, but I wouldn't have characterized it as a better browser than IE. More recently, I've installed K-Meleon. It seems stable enough, but doesn't offer any compelling reason to switch away from IE. I haven't seen that it supports anything that IE doesn't. OTOH, I will allow that it does a much better job of handling CSS than Nutscrape 4.x ever did.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    31. Re:Uber Patch by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      Having a LFS build would have probably helped the developers find the problem and make the build more robust - I hope you submitted a bug report for it.

      But, if you haven't been able to get a working recent build of Mozilla running it seems less than likely to be able to perform an accurate analysis of Mozilla. Konquerer I think is absolutely great for doing HTML reports and such - as for the LFS, I have been thinking of spending some time doing something with it; how is it faring for you?

      Back to mozilla, you really should try using it if you are open to it -- it's came a very long way in the last few months. As I've said before, I use it exclusively now (Skypilot is also a very quick theme) and am happily hacking away on it. It's CSS2 support makes me a happy hacker.. even when I hate doing web-based user interfaces. :)

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    32. Re:Uber Patch by tmcmsail · · Score: 1

      maybe it can install lynx ;-)

      --

      What OS do you want to abuse today?

  2. Hmm. by Shaman · · Score: 3, Informative

    I thought this was the bug that couldn't be fixed because it was worked so deep into the OS.

    --
    ...Steve
    1. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Let's just wait and see if the patch actually works. Will the holes stay patched? How much else in th OS will be broken?

      Microsoft doesn't have a good record on previous patches.

  3. Oh my! by sdo1 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I just installed it... and it deleted IE!!!!

    Worked perfectly, I'd say....

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  4. Removes Outlook by ruiner13 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Probably a 22MB script to remove Outlook and anything fun (read, not microsoft)

    --

    today is spelling optional day.

  5. You mean michael's "Gaping Security Hole"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guh, I suppose we get the added bonus of a magic lantern leading our way now...

    1. Re:You mean michael's "Gaping Security Hole"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gaping security hole? Is it just me or are you referring to the goatse guy? Is his name Michael?

  6. Antitrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think the states' refusal to settle is putting MS on their best behavior?

  7. What a ripoff. by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Boy, Microsoft sucks. This patch doesn't even address future, yet-to-be-discovered vulnerabilities.

    1. Re:What a ripoff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What morons modded this down?

      This is why I always append ";)" to my funny posts. Sure, it actually makes it less funny because it destroys that moment where you say, "Huh?" and then realize it's a joke and laugh, and because it always makes a joke less funny when the teller is laughing at his own joke, but if you don't do that, the idiot moderators don't realize it's a joke and then nobody gets to see it

    2. Re:What a ripoff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent off topic please. who the fuck cares about your :)

    3. Re:What a ripoff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least one moderator.

    4. Re:What a ripoff. by JonMartin · · Score: 1

      > This patch doesn't even address future, yet-to-be-discovered vulnerabilities.

      I know that's a joke, but why aren't they doing that? If they did proactive code audits like the
      OpenBSD folks do they wouldn't have so many vulnerabilities down the line.

      --
      Serve Gonk.
    5. Re:What a ripoff. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...no but it probably introduces a few...

    6. Re:What a ripoff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      valid commentary

    7. Re:What a ripoff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and who says there's no karmic justice?

  8. now doesn't that make you feel better? by siphoncolder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    for once, michael reports good news about MS.

    for /.'s next trick, JonKatz will post a relevant article, and /.'ers won't bash him.

    --
    i'm amazed that i survived - an airbag saved my life.
  9. It probably breaks about 15 new things. by Ghengis · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It probably breaks about 15-20 other things in the process and passes them off by calling them features. It also probably bloats the program even more, prompting people to buy new machines, since theirs are now slow, and low and behold, MS has sold some more copies of XP! Woohooo.

    --

    "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

  10. more patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn its being to look like Enlightenment patches

    1. Re:more patches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enlightennent? what the heck are you talking about dude? Enlightenment is dead. Raster is homeless in australia...

      Back to the subject two words Quality Assurance

  11. Offtopic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone noticed that up until a few weeks ago, slashdot only posted one or two stories from the register per year and that lately, /. has basically become a US Register mirror?

    1. Re:Offtopic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an awfully slow mirror at that. If you want to know everything that is going to be on slashdot in six hours just go read the reg.

    2. Re:Offtopic, but... by chazzf · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. The purpose of Slashdot, as I see it, is to provide a forum for people to debate and discuss technical issues. Slashdot is not a news magazine or site like Register or Wired.

      Besides, I read the Register first, and then vent on /.

      --
      No statement is true, not even this one.
  12. Question for michael... by turbine216 · · Score: 2, Troll

    Could you have been any LESS enthusiastic about that blurb? What, have your hopes for "armageddon courtesy of your pals at Microsoft" been obliterated? Sorry to hear it.

    Anyway, this is a really good indication on the part of MS...perhaps an indicator of more initiative on these problems in the future. I definitely think that this is the type of thing that they need to continue if they wish to salvage their reputation at all...

    1. Re:Question for michael... by sroddy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Uhhh.... How to fix MS's reputation:

      1) stop abusing monopolistic powers
      2) stop releasing product before it is ready
      3) teach your porgrammers how to program ROBUSTLY
      4) IMPROVE STABILITY DAMNIT! Sure it is profitable for me to go and reinstall windows for someone every six months at the tune of $60 and hour, but I sure get tired of doing it.
      5) Play nice with the competition

    2. Re:Question for michael... by puma_duh · · Score: 1

      Reputation? What do you mean? We are talking about Microsoft here...

    3. Re:Question for michael... by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have to agree about the anti-microsoft atmosphere here. Not only with this statement but all the "It deletes IE!" "It installs Mozilla!" jokes just make you people look like you are desperate to fit in. Its pathetic!

      IE is the best browser out there. Check ANY review. And MS has jumped to fix a bug that everyone found (notice the GAPING HOLE in Solaris/AIX systems that still isn't patched? Why aren't you going off on that?)

      Remember when you had to purchase Netscape, but IE was free?

      Mozilla MAY -become- better, but it isn't, yet. If you give me that "IE doesn't run in Linux" then why are you even posting to this article?

      You guys need to be less Open Source/Anti-Microsoft Zealotous.

      I'd post anonymously to preserve karma, but the authors already know my IP (see sig).

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    4. Re:Question for michael... by sroddy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You better check your info again bud.... It is patched. at least Sun and IBM.

      Besides, anyone not using ssh rather than telnet and rlogin is not very worried about security anyway.

    5. Re:Question for michael... by robogun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If IE is "the best browser out there", then how do you explain the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars in lost productivity every year due to spreading of MICROSOFT-BORNE VIRII?

      Well?

    6. Re:Question for michael... by CoolVibe · · Score: 1, Redundant
      > (notice the GAPING HOLE in Solaris/AIX [slashdot.org] systems that still isn't patched? Why aren't you going off on that?)

      It wasn't just AIX/Solaris, it was also a ssh bug, which affected other platforms as well.

      I'm not really much of an MS basher (I don't use their products, but that's just my choice), but bugs are bugs. Bugs happen. And you have to admit that /. (it's authors and much of the readership) is a bit biased when it comes to MS :-)

    7. Re:Question for michael... by Noxxus · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mozilla MAY -become- better, but it isn't, yet. If you give me that "IE doesn't run in Linux" then why are you even posting to this article?

      Why? Because at times like these when the FBI is engineering Trojan horses to be snuck onto people's computers--and the US antivirus industry has capitulated--closed source operating systems, browsers and other software seriously lose credibility with anyone desirng privacy.

      Mozilla and Konqueror might not do everything that IE can do, but they have 80-90% of its functionality. Try KDE under Mandrake 8.1 and you'll see just how far OSS has come.

      At least with open source products the code is laid bare and people can audit it to be sure that spook agencies haven't embedded keystroke loggers and other such goodies.

    8. Re:Question for michael... by rabidcow · · Score: 2, Redundant

      Remember when you had to purchase Netscape, but IE was free?

      No, I was a student back then. How is this relevant anyway? (Remember when IE TOTALLY SUCKED?) So MS had deeper pockets than Netscape. So what? How much do you have to pay for mozilla?

      Mozilla MAY -become- better, but it isn't, yet.

      For me it is. For everyone else, who cares?

      The bias on /. is VERY old news.

    9. Re:Question for michael... by eAndroid · · Score: 1
      "IE is the best browser out there. Check ANY review." Really? Guess you haven't read my review:
      eAndroid Reviews Internet Explorer
      All Versions Internet Explorer, like, sucks.
      --

      I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
    10. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Solaris/AIX hole has been patched by both vendors with temp patches. The fact that IE "is the best browser" means nothing to opensource people simply because it's basically not opensource. Most of the people you see on slashdot condeming IE or any other program for that matter aren't apart of what I would promote as an opensource promoter. I just simply don't care and neither does most of the freesoftware community. If you've read slashdot for a while you'd notice that we tend to dislike Microsoft for other reasons it's just that with the recent influx of people using freesoftware/opensource etc etc it's brought alot of new people into the ring. These people scream in digust at Microsoft for all the wrong reasons. They aren't apart of opensource or the free software movement.. We don't promote it, old slashdot people don't promote it and neither does any other true opensource zealot promote. We don't care about Microsoft in terms of software at the end of the day unless it's bitching about having to read another office file format and then having to go to a windows machine to do so.

    11. Re:Question for michael... by FortKnox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Outlook is most of them. And I never claimed that Outlook is a great email program. Not to mention the hundreds of clueless users that open any attachments sent to them.

      And if I was to create a browser virus, I'd target the most used browser, and the browser that the "clueless-mother-type" users use.

      That isn't an insult to IE, but for computer/internet learners, IE is the browser they learn on.

      If linux was the biggest OS and Mozilla the largest browser, I think you'd find more Virii in linux and mozilla.

      Target the many, target the weak (users). That's what virus writers do.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    12. Re:Question for michael... by FortKnox · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why? Because at times like these when the FBI is engineering Trojan horses to be snuck onto people's computers--and the US antivirus industry has capitulated--closed source operating systems, browsers and other software seriously lose credibility with anyone desirng privacy.

      Dude, lay off the Deus Ex.

      Mozilla and Konqueror might not do everything that IE can do, but they have 80-90% of its functionality. Try KDE under Mandrake 8.1 and you'll see just how far OSS has come.

      I run SuSE 7.2 with KDE at home, actually. WinME on my gaming machine. I'm not insulting OSS, I'm just insulting the zealotous. If people want open source to rule, they need to be more humble, open, and not so elitest. Because most of those that make the decisions in computer companies get completely turned off by closed-visioned, zealotous elitests.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    13. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to hear an answer to this question too.

      At my company we started testing this patch today. Since it is critical, we have to drop other things to complete this testing prior to rolling this out to our user base. All of this takes time, which means money or delay on other things.

      The we have to notify our users to install this on their home machines. Hopefully this patch will make an appearance on Windows update soon.

      The point is there have been a number of these critical patches recently and I'm glad Microsoft is putting out patches.

      I'd be even happier if they could concentrate on security a little more and new features a little less but I'm not holding my breath since that means that can't sell incremental releases as new versions.

    14. Re:Question for michael... by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      If you've read slashdot for a while you'd notice that we tend to dislike Microsoft for other reasons it's just that with the recent influx of people using freesoftware/opensource etc etc it's brought alot of new people into the ring. These people scream in digust at Microsoft for all the wrong reasons. They aren't apart of opensource or the free software movement..

      Wow, I wish you woulda logged in to write that, cause that has to be the most polite, informative speech I have yet to hear. A true Open Source visionary.

      I think you are what a true Open Source advocate should be. I must know your username/email so that we can talk in a much less biased atmosphere (or put a post in my journal or something).

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    15. Re:Question for michael... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 5, Insightful
      IE is the best browser out there.

      Care to back this up? Have you used the alternatives? In case you missed it, here is what Moz has that is lacking in IE:

      • Best CSS2 Compliance out there. IE totally screws up my CSS2 compliant web page. Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera render it properly.
      • Tabbed browsing. Open separate windows, or open tabs within an existing window. Great feature for browsing slashdot, keeping similar stuff together in one window with tabs while browsing other stuff in a separate window
      • Full control over what javascript functions/objects/features are allowed to execute on a per-site basis. You can even globally kill the popup on page load bullshit (the only real reason I've found to disable javascript so far)
      • Cookie management on a per-site basis
      • Image management on a per site basis. Allow/disallow images, stop animated gifs, etc.
      • Site navigation bar for sites that use that old forgotten tag (like slashdot). This is very cool and useful.
      • Proper implementation of a 'favicon' that, get this, uses ANY SUPPORTED IMAGE FORMAT, not that M$ specific .ico crap. Use a PNG and you can use alpha channels. Imagine that.
      • FAST rendering engine. Much better than IE (especially in recent builds!) This is VERY significant for modem users who have to sit and wait for IE to figure out what is in a table before rendering it, while moz's engine pops it up as it comes down. Slashdot renders here in under a second.

      Those are just some of the highlights of why mozilla is the better browser and quite frankly, blows away IE, even as prerelease software

    16. Re:Question for michael... by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      And you have to admit that /. (it's authors and much of the readership) is a bit biased when it comes to MS :-)

      It's a perfectly natural and normal "mirror image" response to Msft's freakin' bias about itself - kinda like the rich, homely girl who thinks she's the beauty of the party that just invites sniggers, chuckles, cynicism and sarcasm from others.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    17. Re:Question for michael... by Tom7 · · Score: 2


      I actually really do like mozilla more than IE now. Mozilla basically supports everything IE does, now, and has some extra nice features like tabs.

      I agree with you about the anti-microsoft stuff. I hate microsoft too, but I think it's just wishful thinking on the part of slashdot kids that Microsoft software is automatically insecure and Linux/UNIX is automatically secure. I recall many recent high-profile vulnerabilities in linux software, for instance, and to get rooted through those I didn't need to browse to some hacker's site -- just sit back and let them do all the work.

      Personally, I think as MS moves to .NET and higher-level, safe languages like C#, they are going to be the ones laughing at us. I wish it wasn't so...

    18. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, my dumbass freind, obviously read nothing more than the headlines, and therefore, you will never understand anything. Besides, everyone knows you're well-documented trolling status here on slashdot. Seriously, come up with some original trolling material you tag-a-long. The page-widener guy: that was original. You: completely Overrated. Too bad the guys that like Microsoft for the most part modded you up, hope you don't get meta-mod priviledges, you fag.

    19. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      spoken like a true zealot. I congratulate you on your poorly-worded attempt at flaming. "you fag."

    20. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, likely due to the fact that most everyone uses it. It has nothing to do with MS, it has to do with market share and user knowledge.

      Make Linux the number 1 desktop with a stupid user base, and you'll see plenty of viruses.

    21. Re:Question for michael... by 1%warren · · Score: 1
      Those are just some of the highlights of why mozilla is the better browser and quite frankly, blows away IE, even as prerelease software

      The highlight of Mozilla 0.96 for me in M$ is an "Invalid Page Fault" at startup. Has happened with the last few releases. I send off the crash data with "talkback" & uninstall/delete it.

      Opera 6.0 is nice though, & AFAIK supports all the features you mention.

      --

      Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
    22. Re:Question for michael... by keflex · · Score: 0

      Yeah, first they take away our guns, then force us to use their designated i.d. cards "drivers licenses", then they install Trojans into everyones computers!

      I mean, w/out our guns we'll never be able to fight the british off, if we're forced to use i.d.s they can find out ALL KINDS OF PERSONAL INFO, and if they have the Trojans on computers, they can INSTANTLY SIEZE MY GIGS OF PORN AND GAMES!

      Heh.

      --


      My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.
    23. Re:Question for michael... by sroddy · · Score: 1

      Wrong... ssh uses it's own login implementation. Even the CERT announcement said that... but then I guess you did not read it.

    24. Re:Question for michael... by bitrott · · Score: 1

      "IE totally screws up my CSS2 compliant web page."

      Duh, that's because you built it with Mozilla. How do you know Mozilla is rendering it improperly and IE isn't? Do you see how stupid this debate is getting?

    25. Re:Question for michael... by Captain_Jackass · · Score: 1

      No, I was a student back then. How is this relevant anyway? (Remember when IE TOTALLY SUCKED?)

      Yeah, but most people remember last week pretty well.

    26. Re:Question for michael... by bitrott · · Score: 1

      Tabbed browsing.... BFD

      JS/Cookie/Image management per site? Do you HAVE a life? Do you just surf the web all day, setting up your own personal settings for each site you go to?

      Oooh... Favicon's... be still by developer's heart... BLOAT... I'm imagining it alright. Imagining it making my favorties look like a spastic list of crap

      Fast render engine? Says who? Oh, you mean after the 6hrs it took you to compile it? Again, this relies on good designers, NOT the browsers.

    27. Re:Question for michael... by haruharaharu · · Score: 2

      How do you know Mozilla is rendering it improperly and IE isn't?

      There's this thing called using your brain and reading the spec. How do you think something gets made compliant in the first place?

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    28. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are standards, and organizations that publish the standards. You can look it up, and see if the troublesome code is correct.

    29. Re:Question for michael... by rasactive · · Score: 1

      Tabbed browsing.... BFD

      Tabbed browsing is a big fucking deal you idiot. It's extremely convenient to minimize ALL your windows at once rather than go through each one and minimize it.

      JS/Cookie/Image management per site? Do you HAVE a life? Do you just surf the web all day, setting up your own personal settings for each site you go to?

      God damn customization.

      Oooh... Favicon's... be still by developer's heart... BLOAT... I'm imagining it alright. Imagining it making my favorties look like a spastic list of crap

      Kinda agree with you there. But at least Mozilla doesn't strong-arm you into any format.

      Fast render engine? Says who? Oh, you mean after the 6hrs it took you to compile it? Again, this relies on good designers, NOT the browsers.

      I've never compiled Mozilla. It's available for download as a binary. Same with Opera. And Konqueror. And I say it's a fast render engine because I've seen both IE and other browsers rendering pages.

      Don't let the door hit you in the ass, idiot.

    30. Re:Question for michael... by CoolVibe · · Score: 2

      ssh had a bug, it was only relevant if you used your system's login (which it doesn't by default, but you _can_ opt for that). Which can be handy if you use a non-standard login(1).

    31. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because MS's other software is insecure shit doesn't mean they can't do everything right. Outlook has been causing 99% of the virus problems. IE had nothing to do with it.

    32. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, here's "ANY" review.

      http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227883-8-7614087 -7 .html?tag=st.sw.3227883-8-7614087-1.txt.3227883-8- 7614087-7

      CNET's decision: It's a tie!
      Who'd have thought? After adjudicating five rounds of convincing arguments, we ended up with a hung jury. True, Netscape won the popular vote hands down. But our traditional voting process demands that we call it a tie.

    33. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure you completely delete your profile before installing it again. There are often problems with old profiles.

    34. Re:Question for michael... by weave · · Score: 2
      If you don't like favicon crap, you can turn it off. It's in the preferences under appearances, "Show Web Site Icons."

      Can that be done in IE?

    35. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you actually sit down and go through every piece of open source software that you download, line by line to make sure its "safe"? Where do you find the time to do that?

    36. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares what you think? Its all worthless drivel.

    37. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Table rendering speed has nothing to do with the browser and everything to do with correct HTML syntax (ie. specifying all of the table properties and dimensions).

    38. Re:Question for michael... by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      I have the same problem when I build my own pages by hand. IE still doesn't render it properly.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    39. Re:Question for michael... by Kagemushaa · · Score: 1

      I think the point was that some one has gone over pretty much everyline of code and he is more apt to trust a OSS programmer than anyone at MS

      --
      Sigs are against my religion
    40. Re:Question for michael... by Trelane · · Score: 1
      HML validator
      CSS Validator

      A few more Points for Moz:
      • DOM Inspector
      • JavaScript console
      • JavaScript debugger


      [on the subject of making things work right]
      Now go use them and stop whining about stuff you don't know is IE specific (*unlike* the Moz standard of adding "-moz-" in front of things to alert you to the fact they're not standard)
      If your page doesn't validate, you're wrong. Fix it.
      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    41. Re:Question for michael... by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      FAST rendering engine. Much better than IE (especially in recent builds!) This is VERY significant for modem users who have to sit and wait for IE to figure out what is in a table before rendering it, while moz's engine pops it up as it comes down. Slashdot renders here in under a second.
      It has a fast rendering engine, yet it still manages to feel slow. Really the same criticism applies to IE as well. NS4, for all its many, many sins, feels way faster than Mozilla or IE, because it gives really immediate UI feedback.

      Overall, responsiveness has gotten worse and worse in software, even as other speeds have gotten better. And it's the less-than-a-second pauses that really annoy me (and a lot of other people too) -- I can't really tell that they are there, but they make the whole experience feel worse.

    42. Re:Question for michael... by 1%warren · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I'm pretty sure I didn't have a profile, but not 100% - sigh - downloads mozilla again....

      --

      Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
    43. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Care to back that up?

      CSS2 Compliance? It still doesn't support having images in frickin table cells. IE has since 5.x.

      Tabbed browsing, I'll give you thought. I like that feature.

      Full control over JS on a per-site basis: Great in theory, but then what's the point? You'll spend more time making rules than closing those popups anyway.

      Cookie management on a per-site basis: Internet Explorer 6 has this, too.

      Image management per site: Err...the term 'useless' comes to mind.

      Site navigation bar: WTF?

      Favicon: Indeed, this is a feature that makes the browser. Too bad it's not innovative.

      FAST rendering engine crippled by a bloaty, buggy main frame to it. And how do you figure the fast rendering engine helps people on a regular modem? They won't notice much of a difference, because the data trickles in so slowly anyway. It's the people on broadband that'd notice a difference, and even then, IE6 appears to load things faster than Mozilla for me. (Opera is faster, Mozilla is most certainly not).

    44. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh..suckit,damn bunch of teenage critics.

    45. Re:Question for michael... by karlm · · Score: 1
      And MS has jumped to fix a bug that everyone found (notice the GAPING HOLE in Solaris/AIX [slashdot.org] systems that still isn't patched? Why aren't you going off on that?)

      Maybe everyone else noticed that there are emergency patches out for both Solaris and AIX? They haven't gone through the rigoruous IBM and Sun testing yet, but they're tested as well as M$ patches and are available for downlaod from the vendor websites. (Scan through the comments to find the URLs. Trust me, they're there.)

      I will agree that the Anti-Microsoft banter goes off the deep end sometimes, but I'm starting to see the Anti-Anti-Microsoft banter get almost as bad.

      All this factionalism and zealotry is getting out of hand. To fix this, I hereby found the Anti-Anti-Anti-Microsoft faction. Who's with me?! j/k :-)

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    46. Re:Question for michael... by GB+Kalis · · Score: 1

      I hate to say it, but Microsoft's software isn't responsible for viruses as so many people seem to believe. The people who have nothing better to do with their lives than program viruses are the ones responsible. Come on, how pathetic does someone have to be to program a virus to spread across the internet. "I get my jollies off of screwing up computer systems that belong to people I don't even know!" I say, "Get a life," to those people. And to the rest of you, I suggest you place blame where it should be placed.

    47. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike your insightful remarks, of course...

    48. Re:Question for michael... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      There have got to be more than a few OpenBSD users who just smirked at the announcement. Their Solaris systems haven't been vulnerable for the last few years. (as in OpenSSH ported from OpenBSD to Solaris etc.)

    49. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "IE is the best browser out there. "

      Care to back this up? Have you used the alternatives? In case you missed it, here is what Moz has that is lacking in IE:

      And what about all the features of IE that mozilla is missing ?

    50. Re:Question for michael... by Old+Wolf · · Score: 2

      How do you explain the millions of dollars of damage in illiteracy rates and unintelligence done to the general populace by the perpetuation of such lexical abominations as "virii" ?

    51. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tabbed browsing. Open separate windows, or open tabs within an existing window. Great feature for browsing slashdot, keeping similar stuff together in one window with tabs while browsing other stuff in a separate window

      I am sure using the Internet Explorer Browser control and a few minutes of programming and you could create your own 'tabbed browsing' Internet Explorer.

      Cookie management on a per-site basis

      IE6 has this.

    52. Re:Question for michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and just to add to the list wrt. konq (my fav) - it does almost all these things, uses the moz plugins, and if it happens to not render properly, you can click on the view tab, and select the mozilla renderer :) *sweet*

      keep it up KDE boyz'n'galz :)

    53. Re:Question for michael... by tomgilder · · Score: 1

      * Best CSS2 Compliance out there. IE totally screws up my CSS2 compliant web page.

      At least MS are showing an interest in full CSS support now. IE6 has pretty much 100% (although a bit buggy) CSS1 support.

      * Tabbed browsing

      There are a few plugins that will do this, and Windows XP's taskbar groups multiple IE's together.

      * Full control over what javascript functions/objects/features are allowed to execute on a per-site basis.

      You can enable/disable scripting for individual sites easily. IE's security zones actually give quite a bit more control than Mozilla has.

      * Cookie management on a per-site basis

      IE6 has this.

      * Image management on a per site basis. Allow/disallow images, stop animated gifs, etc.

      Would be nice, you can disable animated gifs for all sites if you wish.

      * Site navigation bar

      Again, would be nice - but hardly essential. You could make a browser plugin to do this quite easily.

      * Proper implementation of a 'favicon' ... uses ANY SUPPORTED IMAGE FORMAT, not that M$ specific .ico crap

      Er, MS did invent this. Icon files aren't exactly a completly locked file format.

      * FAST rendering engine

      Mozilla appears to be faster by rendering tables cells as soon as it gets them, often leads to annoying layout reflow. You can make IE do this too using some CSS propeties.

    54. Re:Question for michael... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

      Duh. no. I 'built' it with Vi, using the w3c documentation on CSS.

    55. Re:Question for michael... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

      Not to mention the fact that the default behavior of mozilla will be to NOT go probing for favicon.ico on every web site it hits (as IE does...go look at some apache logs some time). Mozilla supports this that way, if you explicitly enable it through an undocumented prefs.js entry, but also does it the proper way with tags.

    56. Re:Question for michael... by Hydrogenoid · · Score: 1

      Hmm... Yes, I can see it... An open source virus that you have to compile yourself to make it useable...

      Well, you know, under Linux, (or most Unices, for that matter) Virii tends to do little damage, mostly because it can't spread to files that do not belong to the one running the app...

    57. Re:Question for michael... by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      "I get my jollies off of screwing up computer systems that belong to people I don't even know!"


      Maybe they're trying to get back at people who get their jollies off of humiliating and teasing people they don't even know.

  13. why the F was slashdot just down for 90 minutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is going on ??? httpd died again?

  14. not too bright by panopticon · · Score: 1, Informative

    I downloaded the 2.15 mb patch. I try to run it, and I get a prompt that I need IE5 Service pack 2 installed. That's it, it doesn't supply a link, it doesn't try to download it, nothing. Microsoft rushed this one out.

    1. Re:not too bright by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      rushed it out? you think? maybe you didn't see THE story on slashdot a couple days back? seems the power of FUD makes even giant corporations respond.

    2. Re:not too bright by O2n · · Score: 1

      Well, when you "click to download" tou have 2 options: ie6 or ie5.5sp2. What did you expect?

      Anyway, you have to know where it is (the patch/hotfix) as it's not yet listed under "windowsupdate".

      I ran it and it looks to do the right thing - at least if you try with ct's "browser check" at http://www.heise.de/ct/browsercheck/readme.txt. The link actually feeds you with "hello.exe", beware.

    3. Re:not too bright by jvj24601 · · Score: 5, Informative
      I downloaded the 2.15 mb patch. I try to run it, and I get a prompt that I need IE5 Service pack 2 installed. That's it, it doesn't supply a link, it doesn't try to download it, nothing. Microsoft rushed this one out.

      The update only works with IE 5.5 or 6.0. You might be running 5.0.

      Interesting note: If you read the bulletin and click on the Technical Details submenu, you'll find the worst part:

      "Microsoft tested Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6.0 to assess whether they are affected by these vulnerabilities. Previous versions are no longer eligible for hotfix support."

      As someone who does some sysadmin stuff at work, I didn't know this before. This means that a large majority of users (as far as my limited experience goes) that still use IE 5.0 will still have exploit available that won't be tested nor fixed. Wow...
    4. Re:not too bright by edbarrett · · Score: 1

      Okay, so how is this an IE problem? Using Mozilla 0.9.6 (Build ID: 2001112009), I clicked the readme.txt link above, was prompted to open or save a text document, and had the option to save hello.exe. I have IE 5.00.3315.1000 installed but only use it when Mozilla won't render a page (Pervasive's knoledgebase... grr!)

    5. Re:not too bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was does "MZ???SVWUj" mean? :-)

      A happy Opera user on Windoze98SE (and switching to Mandrake soon).

    6. Re:not too bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So these same people who couldn't be arsed to upgrade IE to 5.5 + sp2 can actually be counted on to apply a security patch?

    7. Re:not too bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was doing that, until I realized that it had been months since I usd IE... so I removed it.

    8. Re:not too bright by dutchee · · Score: 1

      i found a link to get SP2... but when i ran THAT, i got a message saying that "while ALL components had successfully downloaded, installation was NOT successful. close all applications and try again."

      so, i've shut down everything but explorer and systray, and i've tried 5 fucking times, but the service pack installation cannot complete successfully.

      and these damn trolls WONDER why people hate this company so much...

    9. Re:not too bright by bwulf · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem to actually be the virus. I ran
      strings(1) on that file, and this shows up:

      c't-Warnung

      Das hätte ebensogut ein Virus sein können.


      My German's a bit rusty, but I believe that means something to the effect of 'That might as well have been a virus'.

    10. Re:not too bright by O2n · · Score: 1

      Of course it's not a virus. C't is one of (if not the) biggest german computer magazines!

    11. Re:not too bright by bwulf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you made it sound like it:

      > The link actually feeds you with "hello.exe", beware.

    12. Re:not too bright by MrResistor · · Score: 2
      Nothing new there, that's how all MS updates are. Hell, I can't install MS Office SP2 or some of the SP1 security fixes because our CDs aren't SP1. They're all SP0, and we upgraded to SP1 from windowsupdate.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    13. Re:not too bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, is that meant to exploit the vulnerability?

      I haven't yet installed the patch.

      I click the link, IE6 asks if I want to save or open 'readme.txt' from current location. I choose open. IE connects to site, then asks what I want to do with 'hello.exe'. I reload, same thing: do I want to open or save 'hello.exe'.

      What's the problem? At no stage was I in any danger of downloading or running an executable file unawares.

    14. Re:not too bright by BakaMark · · Score: 1
      I was watching the messages on bugtraq about this one. The exploit is certainly visable with Ie5.5 and Ie6.0. However I seem to recall at least on post where someone said that they tried this against Ie5.0 and could not replicate the intended results.

      This does not mean that the "flaw" does not exist for Ie5.0, because the method of exploiting the "flaw" had to be changed slightly between exploiting Ie5.5 and Ie6.0 as it was.

      It just means that Ie5.0 is not considered to be important anymore.

      This is a nightmare for any SysAdmin who has to maintain hundreds of computers running this software (lucky me I only maintain an office of 20 computers). Ie5.0 was unsupported only recently, so there are a number of computers in my office that have been patched up to Ie5.0 sp2 as well as a small number that have Ie5.5 sp2 loaded.

      It looks as if I will be doing another round of upgrades on Monday morning. Hopefully we will know of some of the dangerous side effects of this hotfix by then!!!!.

    15. Re:not too bright by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not informative at all. Here's the real information: The patches can be applied to IE 6.0 OR IE 5.5 SP2 ONLY. If you do not have either of those you need to upgrade to one of them then apply the appropriate patch.

      If you have not already upgraded to these versions then you are (and have been ) vunerable to numerous PAST holes. So if you haven't bothered to upgrade by now, why do you care about patching all of a sudden?

      Please mod me up to 5 now thank you.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    16. Re:not too bright by O2n · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to be sure nobody will jump with "don't click there - this guy is trying to fsck you". :)

      And it was a fair warning - it *does* send you hello.exe...

    17. Re:not too bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's the ie6 behaviour.
      In 5.5sp2, before the patch, if you chose "Open" - for readme.txt - it would've run the hello.exe ...
      without any other questions.

    18. Re:not too bright by darsal · · Score: 1

      (I'll resist trying to figure out who is "not too bright here...)

      Look, the actual documentation for this rollup clearly states you need IE 5.5 SP2 or IE 6. You simply cannot start at the address El Reg posted without encountering:

      System Requirements This update applies to:
      • Internet Explorer 5.5 SP2
      • Internet Explorer 6

      RTFM, perhaps. Or should someone do it for you?

      And if you haven't found SP2 yet, it isn't hard to locate. From within IE, click "Help" and select "Online Support". You get a page at Microsoft with a "Support Menu" on the left. Does the heading "Find & Download Software" suggest anything to you?

      But that makes me wonder - if you have IE and haven't done anything to check for updates since at least AUGUST (when SP2 was posted), why are you trying to install a day 0 patch in the first place?

    19. Re:not too bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct about the required IE versions for the current fix, but..

      Incorrect about past fixes. Until now all IE fixes have been released for IE 5.01 SP2 as well as 5.5 SP2. Compare the available releases for IE 5.01 SP 2 and 5.5 SP2, the last one was released for both on 10/5/01. IE 5.01 SP2 could be just as well patched/vulnerable/secure/insecure as 5.5 SP 2, until now...

      http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.asp?

    20. Re:not too bright by Jchrome · · Score: 1

      This is clearly a case of PEBCAK. Its called Windows Update; use it, its not that hard.You have no one to blame but yourself for not having your machine properly service-packed.

    21. Re:not too bright by No+Panic · · Score: 1
      Hmmm..., I go to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ , and it tells me:
      To view and download updates for your computer, your Internet Explorer security settings must meet the following requirements: Security must be set to medium or lower Active scripting must be set to enabled The download and initialization of ActiveX Controls must be set to enabled Note These are default settings for Internet Explorer.
      These are things I turned off for security reasons (and to prevent pop-up windows ;) ). So... to get a new security patch, I've got to turn-off my previous security ??? Hmmm..., let me think about that...
    22. Re:not too bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, when you "click to download" tou have 2 options: ie6 or ie5.5sp2. What did you expect?

      Well, too bad the "feature" affects more than these two versions. I recall IE5.0 needed to be patched too. Just another example of M$ forcing users to use newer, and potentially more buggier, versions.

    23. Re:not too bright by hacker · · Score: 1
      Not informative at all. Here's the real information: The patches can be applied to IE 6.0 OR IE 5.5 SP2 ONLY. If you do not have either of those you need to upgrade to one of them then apply the appropriate patch
      What do you think Joe Home User is going to do? They're going to download the latest, greatest IE6 version (most current must be most secure, right? bleh). What they don't realize, is that IE6 contains all of the .NET client libraries with it, which basically turns the back-end of your system into a .NET-ready interface, ripe for the online pickings of patches, application downloads, and whatever else Microsoft wants to throw at you. They can also disable/enable/tinker with your OS at their leisure now, since they have enough "onboard" to do whatever they want.

      And like someone else mentioned already, what if this isn't just a way to get some leniency from the DOJ by injecting enough code in the core of the .NET client-lib infrastructure to render a Magic Lantern hook into the running OS as simple as telnetting to a listening port.

    24. Re:not too bright by williacs · · Score: 1

      Some of those home users might want to think twice before upgrading anyway. I have noticed the bloat in upgrading from 5.0 to 5.5 and some of those older systems don't have enough horsepower to run the extra bloat in 5.5. I noticed this on a previous job assignment and only upgraded when I needed the OS patches for win98. Many companies are still not running fast hardware.

  15. MS Craziness by Fatal0E · · Score: 5, Funny



    Just when I thought that I knew the difference between a Service Pack, Security Rollup Patch and a cumulative Hot Fix they go and release a Security Bulletin like this one.

    1. Re:MS Craziness by Chundra · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ok it's easy:

      Service Packs are the small, 6-8oz cups with the foil tops. They usually contain yogurt or pudding.

      Rollup Patches are dried fruit puree attached to thin plastic wrap. You tear the fruit substance off the plastic before eating.

      Hot Fixes are the things you remove from the plastic bag and put in the microwave. They usually consist of some sort of bread substance with a meaty and/or cheesy filling.

      Hope that clears things up.

    2. Re:MS Craziness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always tell the readers who are posting
      from their dorm room with a bong within reach...

    3. Re:MS Craziness by ShadeEagle · · Score: 0

      Oh, now you've went and confused me.

      I thought Hot Fixes were dehydrated bean juice for when you're out of Penguin Mints or Jolt!

    4. Re:MS Craziness by Chundra · · Score: 1

      No, those aren't Hot Fixes, they're Enterprise Java Beans.

  16. Probably Installs 'Magic Lantern' by Noxxus · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I wouldn't install it considering the timing of all this news about the FBI's keystroke-logging Trojan. A "Windows Update" would be the perfect vehicle for the Feds to sneak their code onto machines, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were in cahoots with Redmond just like they were in years past with the big Telcos.

  17. You gotta wonder... by reflexreaction · · Score: 2, Interesting

    how long this patch was developed. Suddenly when the hole is "announced" wammo! a patch in 3 days. Maybe Microsoft doesn't want to reduce it's "features"

    --

    We had to destroy the sig to save the sig.
    1. Re:You gotta wonder... by stapedium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or maybe the announcement was part of Microsoft's PR plan to get everyone to download this "uber-patch." Or maybe slashdoters (myself included) are just paranoid nerds that haven't been diong "stuff that matters" in too long.

    2. Re:You gotta wonder... by Flamesplash · · Score: 1

      Wait!

      You're complaining that they had a patch out quickly?

      Would you rather it had takes 2 weeks?

      --
      "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
    3. Re:You gotta wonder... by PeeOnYou2 · · Score: 1

      No but it's rather queer for MS to come out with a patch so fast. Perhaps these new bugs were the ticket they needed to add a whole bunch of other shit in... a nice cover if you will. Or maybe I'm paranoid... Nah..

  18. Untill the next one is found next week by spineboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    These seroius bugs seem o pop up almost on a weekly basis. Soon crackers will find holes in the patches upon patches.....

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Untill the next one is found next week by Webmoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of a pair of pants my neighbor had. So many patches there wasn't any original fabric left.

      --
      Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
    2. Re:Untill the next one is found next week by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reminds me of a pair of pants my neighbor had. So many patches there wasn't any original fabric left.

      Just like any large software project, including the Linux kernel, KDE, Mozilla, you name it.

    3. Re:Untill the next one is found next week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My slave isn't allowed to wear pants around the house. Just a t-shirt.

      And she never, ever, is allowed to wear panties.

    4. Re:Untill the next one is found next week by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 2

      Except that those projects are always undergoing version changes, which requires addition and possibly change of existing code.

      How many patches are there to KDE 2.2? And IE 5.5?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    5. Re:Untill the next one is found next week by dzym · · Score: 2, Informative
      One word: apache quoted from the FAQ
      Why the name "Apache"? A cute name which stuck. Apache is "A PAtCHy server". It was based on some existing code and a series of "patch files".
  19. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad they did, however the problem with this is that they'll be doing it alot. Fix the inherent problem and just stop patching it. Once you start patching a program constantly you know that there is a problem with your design. It's time for Microsoft to go back to the drawing board and produce a browser that focuses on stability and security as much as it does usability. If it's insecure it might be usable but who's going to use it minus the mindless masses.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's insecure it might be usable but who's going to use it minus the mindless masses?

      And Microsoft never care for the mindless masses. They just write software for experts and admins, right?

    2. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.. they write software for the mindless masses.. Software is that is insecure.. Apple does the same but you don't see the same type of insecurity.. Two different companies trying to do similar things on the desktop. You're comment is the dumb, no offense

  20. Hmm... by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 1, Funny

    It said Requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux. Now what?

    1. Re:Hmm... by kigrwik · · Score: 2, Funny

      > It said Requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux. Now what?

      That's easy !

      $ wine iexplore.exe
      err:win32:PE_fixup_imports No implementation for SHLWAPI.dll.249(StrRetToStrW) imported from C:\windows\system\shdocvw.dll, setting to 0xdeadbeef
      wine: Unhandled exception, starting debugger...

      ah, well. "apt-get install mozilla" , then I guess...

      --
      -- don't discount flying pigs until you have good air defense
    2. Re:Hmm... by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 1

      This post got the following moderation:

      Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Funny=2, Total=5.

      What the...? That ought to teach me not to post on a Friday...

  21. typo in the title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey, that hurts, a typo in the title:
    it's "Über-patch", not "Uber-patch",
    don't forget the umlaut.

  22. with by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all the crap that you see posted here, why would you EVER use M$ IE When there are so many free alternatives avail? www.debian.org www.mutt.org www.mozilla.org

  23. No, it installs Magic Lantern! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Just download and install it. It's totally safe, I promise.

  24. All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a step in the right direction, but I still have to install the thing on every single g-damn peecee in my enterprise.

    For those of us with less than a few hundred MS clients (read: fewer clients that would make usefull something as heinous as SMS push upgrades) the issues are still very clear:

    1). It takes too much time to keep up on MS software patches.

    AND

    2). Once you know what you need you still have to go box to box to box to patch (in *most* cases).

    Granted the 'uber-patch' will help, but it still means I need a couple more inters to walk from machine to machine and interrupt users. IMO, patch managment tools should be MS's #2 priority (right behind 'getting it right the first time').

    Cheers,
    -- RLJ

    1. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by mandolin · · Score: 1
      1). It takes too much time to keep up on MS software patches.

      Windows Update? Yeah I prefer rpms, but it could be worse. It could be Sun.

      2). Once you know what you need you still have to go box to box to box to patch (in *most* cases).

      Try Back Orifice, I hear it works great.

    2. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those of us with less than a few hundred MS clients

      You have less then 200 clients, but you obviously still don't have your MCSE, and no clues about admining a windows network. Use group policy to push it out. It comes with win2k server. When the machine is started up, the patch is run, and thats it!.

      .... and they call mcse's stupid.

    3. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by michaela · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I have found two solutions around this (although I agree about SMS pricing).

      1. Require domain logins, don't even provide local logins to the machine. Then, as part of the logon procedure, use a logon script. Look in the patch archive to find the list of files it updates. In the logon script, check the timestamp on three of them and if they're out of date, run the updater.
      2. Install VNC server on the user stations and set it to run at bootup. Then you can do nearly any administration task short of recovering from a complete blowout without leaving your desk. Do it after hours and you can reboot the machines right away. Or, use parts of #1 with a logout script instead to reboot the machine the next time they log out.
      --
      That is all.
    4. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So I guess you've never heard of installation or SMS servers that make an installation of this nature possible at the click of a single button from any workstation in the company? Microsoft had them out years ago. Currently Windows Update and Dynamic Update can be pointed to intranet servers. Active Directory, MSI, or WMI can "push" installations automatically from centralized locations as well, again at the click of a button and without interrupting the user. Maybe you need to start researching solutions for this problem instead of complaining about them to slashdot?

      Walk to individual machines. Hah, that's so 80s.

    5. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you could put up a webpage that uses the old exploit to push the .exe patch...

    6. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by talonyx · · Score: 1

      As you should know, one of the best Open Source direct competitors to Microsoft SMS is Back Orifice 2000. Enable it with a password and some strong encryption and it's just fine, thank you :D

    7. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 2
      2 good ideas! The login scripting does fall down occassionally (as with respect to what the earlier respondant had to say - I have been in that boat as well).

      I have been pining to get VNC (or just about any remote desktop app) on the clients for some time. My one concern here is that I don't know much about VNC's security implications. I think I'll do some reading...

      Cheers,
      -- RLJ

      Offtopic - I find it interesting that the flames are by anon cowards and do not contain supporting materials. Hmmmm ... :-)

    8. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by gUmbi · · Score: 1


      1). It takes too much time to keep up on MS software patches.

      AND

      2). Once you know what you need you still have to go box to box to box to patch (in *most* cases).


      Isn't this the central idea of Microsoft's new subscription model that /. is always bashing?

      I think it's a great idea as long as you can opt-out for important servers running non-MS applications (such as Oracle database servers, etc.)

      Jason.

    9. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by ez76 · · Score: 1
      This is a step in the right direction, but I still have to install the thing on every single g-damn peecee in my enterprise.
      Yeah, this sucks, but the updates to the holodeck code are worth it.
    10. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by pigeonhed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Patching occurs on all software that is well maintained. I would be very upset if all companies did not patch software. I agree that updating a system can be a nightmare but without it trouble will soon follow. No matter what the OS/application is a progressive series of steps is important to making a mature product. Many open source products get their strength from the fact that work is not only always being done but that end users in theory receive a better product threw a testing process. Patching may not be a pretty name and Microsoft has a way of making anything feel dirty but it is a good step even if a company I don't support takes it.

      Oh yeah just my opinion I could very well be wrong.

    11. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 2

      Why not just replace your home page with a trojan that runs the patch?

      If you want to prioritize who gets patched first, you can send the patch as an email to everyone and warm them not to run it. The ones you need to worry most about will be the first patched...

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    12. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by extra88 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      VNC's built-in security is not great. You set one password per machine (if you administering a bunch, you'll probably set it to be the same on all) and you can create a registry entry to specify IP ranges which are permitted to connect. Beyond that, you need to get in to installing OpenSSH and tunnelling VNC through that. By default, VNC doesn't allow loopback connections so you have to change something in the registry so it'll tunnel.

      What I also do is leave the VNC service set to Manual, then use something like Computer Mangement(a Win2k tool) to start the service when I want to use it.

      My routine goes like this: find out user's computername (let's say "luser28"),run "compmgmt.msc /computer:luser28", start VNC service, run VNCviewer and paste in the computername as the VNC Server address (netbios names will get resolved to IP), enter the VNC password (plus domain login if I'm not looking over a logged-in user's shoulder) and I'm in. When I'm done I bring computer management to the front and stop the service. Starting the service remotely requires local admin rights on the machine so if a cracker can do that, we're already screwed.

      There are also a number of ways to execute programs remotely without resorting to login scripts, psexec.exe comes to mind.

    13. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by 0xA · · Score: 2
      I feel your pain.

      We now run all of our user applications from Citrix Metaframe server farm. It's not the solution for everyone but I can't tell you how happy I am that I only have to patch 4 boxes tonight.

    14. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes too much time to keep up on MS software patches.

      In that case, what about keeping up on all the patches for software which Red Hat includes in their distribution by default?

      Not only do you have to keep up with 100's of pieces of individual software, but many of them are from different, individual vendors.

      Note, I'm a UNIX admin, not a Microsoft fan.

    15. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by qubezz · · Score: 1

      If you are running a Windows 2000 domain, you can just make it a user policy that the patch gets installed if it's not there when the computer boots up. Cake.

      The other way is to change the MIME types on your corporate home page server, put the exploit on the main page, and make this patch the exploit payload, so it is automatically run. It'll only happen once, right?

      For the CEO on the road? Just send her the patch renamed with .scr and tell him to check it out. Or rename it ElfBowling3.exe...

    16. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI - the resource kit comes with a handy util called NETSVC which would save you the step of pulling the terrible management gui.

      netsvc /start \\luser28 "VNC" , for example.

    17. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who modded the parent informative? the parent's parent specifically mentioned sms--pointing out that the uber-patch didn't really help out installations not large enough to invest in something like sms push. someone beat the moderator with a clue-stick.

    18. Re:All in one patch is 1/2 the solution by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 2
      That's nice if you're assuming that the users on your target boxen have local admin rights (which, mine do not).

      Giving users local admin rights to boxes is like handing them the matches and pointing to the TNT shed.

      Granted, some of the patches for IE on Win2k do not require local admin rights to install, but most still want reg.modify access and to replace a system DLL or two. NOTE: the same thing that lots and lots of viruses like to do.

      Cheers,
      -- RLJ

  25. Re:why the F was slashdot just down for 90 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was getting served stories from Aug 17th right before it went down. The stories were set up with "reply" active, but i didn't get a chance to see if it would work before the whole thing went down...

  26. Re:13th POST!! by simetra · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Agreed. Zeppelin kicks all ass and makes Bill Gates seem extremely insignificant in the scheme of things.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  27. For IE 5.5 users by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Informative

    This does not appear to be a service pack, and the target builds listed for the hotfix are only IE 5.5 SP2 and 6, so you'll need to head here to get yer SP and then install the hotfix (get directly to it from here).

    It seems unlikely that the SP2 for 5.5 includes this as of right now, although it will eventually (I know sometimes I'll download an SP and take a few days to actually install it). Check your versions before you plunge your box into browser hell =)

    1. Re:For IE 5.5 users by GreenHell · · Score: 1

      I think your first link should point here instead, as you made a typo in the address.

      --
      "I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
    2. Re:For IE 5.5 users by The+Bungi · · Score: 2

      Ooops, thanks for catching that.

  28. Download URLs by nstrom · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the direct download URLs, so you don't have to wade through MS's crufty site:

    for IE6:
    http://download.microsoft.com/download/IE60/secpac 23/6/W98NT42KMeXP/EN-US/q313675.exe
    for IE5.5:
    http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie55sp2/sec pac23/5.5_SP2/WIN98Me/EN-US/q313675.exe

    These updates have not yet appeared on Windows Update.

    1. Re:Download URLs by ZzeusS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And why the hell have they not rolled it into windowsupdate? I could tell my users:

      Check windowsupdate.

      or.

      Go to this huge MS address. Then go here, or here. Then download and run this.

    2. Re:Download URLs by IgnorantKnucklehead · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else feel uneasy about the fact that this patch is "uninstallable"... Check out the bottom of the page here... I don't know about the rest of you, but I usually like to have something to fall back on if an upgrade doesn't work.

    3. Re:Download URLs by WildBeast · · Score: 2, Informative

      Usually, patches take about 2 days or so to be available on windowsupdate.

    4. Re:Download URLs by PC_Freak · · Score: 1
      Yes, it makes me uneasy, but I think that if you look, you'll find that most M$ patches/upgrades/etc. have no "uninstall" capability.

      And, by limiting the release of the patch to SP2, we once again get pushed into obtaining the latest version of an M$ product to fix problems they didn't get right in v1. (Or v2, v3, v4, v5, v5.1, v5.2, v5.2 SP1....)

    5. Re:Download URLs by barzok · · Score: 2

      Or, you could download and publish it via your intranet. Or push it out via login scripts. End-users going to WindowsUpdate just causes more problems for administrators.

  29. Protecting customers by mknapp905 · · Score: 1, Troll

    "Microsoft thanks Jouko Pynnonen of Oy Online Solutions Ltd for reporting this issue to us and working with us to protect customers. " Hmm Lots of Kudos to Jouko, but what about the Millions of other users who have been screwed by M$ over the years??? Microsoft Protecting their customers??? From what....M$?????

    --
    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. RUSH
    1. Re:Protecting customers by Webmoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Microsoft is like a condom. It'll protect you, but if you use it, you're screwed.

      --
      Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
    2. Re:Protecting customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hmm Lots of Kudos to Jouko, but what about the Millions of other users who have been screwed by M$ over the years?

      When they get off their ass and help find and close a critical security hole in IE, they can get their one-line thank you too.

    3. Re:Protecting customers by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Leaky, that is.
      It'll protect you (as long as you do not use it)

  30. Looking better every day... by green+pizza · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    ... Mac OS X and OmniWeb, that is. OW 4.1 will be out in about a week with gobs of speed and bug fixes.

  31. With apologies to Nietzsche by saforrest · · Score: 1

    Long live the Uberpatch.
    MSIE is a thing to be overcome, and I have overcome him.

  32. Windowsupdate quite annoying! by imuffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it very annoying to try to install Microsoft patches. I work in a place where I am responsible for several windows installations. When I install a M$ OS, in order to patch it, i have to:

    1. Start IE (click through internet connection wizard)
    2. Open the windows update website
    3. Download an activeX application to determine what updates I need
    4. Download and install the updates (often, more than 5!) one at a time, rebooting in between each one!

    It's so much easier to swivel my chair around to my redhat box and do a simple 'up2date -i'.

    I wonder if there's any particular reason why Microsoft makes it so difficult? Do they actually like their security holes?

    1. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by brunes69 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its because of the way windows works. It wo't let you overwrite a .exe or .dll that is in use, and since IE is so tied into the OS itself, most of the IE components are in use all the time. Therefore you have to reboot in otder for the update to take effect. When rebooted, it copies the file sover while in protected mode, before IE loads.

    2. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      You are in charge of updating Windows installations and you don't know how to download patches without using WindowsUpdate? Seems to me that you shouldn't let your employers know about that.

    3. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Also note that only some of the updates need to installed separately - IE updates for one. A lot of patches can be installed all at one time and then the machine rebooted.

    4. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by ryusen · · Score: 1

      of course this only gets worse if you have to do this on multiple machines... i wish they had an "save patches for later install feature" one that would just cram all of the patches you select into an executable...
      you still gotta go to each machine and do it, but it's better than dowloading it for each machine (or going to the ms web site and downaloding each and ever patch and saving each one... *sigh*

      of course then we have the other end of the spectrum... with auto patches that you don't even see being installed... i'm sure our security personel would just love tons of updates flying past the firewalls through some ie backdoor...

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    5. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do they actually like their security holes?

      In a word, yes.
      If you think this is a troll, take this little test...
      You have just found out that Your Favorite Operating System, which you run on Your Computer, has a vulnerability which you consider important enough to do something about.
      Do you:

      Locate and apply the appropriate patches for Your Favorite Operating System, and make whatever other changes are necessary to mitigate the situation.

      Learn more about Your Favorite Operating System so that you'll be even better able to assess these threats and prevent vulnerabilities in the future.

      Lose interest, and just continue running Your Favorite Operating System, vulnerabilities and all, and go back to reading Slashdot, surfing the web, etc.

      Get fed-up, say "This is the last straw!" and abandon Your Favorite Operating System, replacing it (and all of the applications, data files, and procedures which depend upon it) with Some Other Operating System which you may have heard about.

      We can all see ourselves or think of others who would react in any (or perhaps all) of the first three ways, all ow which favor the incumbent. I can't think of anyone who would respond similarly to the last, which is the only one which would topple the status quo. With the exception of a few individuals who are charged with setting the strategic computing direction for large organizations, (that is, in a position to dictate what other people will run on their computers) security holes tend to reinforce the market position of the incumbent. And the harder it is to fix, the more time your customers spend with your product (increasing your mindshare) and the less likely it is that the hole will be patched, meaning you'll have another chance in the future to grab their attention again...

      So, if you're charged with selecting a strategy to promote your operating system, your obvious tactics are:

      Focus your energies on those few people who set the computing direction for major corporations.

      (IFF you are the incumbent) Don't worry about security, because as long as you have a majority share of the market any security hole will only increase your mindshare. And mindshare is what it's all about.

      Want to know how to apply this to Free Software, Open Source, and Linux?

      Code, if you can. (and can do it well)

      Document, if you can. (and can do it well)

      Report bugs, if you can. (and can do it well)

      But most importantly, Use it.
      By just using the software, you create a habitat for the evolution of the software. If something works well, praise it. If something sucks, say so. The habitat for evolution is the key to success for both proprietary and free software. The key advantage that free software has over proprietary software lies in:

      the ability to try to be all things to all people. Most of these will fail, but the ones that don't will be spot on.

      the knowledge that no one is going to get fired or lose their job for producing something that no one wants. That's an incredibly liberating feeling for a software designer.

      If Microsoft appears to be getting stronger, it's only because they're retreating back onto their own territory.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    6. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by zvar · · Score: 1

      Umm... They do.

      WindowsUpdate, while nice, was never intended for business usage. If you want to "save as" simply goto their corporate update site at http://corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.com/en/de fault.asp And download any and all patches you want to keep.


    7. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoooooah.. you're so hardcore, elite.. so much knowledge about micro$oft wAreZ.mhh.. may i see that mousearm of yours?? yeah... you've been working out!

    8. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      Geez, no wonder you think that MS sucks. Updates of all the workstations can be done easily without your intervention.

      You should read some SysAdmin books.

    9. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats a pretty lame way to install Win2k. I've got a network accessible drive that is an image of a fully setup Win2k machine (which I periodically update as patches and newer applications are released). I simply throw in my floppy, it and leave it to copy the image to the local hard drive. Takes about 10-15 minutes per workstation. I couldn't imagine waiting an hour to get *one* PC working.

    10. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :-) all my redhat installs go that way.

      Oh and you are doing it the hard way.

      1 floppy that 's it.

      floppy fdisks, formats, installs all apps and W2K from my deploy server.

      only a dweeb would burn CD's, that is the fastest way to have everything out of date.

      me? after this patch is released, every new machine get's it installed automagically, oh and all the apps, the virus defs are fresh ...

      cd's are for losers in IT.

    11. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This consultant forgets that the test/patch has to be tested for proof and regression, and breaking things, not working with your special registry mods and 3rd party software, or non ms html authoring.
      Nortons Ghost does the trick in 60 minutes - nothing better - except ms trying to break this product with FUD.

      There are so so many patches, MS should print new 98, me, nt, 2000 distros. send in your original and get a new one back is what SHOULD happen.

    12. Re:Windowsupdate quite annoying! by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Then how?
      Explicitly.

  33. What they didn't tell you.. by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

    They already applied their uber-patch to the DOJ and it *worked*!

  34. More like Deja Patch... by chinton · · Score: 2, Funny

    100s of beautiful security fixes... and 3 ugly ones.

    1. Re:More like Deja Patch... by laserjet · · Score: 2

      For those that didn't get this, (and correct me if I am wrong), but this is a reference from a strip club (well, now it's just a topless bar i think, but I haven't been there in several years). Their slogan reads something like "The Deja Vu: 100 pretty girls, and 3 ugly ones."

      I know they have one in SpoCompton (aka Spo-Angeles aka Spokane).

      Since I bet there are a large number of /.'ers who have never been to a strip club, I thought I would point this out.

      --
      Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
    2. Re:More like Deja Patch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you would be correct. I believe Deja Vu is in Ontario, CA.

  35. This has to be chipping away at confidence.... by lblack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Consumers (not just slashdot ubergeeks) will have to sit up and take notice at this one, I think. It's getting a bit more coverage / product placement, and isn't being couched in esoteric terms (MS has a tendency of releasing patches that have descriptions which underplay the effects of not patching, or else are so laden with jargon that the layman cannot quite process them). It really is an "uber patch", and it really is MS saying, "We've been releasing insecure software for awhile. In fact, we're still doing so, as evidenced by the three bugs that you don't even know about that we're patching. Please install this patch or else you're screwed."

    I think consumers can weather something like, "Apply this patch in order to ensure that your copy of internet explorer appropriately identifies content header types and reconciles them with dialogue saving and automated execution routines." because it just looks so *foreign*. Approached from a non-computing background, it looks like something very small and unlikely to affect anyone. This patch, though, looks a bit more like "Oops. Our browser sucks for security. Install immediately."

    Hopefully this will draw peoples attention to:

    1) The importance of frequent patching
    2) The lack of security in MSIE
    3) The problems associated with bundling a browser into core OS functionality (bit more unlikely).

    Of course, the spin is still there, but:

    Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft® Internet Explorer.

    Impact of vulnerability: Run code of attacker's choice.

    Maximum Severity Rating: Critical

    Recommendation: Customers using IE should install the patch immediately.

    Affected Software:

    Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5
    Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0


    ...is still pretty cut & dry. Anyone with even half a brain should realize that if a gaping hole in a consumer product existed through *2* releases (like having a 2000 and a 2001 Honda both explode in flames under appropriate conditions), that product may not be the best built out there.

    Right?

    Of course, I'd be much more pleased if people were being notified via a big ol' link on msn.com, and through a mail from the beloved "Hotmail Staff". What, are they scared of leveraging a monopoly to insure the security of their users?

    -l

    1. Re:This has to be chipping away at confidence.... by jcw2112 · · Score: 1
      i know that we all WISH that this were true. but the fact of the matter is that this is just business as usual.

      i would love it if seeing a boldly worded security bulletin would phase ANYONE that was not in IT, but it doesn't. i work with a lot of 'normals' and they just clickity-click-click along wihtout a care in the world.

      none of the people on my regular tech support rounds (fam & friends) will have taken care of this. good thing i have a week off for x-mas...always fun to patch, reboot, patch, reboot...

      --
      hmmm...
    2. Re:This has to be chipping away at confidence.... by FFFish · · Score: 1

      "(like having a 2000 and a 2001 Honda both explode in flames under appropriate conditions)"

      Rather, isn't it more like having a 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977 Ford explode in flames under appropriate conditions. This, despite Ford knowing fully well during that entire eight-year period, in which 500 people died in their burning vehicles, that a few simple changes to the design would save lives.

      Honda Civics just aren't a good analogy in this case. The Ford Pinto is, especially what with Ford having used a cost-benefit analysis to decide that letting people die had a better cost-benefit ratio than fixing the flaw.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    3. Re:This has to be chipping away at confidence.... by jx100 · · Score: 1

      I actually did get an e-mail form the "hotmail staff" about this bug. It was actually mentioned as one of the headlinesas an "Urgent Browser Security Notice"

    4. Re:This has to be chipping away at confidence.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could easily prevent a whole lot of drowning by draining every swimming pool on earth and filling them all up with sand.

    5. Re:This has to be chipping away at confidence.... by thelexx · · Score: 1

      "Impact of vulnerability: Run code of attacker's choice.
      Maximum Severity Rating: Critical
      Anyone with even half a brain should realize...that product may not be the best built out there."

      Sounds logical to us, but Joe Average automatically thinks that "MS stuff might suck, but they are the (biggest|best|marketleader) so everyone else must be even worse." Regardless of the actual truth of the variable above, perceptions are everything. And MS is so very, very good at creating perceptions.

      LEXX

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    6. Re:This has to be chipping away at confidence.... by Zico · · Score: 2

      Actually, the truth of the matter is, what else are they going to use? Linux? Well no, we're looking for something secure, not with something needing more security patches than Windows. More difficult to use plus more insecure plus poor software choices isn't exactly a winning combination. Macs? That'd be the top alternative, but it's kind of hard to justify Mac prices when they're so limited power-wise and software-wise compared to Windows PCs. And that's why people prefer Windows.

  36. Its a patch rollup by budcub · · Score: 1
    On the 13th of November Microsoft released a "rollup patch" for Internet Explorer. Its basically a collection of all patches for IE (up to that date) rolled up into one fix. This new patch is another "rollup" which has the old old rollup, with some new patches added.

    Of course, I had just finished putting that patch on a bunch of workstations here at the office, now that this new one is out I have to put it on every friggin machine.

  37. Update. by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    As of 3:46 PM EST "the patch" isn't on the "Windows Update" page.

    I guess they don't want you to fix it!?!?

    Thanks /. for telling me where to get it.

    Signed:

    Fanboy Jones

    1. Re:Update. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey ImaLamer -- WindowsUpdate is (literally) the last place to find patches.

      Check www.microsoft.com/security where you can see them hot off the press, and sign up for mail notification. NTBugTraq is also a good list to be on.

    2. Re:Update. by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

      Gee thanks... who would think the last place to look would be the first?

      Why isn't this on windows update ... IE is a part of the OS right?

    3. Re:Update. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I haven't seen anything new on the update page for ages, using Windows 98 + IE 6.

      It appears you have to patch it yourself.

  38. Only 5.5 and 6.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had two users today get the Nimda.E variant via email. It had an interesting header that was included from an html formated email's iframe . . .




    Content-Type: audio/x-wav; name="sample.exe"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64


    I'll leave out the actual format of the email's html. But what happened was Windows tried to run sample.exe right after previewing. No popup box, no nothing. And this was using Outlook Express 5.0 It was a good thing that the virus software saw the executable as a Nimda. If they had sent a format.exe that would have been it for the two user's data.



    Microsoft said that only 6.0 was affected?



    Or is this something different than what they have supposedly patched?

    1. Re:Only 5.5 and 6.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That was a simlar, but not identical bug that was patched months ago. Get off your ass and get up to the current patchlevels. It's easier than bitching to Slashdot.

    2. Re:Only 5.5 and 6.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? It seems to me tha bitching to Slashdot is damn easy.

    3. Re:Only 5.5 and 6.0? by MrResistor · · Score: 2
      Microsoft said that only 6.0 was affected?

      No, they said they were only supplying a patch for 6.0 and 5.5SP2. Everyone else has to upgrade before they can apply the patch.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  39. Even weirder... by oGMo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if it was the reverse. The DOJ gives MS leniency, but calls in a favor with the FBI to announce some "Magic Lantern" spyware, and suddenly open projects become very popular....

    ...naw. ;-)

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    1. Re:Even weirder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better, a Magic Lantern that inflicts 1d10 damage.

  40. Attribution where attribution is due, please... by twoflower · · Score: 1

    You stole that comment from a fairly famous rec.humor.funny posting... Software Requirements

    Twoflower

    --


    --
    Twoflower
    1. Re:Attribution where attribution is due, please... by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 1

      Actually, I saw it on gnu.emacs.sources a while back, but since I didn't have the post, I couldn't give proper attribution. Sorry.

    2. Re:Attribution where attribution is due, please... by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2

      You're kidding, right? That joke is an old Mac joke dating from the win 3.x days ("the box said Windows 3.1 or better, so I installed Mac OS whatever")

    3. Re:Attribution where attribution is due, please... by MeowMeow+Jones · · Score: 2

      But you forget, noone on slashdot believes in Intellectual Property. Providing attribution would imply ownership.

      --

      Trolls throughout history:
      Jonathan Swift

    4. Re:Attribution where attribution is due, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how would that work. doesn't Mac run on a different architecture?

    5. Re:Attribution where attribution is due, please... by rwaite · · Score: 1

      No it would not. It would merely state that since the person who originally thought the joke up was clever and should be attributed with it as an act of "thanks" or recognition. It doesn't say he owns the quote, it merely gives credit where credit is due. Attribution does not imply ownership, so in your self-deluded attempt to set forth your personal opinion towards the anti-ip philosophy you were both incorrect and extremely ignorant.

      --

      We wave the flag of freedom as we conquer and invade.
    6. Re:Attribution where attribution is due, please... by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      It said, "Windows 95 or better" ... so I installed an Apple IIe ROM.

      Hey...it's an open-ended statement.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    7. Re:Attribution where attribution is due, please... by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2

      how would that work. doesn't Mac run on a different architecture?,/p>

      Yes, my mistake. The original was "The box said Windows 3.1 (or 95) or better, so I bought a Mac". My bad

  41. Re:vegdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is a call to all carnivores. troll these insufferable twits to hell, where they will be forced to eat naught but fluffy bunnies for all eternity. trolling is fun. meat is good. all hail meat. and trolls.

  42. didn't work for me by larsu · · Score: 1

    I downloaded the 6.0 patch, ran it, and it exited with the message "This program requires Internet Explorer 6.0 to be installed.". I'm running IE6 on Windows NT Server 4 in vmware.

    Boy am I glad that no MS bugs can hurt my linux box. Even if I get owned by a malicious web page, I can just restore my vmware Windows system image. :)

    1. Re:didn't work for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're running NT4 Server in vmware?

      Why?

    2. Re:didn't work for me by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      "This program requires Internet Explorer 6.0 to be installed.". I'm running IE6 on Windows NT Server 4 in vmware.
      You're running NT4 Server in vmware? Why?
      Test. Development. Also a good way to see what it does do as opposed to what it claims to do. My guess is that it attempts to do something (that it shouldn't), can't, and claims that it needs IE6 rather than showing the real reason for not installing. Probably Microsoft's usual ineptness, but should give conspiracy theorists some food for thought. Remember, these are the guys bringing you .NET

  43. It's about time by thelenm · · Score: 1

    Boy, I was getting tired of all those pesky security holes in IE. I'm glad Microsoft went and fixed them all up. Wait a minute... the uber-patch only runs under Linux?

    --
    Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
  44. scariest thing on that page by Rai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How to uninstall

    Uninstall is not available

    1. Re:scariest thing on that page by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Usually interim patches are not uninstallable. Only when an official service pack is released can you uninstall it.

    2. Re:scariest thing on that page by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      To clarify my own post before getting attacked. This is true when you use windows update. I believe that if you download the corporate versions of these patches they can be uninstalled from the Add/Remove Programs dialog. I know I have a list of hotfixes in mine.

  45. Off Timing by perdida · · Score: 2, Informative
    I wouldn't install any Uber-Patch in this day and age of Microsoft vertical integrated software/Magic Lantern/Ashcroft.

    A cheer for code you can verify yourself before you trust it to secure your computer for you.


    1. Re:Off Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did read the part about the FBI requiring a court order to have Magic Lantern installed on someone's computer, right? Or are you just another motherfucking Linux zealot?

    2. Re:Off Timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's a lie.

    3. Re:Off Timing by Nate+Eldredge · · Score: 1

      But I suppose the little patches are okay, right? Hint: a keystroke logger doesn't require much code.

  46. and how long will they keep issuing patches? by ryusen · · Score: 1
    just a thought... but how much longer will they support ie5.5? for those of us who don't want to get their new "Xperience" and for that matter media player 6.4 (which is all you really need) hw much longer before those of us who liked their older more basic products are left with the choice:

    upgrade to our new monolithic scheme

    stay with the old app, that will soon no longer work because we are purposly chaning all the protocols and good luck with the security holes we're leaving you with
    i honestly like some ms products, but their policies and carelessness are just too much sometimes...

    --

    I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
  47. Slashdot hacked? by woodja · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Slashdot was not available for almost an hour this afternoon. The last posted story was about a switch to Banjo around 6:30pm tonight. Anybody know what that was all about?

    1. Re:Slashdot hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. is unavailable for minutes at a time several times a day. /code fubars comment threading and posting on a regular basis. This is O.S. people. Barely functional, barely useable. Yet somehow "The finest software made". I'd think that O.S. supporters heads would implode from the lack of logic. The elasticity of the human mind can be a terrible thing.

  48. woah! 3 days? by JEDi_ERiAN · · Score: 1

    still doesn't beat open source bug to patch turn around time, but still 3 days isn't bad. i recall some M$ bugs not being fixed for quite a long time. all in all, it doesn't excuse M$ for sucking so bad.

    E.

    --

    -
    This Post has been brought to you by the letter "E".
    1. Re:woah! 3 days? by RachaelAnne · · Score: 1

      Not exactly...one thing fixed in this patch is a content-type/file extension spoof issue where a open/save to file/cancel dialog is displayed indicating a file of one type (say innocent wav) when in fact it is an executable. So, if the user chose open it would open...but as an executable not as a wav. If they had chosen save to file, and then opened it from explorer it would just not open (or in the case of a spoofed wav it would be noise, if it played at all). Jouko Pynnonen (the guy thanked in MS's release note), who reported it on BugTraq, says in his summary post that for this issue (he calls it file extension spoofing) was reported Nov. 19th. The issue with automatic execution of some content (no confirmation dialogs!) was apparently reported Nov. 27th to MS.

      --
      "Go Forth Ye Lemmings and Propagate"
  49. Micro who?? by josepha48 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Who's Microsoft? What is I.E.?? I'm from the future, I heard about some company that had buggy software but then they passed that act of 2025 that required all software to be goverment approved and now the only OS left is MS Gov OS.

    LOL

    --

    Only 'flamers' flame!

    1. Re:Micro who?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to get in contact with this guy:

      message: If you are a time traveler or alien disguised as human and or
      have the technology to travel
      physically through time I need your help!

      My life has been severely tampered with and cursed!!
      I have suffered tremendously and am now dying!

      I need to be able to:

      Travel back in time.

      Rewind my life including my age.

      Be able to remember what I know now so that I can prevent my life from
      being tampered with again after I go
      back.

      I am in very great danger and need this immediately!

      I am aware that there are many types of time travel and that humans do
      not do well through certain types.

      I need as close to temporal reversion as possible, as safely as
      possible. To be able to rewind the hands of
      time in such a way that the universe of now will cease to exist.
      I know that there are some very powerful people out there with alien or
      government equipment capable of
      doing just that.

      If you can help me I will pay for your teleport or trip down here, Along
      with hotel stay, food and all
      expenses. I will pay top dollar for the equipment. Proof must be
      provided.

  50. It's not just IE - other apps need this! by PacketMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's also important to note that it's not just users of IE as their browser that are affected by this bug. Lots of Windows programs took a shortcut (Eudora being a prime example) and used MSHTML.DLL as the rendering engine for their application. Any application that displays HTML and uses MSHTML.DLL and has IE5.5 or IE6 should install this patch IMMEDIATELY.

    --

    Some people take their .sig way too seriously

    1. Re:It's not just IE - other apps need this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... any app that uses the IE HTML renderer to browse the web needs this patch (ie. includes a web browser feature, not just a HTML viewer feature). If you're just using it to view your help files or whatnot, you're not vulnerable.

    2. Re:It's not just IE - other apps need this! by BitterOak · · Score: 1
      It's also important to note that it's not just users of IE as their browser that are affected by this bug. Lots of Windows programs took a shortcut (Eudora being a prime example)

      Yikes!!!!! Can anyone confirm this? I've been using Eudora all this time thinking I was safe. I use Netscape Navigator for by web browsing. Am I still at risk running Eudora?

      The patch mentions IE5.5 and 6.0 are affected. I have 5.0 installed, although I don't use it. Do I still need the patch?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    3. Re:It's not just IE - other apps need this! by neonstz · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is possible to turn off the use of IE (or whatever) for displaying mail in Eudora. In Tools->Options->Viewing Mail just uncheck the "Use Microsoft's Viewer" checkbox. (I'm using Eudora 5.1 btw.)

  51. tee hee by Frac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Michael exaggerated this exploit beyond belief:

    If Microsoft suddenly changes how their browser handles downloaded files, tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands? any webpage which downloads files) of webpages "designed for IE" will have to be rewritten.

    Good grief! Can somebody link to the tens of thousands of "designed for IE" webpages that are currently incompatible as a result of this patch?

    In fact a proper "fix" of this hole probably involves de-integrating their browser and local file handling to some extent.

    Eerrr.. a proper "fix" of Michael's previous article probably involves a higher level of computer literacy, and less impulsive urge to write expository essays that sound dramatic, but are wrong.

    1. Re:tee hee by DeadMeat+(TM) · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Good grief! Can somebody link to the tens of thousands of "designed for IE" webpages that are currently incompatible as a result of this patch?
      Well, there would be a problem, but it's not something awful IE-specific HTML brought about. Since IE half-ignores MIME types, servers that don't have proper MIME types set up could suddenly have file associations break on their Web page. I was recently asked by someone about a problem they were having with .M3U files getting downloaded as text or being asked to be save them to disk in anything but IE. Turns out the Web server didn't have a MIME type set up for M3U files, and the guy who ran the server just argued "it works fine in IE."

      So yeah, it would be a kinda big problem, and it's Microsoft's fault (if they wouldn't have set up a brain-dead policy of not handling MIME types properly then the servers would have been set up right to begin with). But it's not a "Designed for IE" page thing, and I doubt it's in the thousands of pages. Most pages that don't get the kind of traffic where somebody would notice bad HTML (e.g. homepages) are hosted on GeoCities/Angelfire/whatever which already have MIME types set up right.

    2. Re:tee hee by kilgore_47 · · Score: 1

      In fact, the fix was probably nothing more than making sure that if a 'safe' file (like a jpeg or something) is getting auto-opened that it really is what it says it is (and not just trusting that the mime type is correct).

      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
    3. Re:tee hee by zerocool^ · · Score: 2


      Good grief! Can somebody link to the tens of thousands of "designed for IE" webpages....


      Sure! Here ya go!

      ~z

      --
      sig?
  52. Re:vegdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I've posted 5 trolls already, have you done your civic duty to stamp out dumbass censorship on the net? Personally, I don't care if they want to nibble on grass clippings all day, but they REALLY shouldn't have been so open about their anti-troll policy. They Have Been Trolled (by me, now). Post back when you've got a few troll links to post on their site.

    HAND.

  53. Uder?? by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Stop chasing me...my belly is full of chocolate!!!"

    --
    There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
  54. Patches following issues by jcasey · · Score: 1, Redundant

    If the patch works as it should... ;)

    1. Corrects the way it handles the Content-Disposition and Content-Type header fields in an HTML stream.

    2. Patches a vulnerability to a newly discovered variant of the "Frame Domain Verification"

    3. Prevents a site from misreporting the name of files that users attempt to download.

    More details can be found here

    --
    X
  55. Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I tried to install the patch...and received the following error:

    This update requires Internet Explorer 6.0 to be installed.

    I'm running v6.00.2462

    Go figure.

    1. Re:Error by kawaichan · · Score: 1

      2462 is from Windows XP beta. You will need XP final to insall these patches.

      --

      kawai
    2. Re:Error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patches rarely work on beta software... maybe you should try the final RTM version of Windows XP.

  56. Fast Patching. by saintlupus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, it's certainly a good thing that there are so many people looking at the source to produce a patch...

    er....

    Never mind.

    --saint

    1. Re:Fast Patching. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patch wasn't that fast, MS supposedly had fixed most of these bugs before, they are just such big fuck-ups that their patches didn't fix them right.

  57. who cares? by mosch · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    I hate to bitch that slashdot sucks, because everybody knows that, but who cares about this patch? This isn't a fix to Mozilla, Konqueror, Lynx, Opera or any of the other pieces of software that slashdotters actually use.

    Why does a fix to a program that nobody here uses, written by a company that everybody here hates matter?

    1. Re:who cares? by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2

      No, it does not patch Mozilla... but since Microsoft merged the browser into the OS, think of it more as a kernel patch for those running the Win32 version of Mozilla (grin)

    2. Re:who cares? by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I think the server logs show that either a bunch of people on /. use IE, or a bunch of people on /. changed their http-client string.

      CT has mentioned it in the past. Granted, a smaller percentage use IE here than, say, www.yahoo.com, but it is still a significant (and if I remember, majority) browser.

      Remember, lots of us are on here from work where we have no choice (I actually have the choice of Mozilla/Netscape, but am too lazy to install it, as IE 5.5 seems okay)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Mozilla is owned by AOL, who puts a TON of crap in with Netscape releases. I know that you can download just Mozilla with its own standalone projects (Gecko?), but that is a lot of work. For most things, IE works and it is already installed.

    4. Re:who cares? by Arkhan · · Score: 1

      I feel silly for feeding the trolls, but I will anyway.

      Has it occurred to you that some part of the /. community doesn't actually care that much about Linux or, in fact, any of the other software you mentioned?

      Sure, I have a Linux box at home, serving as the gateway for my home network and such, but that doesn't mean I care (at all) to know when Random Kernel Update 4.9.0.3.2b is released. The install I have right now works just fine, thanks, and I don't care if somebody wrote a patch to turn my window borders mauve when a request comes into port 80.

      I subscribed to "Slashdot. News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." because I'm a nerd and I love having a good source for stories about science, gadgets, and other nerdly things. I *didn't* (and wouldn't) subscribe to "Slashdot. News about Linux. Microsoft sucks." because I already know Microsoft sucks and I just don't need that much Linux news.

      Just because /. got bought by a Linux company doesn't mean we can't still have stories by and for the larger community.

      I, for one, skip straight past most of the Linux (and related) stories to read about NASA's latest project, quantum teleportation, laser sails, and other fun science. Don't assume that everyone here is like you or shares your specific interests. "Nerd" is a very broad term these days.

      </FEED TARGET="Troll">

    5. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, he's a troll with a UID that's 10,000% lower than yours. Ever consider any other options on why he might've stated what he did?

    6. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always been a very broad term.

      Sadly, all the non-Nerds Microsoft haters have crowded into the scene. I mean, I like Linux and NetBSD because there's cool tech behind it. I could care less if Angry Tard is still upset because his petty battle for the path of Righteous OS/2 fizzled out, or because Jonny Effete had to buy something other than a Macintosh to remain relevant.

      You guys just, please, go away and leave us Nerds alone, okay?

    7. Re:who cares? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

      Oh, come on. I'm sure SOMEBODY here runs IE in WINE! Or is forced to use it only at work!

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  58. THis is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why i use Opera 6.1
    The l337 56k users like me use it lol.

    Its way faster then IE..
    And it aint no MS software.

    Godbless
    -Chris "xero" Erickson

  59. Oh, come ON. by corky6921 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The news article about Magic Lantern, which you apparently failed to read when it was posted to Slashdot, contains the following text:

    "When asked if Magic Lantern would require a court order for the FBI to use it, as existing keystroke logger technology does, Bresson said: 'Like all technology projects or tools deployed by the FBI it would be used pursuant to the appropriate legal process.'" (my emphasis)

    So unless the FBI has gotten a court order against the 84.8% of web surfers who use Internet Explorer, this is pure FUD.

    Sheesh.

    1. Re:Oh, come ON. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm sure that the FBI always plays by the rules and never does anything illegal. Never ever in a million years would they ever do something illegal or against the law. Wake up and get your head out of the sand.

    2. Re:Oh, come ON. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it, do you?

      Conservatives advocate LESS GOVERNMENT.

      The people you are talking about aren't conservatives. They're 'Big Government: right wing variety' types. Sometimes mis-labeled as fascists.

    3. Re:Oh, come ON. by mrseth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This is what always puzzled me. So-called conservatives say they want the Gov't out of your life, but then they try and implement the most invasive laws and constitutional amendments. They want to regulate what I put in my body, what I can do with my body (if I were female, that is), who I can and cannot marry, what materials/pictures/movies/etc. I can view and/or posses and I am sure more than a few would like to tell me which god to worship. I guess you can have all the freedom you want as long as it is economic and any amendment from the Bill of Rights that you want as long as it is the 2nd one.
      Just today little Bushy was spewing more propaganda about how we need to pursue the War on Drugs which is really a euphemism for the War on our Civil Liberties. Just what the uS needs is more irrationalism...It is so depressing.

    4. Re:Oh, come ON. by TWR · · Score: 2
      FBI it would be used pursuant to the appropriate legal process.'"

      I guess we better read those End User Licence Agreements a lot more carefully from now on ;-)

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    5. Re:Oh, come ON. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But all that matters in the courts. They could have compete proof that you were a mass murderer, but if the evidence isn't admittible, then theres nothing they can do.

    6. Re:Oh, come ON. by PeeOnYou2 · · Score: 1

      Get with the program. You can't believe everything you read dopey. Especially not now. You think they're going to just come out and say, hey yeah.. um.. we're now going to monitor all access with our new Magic Lantern software, even though its against the 'constitution'. Pigs don't fly yet.

    7. Re:Oh, come ON. by rew · · Score: 1

      When asked if Magic Lantern would require a court order for the FBI to use it, as existing keystroke logger technology does, Bresson said: 'Like all technology projects or tools deployed by the FBI it would be used pursuant to the appropriate legal process.'" (my emphasis)

      So unless the FBI has gotten a court order against the


      Ehmm, to me that statement tells me that somehow the current law doesn't prohibit them deploying that new tool...

      Roger.

  60. I like the fix to the keyboard logger by WillSeattle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well, just tried the patch and now the hidden keyboard logger activates just fine with a remote key.

    Glad to see they got it working, wonder if it was the DOJ techs or the MSFT techs who fixed that baby?

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  61. About time by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should be doing this at regular intervals. Have monthly patch collections. Quarterly.

    Perhaps hourly wouldn't be overkill.

    1. Re:About time by WildThing · · Score: 1

      I agree - That's a good idea.

      Maybe they could be applied buring the scheduled reboot outages. <G >

    2. Re:About time by prog-guru · · Score: 1

      Ya, every 48 days :)

      --

      chris@xanadu:~$ whatis /.
      /.: nothing appropriate.

  62. Join the UberPatch of the Month Club! by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    This came out exactly a month after the last UberPatch, MS01-55. Shall we see MS02-0? as the next one on January 13/14? Probably.

    I don't know if it's a good thing or not. On the one hand, it allows me time to plan to patch each machine I'm responsible for at work. On the other hand, it allows a window of opportunity for exploitation.

    Then again, I'm all for having Bill Gates come and patch every single machine personally.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  63. Slashdot Inconstancies by Captain_Frisk · · Score: 5, Informative
    Seriously guys calm down.

    Yesterday you bashed MS for not going public about anything, and now you bash them for patching the program. Short of open sourcing everything, is there anything they could do that would appease this croud?

    They might not get it right on the first try, but they do fix their bugs, and i think this was fairly timely, especially given the size / scope of IE.

    1. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by fumble · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... is there anything they could do that would appease this croud?

      I think you hit the nail on the head. The answer is "no." The fact remains that this community has seen M$ do some nasty things, and now they've formed their opinion (and that's just fine). Regardless if M$ does something right, it really doesn't matter. Imagine if one day at school, the bully that usually pounds your ass into the ground held the door open for you ... you probably wouldn't buy it for a second. Or maybe if Barry Manilow actually put out a mildly good song ... would you admit to liking it? I wouldn't :P

    2. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by bughunter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Imagine if one day at school, the bully that usually pounds your ass into the ground held the door open for you ...

      I'd wonder what the hell he was up to and look for another door!

      Gee... you hit on a pretty good analogy there.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    3. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now you bash them for patching the program

      Um, did you even read the text? How is he bashing them for releasing a patch? And how did you get a +5? I don't see anything bashing MS ...

    4. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You pretty much prove what one troll said about slashdot readers: If Bill Gates cured world hunger, and stopped all wars, you guys would still be all over him.

      And I'm sorry, and comment that refers to Microsoft at "M$" does not deserved +5 insightful. It just reveals the immaturity and childlike mindset of the poster.

    5. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by gidds · · Score: 1
      is there anything they could do that would appease this croud?

      There were things they could have done, such as fixing the main problem in the month or so since it was discovered, rather than waiting until it had been made public; they could have avoided condemning anyone who dares to publicise such problems, as it's clearly the only way to get them fixed; and they could have written IE to follow standards in the first place, which would have avoided this.

      By now, though, the only things they can do are fix the problems (which they seem to have done), and admit their mistakes and apologise – which they seem terminally incapable of doing.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    6. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, to completely disappear and have the management in public stockades with rotten fruit vendors nearby.

    7. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still at +5. Tough break.

    8. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Responding to "Short of open sourcing everything, is there anything they could do that would appease this croud[sic]?", the post "We want... a shrubbery! Ni! Ni! Ni! Ni!" is Funny, not Offtopic.

      Stupid moderators.

    9. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by Erris · · Score: 2

      No inconsistency here. Does anyone think this patch will really make M$ any harder to crack? Is anyone here less than amazed by all the shit M$ consumers have to go through to continue to be screwed? All the insane and evershifting versioning and names for their "products" Is it possible to see three steps happen the same way on that upgrade train? Why do people keep doing it to themselves?

      --
      DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    10. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Short of open sourcing everything, is there anything they could do that would appease this croud?"

      Yes, admit their software is dumbed down buggy crap that uses an obsolete development method denying end users quality, value for money or choice.

    11. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're far to wize to be in these parts! are you lost?

    12. Re:Slashdot Inconstancies by davidstrauss · · Score: 1

      Microsoft did open-source Windows CE several months ago. Slashdot users criticized the move.

      Visit http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/ce/downl oads/source/default.asp

  64. Re:why the F was slashdot just down for 90 minutes by snoozerdss · · Score: 1

    /. runs on Linux, Perl and mySQL. As you can see by the fact that ./ is up and down like a fucking yo-yo, these four technolagies are no where near ready for the enterprise.
    I only counted 3 in what you just said. Maybe you are not ready for enterprise?

    --
    Snoozer.
  65. Re:Download URLs - Must Have 5.5 SP2 by Cy+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

    for IE5.5 for IE5.5:
    http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie55sp2/s ec pac23/5.5_SP2/WIN98Me/EN-US/q313675.exe


    Note, that is for IE 5.5 SP2 if you have SP1, or plain vanilla 5.5, you will first have to upgrade, so you may want to wait till a full release with the patches is available. SP2 is 17MB download.

    Anyone know what the equivalent version is if you have the AOL version of IE? (not that I do) but you can imagine AOL will be slowed to a crawl if every single user must get an upgrade first to SP2 or IE6, then get this patch. When - oh - when will AOL finally become browser neutral or go entirely to Netscape/Mozilla?

  66. Sensationalism courtesy of /. by fumble · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Warning: mild flamebait.

    Remember Michael's over-the-top misinformed rant about this 3 days ago?

    ... they refuse to provide any information about when a patch might be made available, if ever.

    I'm surprised he posted this fix, kinda points out how far off base /. was a short 3 days ago. Hey, I'm no M$ fan and I kinda expect some opinion on /. posts ... but there comes a point when it turns into yellow journalism and becomes childish M$ name calling.

    1. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by eyeball · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's good to hear a voice of reason around here once in a while.

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    2. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Michael was right. Microsoft refused to release any information about when a patch would be available until a patch was made available.

      What's the problem?

      More sensationalism courtesy of fumble (you dropped the ball).

    3. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Flamebait? Geez, how transperent can we get?

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    4. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by pongo000 · · Score: 1
      Warning: Off-topic, so there's no need to waste valuable moderation points. In fact, I'll even remove my +1 bonus so you don't have to...

      I'm surprised he posted this fix, kinda points out how far off base /. was a short 3 days ago. Hey, I'm no M$ fan and I kinda expect some opinion on /. posts ... but there comes a point when it turns into yellow journalism and becomes childish M$ name calling.

      As anybody who has ever corresponded with the /. editors will know, /. is not a news service, which means everything here is opinion, and nothing here can ever be considered to contain even one iota of objective journalistic insight. If you want news, go visit CNN. /. isn't a news source, has never claimed to be, and therefore isn't subject to the standards of journalism you imply in your very-much overrated post.
    5. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by AzrealAO · · Score: 1

      You mean, apart from the whole "News for Nerds..." byline on the site?

    6. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As anybody who has ever corresponded with the /. editors will know, /. is not a news service, which means everything here is opinion, and nothing here can ever be considered to contain even one iota of objective journalistic insight.

      And thus the slogan, "Opinion without even one iota of objective journalistic insight for nerds, stuff that matters".

    7. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the '...stuff that matters' part, which also contains a considerable amount of irony in it.

    8. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by keflex · · Score: 0

      Lol.

      Remember this thread when ppl were arguing that SlashDot is *NOT* a journalistic site and is merely a news weblog w/ comments?

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/29/2334 24 3&mode=nested

      I guess whatever argument supports their belief that SlashDot is good and true...

      --


      My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.
    9. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by greenrd · · Score: 1
      You have to fish for the real facts by reading the comments. :-) There is news here, but it's not always truthfully reported up top.

    10. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by SyntheticTruth · · Score: 1

      ...but there comes a point when it turns into yellow journalism and becomes childish M$ name calling.

      ...like putting a $ in MS? ;)

      (As if I haven't before...heh.)

    11. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by juju2112 · · Score: 2

      Why does every feel that it's necessary to bash the story posters? It almost seems like people are making a point of it on every story.

      Can they not give their opinion on something? He's allowed to be wrong -- he's a person for chrissakes.

    12. Re:Sensationalism courtesy of /. by eyeball · · Score: 1

      agreed. never thought of reading all the -1 posts tho. thanks.

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
  67. Been there, done that by LittleGuy · · Score: 2, Informative
    Require domain logins, don't even provide local logins to the machine. Then, as part of the logon procedure, use a logon script. Look in the patch archive to find the list of files it updates. In the logon script, check the timestamp on three of them and if they're out of date, run the updater.

    The patch that blew up this approach for us was MS01-50. It had two critical patches to apply at the same time, and the system tried to apply both at once, when you needed a reboot for each. Guess who was "volunteered" to re-patch the machines.

    *sigh* It's Friday afternoon. Time to go home. No more f*cking patches to do.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    1. Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      *sigh* It's Friday afternoon. Time to go home. No more f*cking patches to do.


      Not so fast, buster. First we need you to change the toner cartridge on the LJ4 up on third floor.

      hup-hup to it, now, IT boy. The girls in the secretary pool don't call you 'sysadmin' (while smirking) for nothing.

    2. Re:Been there, done that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know we have the intern's do that stuff or hire temps :)

  68. Re:MODERATORS ON CRACK AGAIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's interesting because it points out that this article disproves the statement another article made only a few days ago. Namely, that this bug could not be fixed because of a fundamental problem in the OS.

  69. What about using Opera? by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 2, Informative

    "IE is the best browser out there. Check ANY review. " Maybe it's just my opnion, but I the opera http://www.opera.com is better. It's faster and in my experience far more stable on NT and in 2000. Most reviews to date ignore or are unaware of opera's existence. Give it a try. I do however agree with your overall point, people to need be a little less biased on slashdot. Just dont step too far pointing it out with dubious statements like the above as it will only result in the people your talking to ignoring you as ignorant. Though I'm not sure they won't simply because they disagree. The line between troll and zealot is kind blurry.

    1. Re:What about using Opera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera is OK, but it doesn't come close to the functionality that IE offers. Its also not free and you have to pay for upgrades.

    2. Re:What about using Opera? by Khazunga · · Score: 1
      What I just can't stand in Opera is the damned MDI window management. That has been abandoned for years, and for good reason.

      People invest lots of hours creating a good window manager, just for some stupid app to go and declare it wants to manage its own windows. Simply stupid.

      I do agree that it is fast and pretty standards compatible. I stick with the lizzard, though. As for other people, I don't care.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
  70. Odd Mentality by EraseEraseMe · · Score: 1

    Patch early, patch often...Unless you're Microsoft

    Quickly scrolling down through the various posts, I see quite a few messages complaining about having to install this patch on multiple machines in the office now...Boo hoo!

    Good grief, Microsoft's new slogan should be damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    --
    "Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
  71. Great by El_Smack · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now Microsoft will get Slahdotted. One more reason for them to hate us. *sigh*

    --


    There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't think so...

      aren't most slashdot users supposed to be running *nix...? :)

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed. it appears the MS webserver linked to in the main article is "currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings."

      technical difficulties = /.'ed

  72. Re:why the F was slashdot just down for 90 minutes by kramerj · · Score: 1

    heh.. funny, I count 4 as well..

    /. = 1
    linux = 2
    perl = 3
    mysql = 4

    Viola..

    Jay

    --
    "What's this script do? unzip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; gasp ; yes ; umount ; sleep Hint for the answer: not everyth
  73. Re:Download URLs - Must Have 5.5 SP2 by jmauro · · Score: 1

    AOL has a pretty efficent updating mechnism. Probably won't be an issue.

  74. Win2K still ships with IE 5.0, right? by Animats · · Score: 2
    Does Windows 2000 still come with IE 5.0 in the box? I have a new system purchased this year, with the current Win2K service pack installed, and I still have IE 5.0.

    Of course, I don't use IE.

    1. Re:Win2K still ships with IE 5.0, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Does Windows 2000 still come with IE 5.0 in the box?

      Yes. IE 5.0 also comes integrated into Win98, which is still supported until 2002/3? Not sure about WinME.

  75. My review of eAndroid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eAndroid, like, sucks.

  76. No brainer... by sterno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How many gaping security holes has Mozilla had?

    The BEST is all in how you measure it, non?

    Although realisitcally this isn't so much a flaw in IE, rather it is a flaw in the tight integration of IE and windows. How many of the major Microsoft security problems it the last couple of years can be directly tied to the integrations between the operating system and the applications? Frankly I can't think of many that aren't directly attributable to that.

    It all boils down to the usual sacrifice of security for convenience. A computer in a 6 foot thick block of concrete at the bottom of the ocean is very secure and nearly unusable. Microsoft has chosen to focus more on convenience and their security must pay the corresponding price.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:No brainer... by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      How many gaping security holes has Mozilla had?

      How many (h/cr)ackers are trying to find holes Mozilla vs. IE?

      I do, though, concede your second point (best is how you measure it), but from all the reviews I've seen, IE takes the cake on everything but speed, which it is second to Opera. Although, security is never an option, I think it is because of my first point (people taking advantage of the browser with largest user-base).

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    2. Re:No brainer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How many (h/cr)ackers are trying to find holes Mozilla vs. IE?

      You're assuming those (h/cr)ackers are doing so to help remove them. And what percentage of users use IE?

  77. Moderation by editors not showing in totals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell?!?!? I saw this post with my very own eyes at 5: insightful. How is it down to 2 when there are the following? And how could it have made it to 5 in the first place?

    Moderation Totals: Troll=2, Insightful=2, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Total=6.

    Fucking /. editors. Bunch of juvenile little fucks.

    1. Re:Moderation by editors not showing in totals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh... I -had- 50 karma, so I posted at +1 (score:2). Take 2 insightful, 1 informative, you have score:5, then 2 trolls, 1 overrated, you have score:2.

      -FK

    2. Re:Moderation by editors not showing in totals! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      basic math is very difficult for conspiracy theorists.

  78. Re:vegdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Your mother's pussy is now infected with my crufty cum wads.

  79. You are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Ubermoron.

    1. Re:You are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you didn't get the reference to Nietzsche's Übermensch, which was damn funny IMO.

  80. Since you seem to be pretty sharp on windows by shaldannon · · Score: 1

    (and I'm mostly a Linux geek), I have a question for my Windows PCs (I'm half-and-half, behind a Linksys router):

    If I go install this "uber-patch", what can I expect it to fix, and what can I expect it to break? (15000 bugs in the code, 15000 bugs; fix a bug, add some more, 16000 bugs in the code...) :)

    --


    What is your Slash Rating?
  81. IE: no, thanks by Sunda666 · · Score: 1

    Some review may say that IE is the best, but is it worth to live with such a sucky and unsafe platform just to have the "better" web browser? god dammit, browers and pages are so damn bloated with little gadgets, shitty javascript, shitty applets and all sorts of annoyances that it makes me kinda disgusted when I need to visit commercial sites. I do use the good old netscape (sometimes the bloated new one), java off, javascript off, it makes my life less miserable than being forced to close 10.000 pop-up cappies. Unfortunately these days people are doing sites that cant be navigated without some sort of javascript/java/flash and stuff, and it really sucks. I may look like an old dinossaur, but I think the content matters much more than the form.

    --


    ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
    1. Re:IE: no, thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad you feel that way, nobody else does. Oh, and you're missing out on a lot of really good stuff.

    2. Re:IE: no, thanks by tekproxy · · Score: 1

      I know exactly how you feel. Sometimes I get so angry at the little kids who make geocities pages with over 5 megs of gifs on the main screen... that is of course after you get thru the horribly animated flash spash screen that takes 2 minutes to load on Dsl. It get so angry sometimes I just want to use telnet.

      In short, content has always been more important than form. Take a good look at good sites like /. and www.somethingawful.com. You are not a dinosaur. There are others like you ;).

      --
      -- 10 CLS 20 SOUND 16500, 100 30 GOTO 10 I'll make your brain explode.
  82. Page Not Found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As of 1:35 PST the link is broken... well done MS.

  83. great, one more by cornjones · · Score: 1

    great, another thing to download when i set up a new box. I am currently setting up a couple w2k boxen. after setting them up I have to windows update and reboot some 3-4 times (depending on dx8.1 install or no). on big hefty machines w/ scsi and raid, reboots take forever. why can't there be a patch called "Bring to current" or whatever that takes all the service packs and security updates and lays them down in one pass. specifically for bringing new installs up to date. I still remember hating how the default NT 4 install had ie 3 (2?) that couldn't even read MS's site to get a newer version to read MS's site. what a pain in the ass.

    tgif
    ej

    1. Re:great, one more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um.. How about Windows Update, Download critical hotfixes?

  84. Score -1, Inciteful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About friggin' time!

  85. Great by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, next month Microsoft will release the UberPatch-Patch. A patch to address the security flaws in the recent UberPatch which was released to address the security flaws in IE

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  86. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  87. I turned off Active Scripting to be secure by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 4, Informative
    Using Microsoft's own recommendations for making Internet Explorer and Outlook secure I disabled Active Scripting.


    By doing so, I can't get to Hotmail, can't sign in to Passport, and most importantly, can't access Windows Update.


    Hey, anyone astroturfing for Microsoft! Your own security recommendation means people can't access your sites. I am NOT turning on active scripting(i.e. disabling a security measure) so I can get the fix.


    You guys need to make your site work without Javascript. Sheesh. How can anyone take you seriously?

    --

    No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    1. Re:I turned off Active Scripting to be secure by thebatlab · · Score: 1

      Did you ever think of putting certain sites in your Trusted Sites list and enabling Active Scripting for just certain sites???

    2. Re:I turned off Active Scripting to be secure by dR.fuZZo · · Score: 3, Funny

      You guys need to make your site work without Javascript. Sheesh. How can anyone take you seriously?

      Seems pretty professional to me. Some of the finest porn sites do that.

      --
      -- dR.fuZZo
    3. Re:I turned off Active Scripting to be secure by stubear · · Score: 1

      That would require that the troll actually learn how to use IE properly. There are numerous security settings in IE that can be used if people woudl just read the fucking help file.

      Yet another obvious thing this moron could do is set up a custom security profile which prompts them whenever sites require javacript or whatever.

    4. Re:I turned off Active Scripting to be secure by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 2
      troll


      moron


      just read the fucking help file.


      How about making a site that doesn't require javascript? Really, who's the moron here?


      I'll assume you were one of the $MS astroturfers I referred to. Needless to say, I no longer trust Microsoft and will no longer be using javascript in IE, even for your site.


      Your company has lost a lot of business by the very same attitude you just showed in your post. Next year, I will not be renewing MSDN, and customers that I use to sell Microsoft products to will be steered toward Apache, Oracle, and Unix.


      Yeah you can call me a moron, or you can go back to work and fix your broken site. Well I guess I already know what will happen.

      --

      No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    5. Re:I turned off Active Scripting to be secure by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 1
      There is a more fundamental problem. Being that IE is so intrinsically tied to the OS anymore I really don't want any website to be able to control my browser with scripting.


      Its sort of like turning off port 23 - yes telnet is useful, and behind a firewall its safe, but I've come to value security over convenience and therefore just leave it off, period. Same thing with browser scripting. I just don't want to do it anymore.


      I know I'm not the only one, far from it. It would be in Microsofts best interests to make their sites work without client side scripting.

      --

      No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    6. Re:I turned off Active Scripting to be secure by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Did you ever think of putting certain sites in your Trusted Sites list and enabling Active Scripting for just certain sites???
      I have. I do. I just don't trust Microsoft.
      I trust internal sites, external sites that I control, Slashdot and TheRegister. I don't even "trust" RedHat, which is a damn sight safer than Microsoft.

    7. Re:I turned off Active Scripting to be secure by hyoo · · Score: 2

      You are concerned over security, yet you use hotmail and passport?

  88. try UpdateExpert by Heywood+Yabuzof · · Score: 1


    We just got UpdateExpert(formerly called SPQuery). It's pretty sweet and much less of a pain than SMS - it doesn't require any client software, for one thing.

    Of course, it costs money - there's always a downside :-)

    (about $1600.00 for a 3-year subscription for 50 clients, I think)

  89. Re:Download URLs - Must Have 5.5 SP2 by Quizme2000 · · Score: 2

    Ok, for us crusty corporate types that have IE 5sp2, are we vunerable to these security bugs? My company uses mozilla that has been tweaked for our browser, but they are on windows machines. I still haven't got a IE free windows machine without crashing it. And upgrading these 2500 client machines will cost a chunk of change and time for our small IT department. This sucks we work hard to keep MS from costing money, but still sell to thier customers.

    --
    "Get them before they get....
  90. This is just perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MS has a security flaw, so the slashbrats whip themselves into a tizzy over What This Means About MS. Then MS releases a single-download patch that fixes that problem and others, so we get more bitching and hand-wringing here about MS.

    If I didn't detest MS so much, I'd feel sorry for them.

  91. service pack by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    i had thought that the service pack would upgrade my browser. nope.

  92. Re:Download URLs - Must Have 5.5 SP2 by wemmick · · Score: 1

    Aren't there other issues with IE 5.5 SP2? Like not being able to run standard plugins and java?

    --
    ___
    Cognitive Overflow
    more than yo
  93. Does anyone else feel immoral? by Sludge · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've been thinking about this for a long time, and it's time I asked my peers at slashdot- Does anyone else feel immoral browsing the web with an Internet Explorer USER_AGENT? I'm going to state what seems obvious to me:
    • Company designs nice website with features that are only supported with IE.
    • Company realises that Netscape market share is too high to do these cool things, so they downgrade their website. Animosity is felt towards the browser not developed for (in my experience this goes both ways)
    • Company waits a year and a half, and ends up re-evaluating their Netscape support position based on their current USER_AGENT stats showing 95% IE clients.
    • Company switches webpage to use proprietary and non standard technologies, locking us alternative software people out of another website.

    By this logic, which I feel is a common path for businesses to take, using Internet Explorer and letting webmasters know that you do will harm our freedom to choose our client software in the future.

    I don't understand why no one else has come forward and stated that they feel this way. For this reason, I refuse to use the software except in situations where it's seriously inconvenient to do otherwise.

    I don't mean to be alarmist. If the web is only accessible from IE, a project will be started to supply a proxy for other browsers which interprets the data from the web server and converts it to nice, standardized HTML. This could get kludgy, and is the worst case scenario I see.

    1. Re:Does anyone else feel immoral? by zericm · · Score: 1

      I take it a step further: if I am unable to access a site with Mozilla, I will send a quick email to the site owner letting them know that I couldn't access their site, and thus unable to do business with them. Sure, I may have to fire up IE long enough to get an address, but they don't need to know that..

      eric

      --
      The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
    2. Re:Does anyone else feel immoral? by bitrott · · Score: 1

      Ok, now, breathe slowly... calm down now and catch your breath. Ok, now, tell me... what you're saying is browsing with IE is equivalent to running a sweatshop in korea, using underage labor, supporting a corrupt monarchy, and watching a full season of three's company... That's alot of evil that alot of Users are committing every minute of every day. Or maybe that's just a lot of Users expressing their freedom of choice to view you exercising your freedom to be an alarmist psycho.

    3. Re:Does anyone else feel immoral? by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 2
      A major problem that users of alternative browsers will encounter is that many webmasters use JavaScripts that only enable advanced features or let users view the site at all if they have an IE USER_AGENT, thus forcing people to spoof their USER_AGENT and killing server stats for alternative browsers. I have personally seen sites like this where I go to a page and it doesn't work/doesn't work correctly, then I change my USER_AGENT to IE, hit reload, and the site works perfectly.

      A good solution to this problem is having the browser identify itself to the HTTP server as what it really is (so that it will be logged correctly) and identify itself to JavaScripts as another browser (so that the site will work correctly). This feature is in the prerelease versions of OmniWeb 4.1.

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
    4. Re:Does anyone else feel immoral? by Danse · · Score: 1

      He's not an alarmist. There are many sites out there that are designed only to support IE. This is a bad thing. We already see that nothing of any significance will happen to Microsoft as a result of the anti-trust case. This just means that they'll be free to continue warping standards and bullying businesses into doing things their way.


      Or maybe that's just a lot of Users expressing their freedom of choice...


      Actually, that was kind of the point of the anti-trust case. Microsoft was convicted of illegally maintaining their monopoly. That means that users weren't really getting a choice to begin with.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    5. Re:Does anyone else feel immoral? by istartedi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does anyone else feel immoral browsing the web with an Internet Explorer USER_AGENT?

      [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Cu rr entVersion\Internet Settings] "User Agent"="Mozilla/Church Lady 3.01"

      Would that make you morally superior?

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    6. Re:Does anyone else feel immoral? by afree87 · · Score: 1

      A major problem that users of alternative browsers will encounter is that many webmasters use JavaScripts that only enable advanced features or let users view the site at all if they have an IE USER_AGENT, thus forcing people to spoof their USER_AGENT and killing server stats for alternative browsers.

      Or, really badly designed looney pages (such as, cough, MSN) will lock you out if you use Opera. I'm not talking about the front-page lockout that happened last month; I mean the mysterious member directory lockout.

    7. Re:Does anyone else feel immoral? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmpf. Imagine if some "iluvewe" virus script kiddie wrote something that did *nothing* but change this registry setting, quietly...

  94. Happy Friday by hey · · Score: 1

    All you sysadmin who thought you were going
    home early today... think again!

    1. Re:Happy Friday by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 3, Funny

      Step 1: Download patch.
      Step 2: load onto test box. Start tests.
      Step 3: Works great. Create SMS package.
      Step 4: Schedule SMS to install the package Saturday at, oh, say three PM.
      Step 5: Send out yet another email reminding users that if they don't leave their computers on over the weekend, the full virus scan, software updates and disk defrag that would have run, will infact run on Monday when they come in, and it will NOT be stopped, and their managers know this, even if they don't.
      Step 6: Profit!

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Happy Friday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the part where you stopped on your way out the door and put that Toner Cartridge in the LJ4 up on fourth floor, Mister High and Mighty IT fuckkah.

      Hop to it, lil' 'sysadmin.' You're a service employee, not a programmer.

    3. Re:Happy Friday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      And you forgot the part where your mail and network access mysteriously stop working. Not to mention your office phone line.

      If I was you, man, I wouldn't fuck with someone who could really make your life hell when you have a deadline looming.

      Yeah, man, you miss your release, and then blame the sysadmin for your problems.

      Makes you come out looking like a first class CHUMP, Mr. Impo'tent Programmer Dude.

  95. Re:vegdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The baby seal troll is going down quite well...

    http://coke.rotten.com/babyseal/babyseal.jpg

  96. I think that's "Bob's Classy Lady" line.... by sideshow · · Score: 1

    not that I know from personal experiance ;)

    --

    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

  97. I just installed it by MrResistor · · Score: 2, Funny
    Strangely, it actually seems to be faster. I can't say I've ever had that experience when upgrading a Microsoft product. Could just be that new code smell going to my head though...

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    1. Re:I just installed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah,

      It's not just you..

      I've been forced to use a CGI IRC webclient for a few months now, and it really sux0rz, but it seems to be much smoother, quicker, and more responsive since I installed the patch..

      Whatever Microsoft did, it worked for me..

      ja

      AC

  98. Open vs. closed source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that on /. threads "patch early and often" is part of the open source religion, but when MS does the same thing it's somehoe proof they're evil? Don't get me wrong--I think MS is guilty of a LOT of things, but can't we agree to limit our bashing to those things they do that are actually wrong?

  99. Re:Ahhhh GOOD! by gakido · · Score: 0, Troll

    Microsoft: We are your merchant. We are your church. We are your state.

    ...and that 14 inch black rubber cock that's trying to wriggle up your pant leg

  100. Hmm.. by Mike+Hicks · · Score: 2

    Hey, I just tried updating my system through Windows Update. I wasn't prompted for anything, and I haven't updated my NT 4 box for about a week. Does this mean that I already got the patch a week ago, or has Microsoft not put it on Windows Update yet?

    If it's just not in Windows Update, shame on MS. That is the only place I go for updates. I don't waste my time wading through all of the other crap on MS's website.

    /me strokes debian woody..

    1. Re:Hmm.. by Webz · · Score: 1

      How true. Yet, the real test is how long it will take for the automatic update engine to get hold of it. It's amazing that you go to the Windows Update site but I'm sure there are people who don't even know that it exists let alone what to do there. Installing patches, that is, system maintenance, should be automagical, you know, for all the Mom and Pop types that don't read MS security bulletins.

  101. Windows Update Notification by vtechpilot · · Score: 1

    One of the things the MS did right in concept, but screwed up in implementation was the critical update notification system. Essentially you install this little program (probably spy-ware) that periodically checks what updates are installed on your machine, and what updates are available from MS. When a new patch comes out a window pops up and tells you that that are new updates. You can even configure this thing to download them first in the background and then have it pop up a window when its ready to install the updates. Sounds like a pretty good idea right? Just one problem with it. It doesn't actually check to see if you have or even use a certain app before deciding if you need an update. On a couple machines I run I have the Critical update notification running, they kept wanting to install an update for windows media player on those machines. These two machines don't even have windows media player installed. Infact they aren't in the list of allowed binaries, so even if they were installed you couldn't run them. But yet this thing kept insisting to install the update. Anyway the point here is that Microsoft has gotten better as far as updates are concerned (espcially for home end end users who would never check for updates on their own) but the system still needs help, Unless of course they left it broken on purpose to get more people to install 'optional' software. I did end up having to install Windows Media Player (although it is still not an allowed EXE) to get update notification to STFU.

    --
    Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
    1. Re:Windows Update Notification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds a lot like some of the shit that GNOME insists I install on my NetBSD box. Some sort of Sound crap, on a machine THAT DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A SOUND CARD IN IT.

      So, I have to ask: did Microsoft learn to be stupid like this from the GNOME project, or did GNOME learn to be stupid like that from Microsoft?

      Or is it just a NetBSD Packages-dependency problem?

  102. Re:vegdot.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you might prefer this
    Veggie faggot!

  103. 60 minutes per install?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I think I'll stick with real OS's like *nix and MacOS X.

    1. Re:60 minutes per install?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You are *sooooo* cool. Wow you're cool.

      Man. Coolness. Yeah.

    2. Re:60 minutes per install?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, he bills them for 60 minutes. That doesn't mean it necessarily takes that long.

      Maybe you should stick to a real OS, not one with a wild card character in it.

      Linux isn't Unix, by the way. It's more of a toy.

    3. Re:60 minutes per install?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An essential piece of equipment for anyone doing Windows and/or Office installations is a paperback novel. I love being paid $40 an hour to read a book, with a few mouseclicks thrown in every fifteen to twenty minutes. I've even billed for the twenty minutes I was in a bookstore grabbing a new book on one particularly busy day.

  104. IE the Best? by zelyan · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'm not a Karma Whore, as my karma will immediately show, so please don't think I'm saying this just for the points. I'm not convinced that IE is the best out there.

    For years I used Netscape and loved it, up through about 4.0 (4.5-7 are bad, bad, bad). I even used 4.7 for a long time, before finally deciding that I just couldn't live with the shitty rendering, slow reaction time, and general bugginess. So I tried IE, just to see how bad it was.

    And it was amazingly fast, clean, and surprisingly not crashy, considering it was Microsoft's. Slowly, I started to accept that IE was the best browser out there. And I used IE, and netscape actually disappeared from my computer.

    Sure, I tried Mozilla, and Netscape 6.0 and 6.1. Quite honestly, they're crap. They're slow, not particularly stable, and ugly. But mostly they're just slow, fucking slow. It's not just loading the program, it's also in large part that I open a page and Mozilla takes about three times as long to render as IE.

    But when I read that security page the other day, I found a new program to try. So I tried it: Opera. I last used Opera on a mac a couple of years ago, when it was small, shitty, buggy, and lacking features, like security. So I wasn't really expecting anything.

    Opera is fucking brilliant. It's fast--it's actually faster both to load and to render pages than IE. It gets rid of a lot of the useless shit that IE throws up--like dialogs to go from secure to insecure. It has security, it has a full feature set (at least, all the stuff I use, like plugins and java and working pages). It lets me use the keyboard more than IE.

    And the best part: it lets me block out pop-up windows. You have no idea how amazing a feeling it is to go to a site that throws pop-ups at me like mad and watch them, well, not load. No idea until you try it. It even pretends to be IE for pages that require IE.

    I have had one page fail to load correctly--a credit card account page. But considering it loads wrong half the time in IE, it's not too bad. Still, I'm keeping IE around (and patched it) in case I find something glaringly wrong with Opera, but until that time, I'm happy with this.

    Oh, did I mention it sits in _half_ the memory footprint of IE, and about a third of Mozilla?

    Check it out. Opera. It's not Open Source, but then again, if we're talking about IE, we're talking about windows, so...

    Jeff

    1. Re:IE the Best? by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      Sure, I tried Mozilla, and Netscape 6.0 and 6.1. Quite honestly, they're crap. They're slow, not particularly stable, and ugly.

      Now.. which chrome is ugly? Calling a completely skinnable browser ugly doesn't make sense.. sorry.

      And, Mozilla reports less crashes than netscape 4.x ever had - so they are actually an improvement above Netscape even when you used it.

      As far as speed, I'm not sure what you are doing wrong but it is very quick. I use Mozilla extensively and exclusively and it is exceptionally fast. As far as your memory foot print comment, you realize you can't accurately guage IE's memory foot print? It's threaded into the shell, too.

      Mozilla still has a way to go, but anyone who thinks it's slow, ugly, and unstable obviously hasn't used it recently. Or ever, feel free to prove me wrong - but it runs as fast (faster than IE on another box of the same specs) as I could want it to.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    2. Re:IE the Best? by chavo+valdez · · Score: 1

      I think I've had pretty much the same experiences as you have with browsers. But what really stopped me from using opera in the past was MDI. But just like you, I decided to try it again after seeing the security alert. It has the coolest tabbed interface, or you can still use MDI. You can even drag tabs from one window to another.

      I haven't had any problems with badly rendered pages. But I've only been using it for two days now. I even checked out the latest version 6 beta for Linux. It loads way faster than any other browser. The interface for the Linux version is a little different, but all the keyboard shortcuts and mouse gestures work.

      Everyone should try it out. It's not free in any way, but it's worth the download.

      chavo

    3. Re:IE the Best? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling a completely skinnable browser ugly doesn't make sense.

      No matter how much makeup you put on her, she's still an ugly bitch.

      You probably can't figure out what I mean.

      What a pity.

    4. Re:IE the Best? by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      I'm not giving much thought to replying to an AC,
      What part of Mozilla is ugly?

      Most end users (especially one who used Netscape 6/6.1) don't even understand anything beyond what they see. Therefor using your analogy is incorrect, they care about looks and Mozilla delivers fully in that aspect, and many more.

      Pity you are posting AC... you could show the world how stupid your comment was.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    5. Re:IE the Best? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been using Opera for several years now. It is my personal favorite.

    6. Re:IE the Best? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should check out "OffByOne". Its a tiny browser (IIRC, less than a meg) and renders standard HTML pretty well. tinyapps.org has it.

    7. Re:IE the Best? by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      It's not free in any way, but it's worth the download.

      It's free as in beer. Sure, the free version has ads, but they're inobtrusive, and it still works great for any purpose I've tried it for.

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    8. Re:IE the Best? by LoonXTall · · Score: 1

      "Now.. which chrome is ugly?"

      How about all the ones at the themes.org error page when you try and look for more? How about the two that come with it?

      I want Mozilla to use the standard GTK/GNOME widgets as much as possible, because I prefer not to wait .2 seconds all the time while it prints a standard GNOME window background and then paints over it with a standard Windows dialog background. (The Modern theme is even uglier.) And yes, I am too lazy to do it myself.

      --

      ~~~LXT~~~
      Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.

    9. Re:IE the Best? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, a sad man arguing with an AC about the aesthetic quality of Netscape's skins.

      I will say that Mozilla's UI does a wonderful job of almost emulating the functionality of Netscape 4.0 (1996).

    10. Re:IE the Best? by cvhome · · Score: 1

      Opera 6 is awsome, take it a step further with Proxomitron, its on Opera's web site's it a small download and kills all the ad's pop up. You'll like it

  105. Re:why the F was slashdot just down for 90 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /. is a website, not a technology.

    Noun: Viola
    1. Any of the numerous plants of the genus Viola
    2. Slightly larger than a violin, tuned a fifth lower

    Interjection: Voila
    1. There you are

  106. Re:Don't they already have that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wonder if you're the real kevin mitnick..

  107. Remember when Netscape was on top by Shabazz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was just a CS undergrad at UC Berkeley. The year was '96. Netscape dominated the market. Eric Brewer (founder of Inktomi) and his group of grad students continually found security flaws in Netscape. They received a lot of press. Netscape looked bad.

    It's no different with IE now. It's possible that Mozilla really is less flawed than IE, but I guar-an-tee that if it had 85% of the market, we'd be hearing about security problems all the time. I'm not a MS apologist, I just want to shed some light.

  108. � is the letter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's über-patch.

    ü ü ü

    You americans.

  109. Pursuant to Appropriate Legal Process != YES by Jon+Howard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Note that the segment you highlighted did not say "YES" - why do you suppose they didn't say yes?

  110. +1 Funny by openbsd_guru · · Score: 0, Troll
    This problem was fixed in OpenBSD six months ago.

    -t

  111. Topics. by BenCaxton · · Score: 1

    How come when something is wrong w/ the security of a MS product, it is posted under the MS topic, and when they do soemthing right it is posted under security... is there some sort of bias showing through here?

    --
    Ben
  112. Re:Download URLs - Must Have 5.5 SP2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IE versions below 5.5 SP2 are unsupported and are likely vulnerable to many security holes that have been patched for the newer revs.

  113. Doesn't affect IE 5.5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the MS website:

    * The first vulnerability involves a flaw in the handling of the Content-Disposition and Content-Type header fields in an HTML stream. These fields, the hosting URL, and the hosted file data determine how a file is handled upon download in Internet Explorer. A security vulnerability exists because, if an attacker altered the HTML header information in a certain way, it could be possible to make IE believe that an executable file was actually a different type of file -- one that it is appropriate to simply open without asking the user for confirmation. This could enable the attacker to create a web page or HTML mail that, when opened, would automatically run an executable on the user's system. This vulnerability affects IE 6.0 only. It does not affect IE 5.5.

    let me ask you, if you are running IE 5.5, and you open this readme.txt file instead of saving it to disk does it download and run the windows calc.exe?

  114. The exploit is worse than previously thought. by kanelephant · · Score: 1

    Pynnonen (the guy who found the exploit) has posted a new message to Bugtraq. If the servers reply is crafted correctly it can cause the program to be downloaded executed with *no* dialogs. See the posting for more details. Still no exploit given though.

    -K

  115. Don't be immoral by Weasel+Boy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For all the reasons that you state, I:

    • do not write web pages that work only in IE or Netscape. If your page doesn't work in Lynx, it doesn't work.
    • do not falsify my USER_AGENT. When I'm using iCab, your server sees iCab.
    • do not use Internet Explorer at all. If your page doesn't work in iCab, Opera, or Netscape, then I don't need to do business with you.
    1. Re:Don't be immoral by sholton · · Score: 1

      Nothing immoral here.

      If you run a web server and you pay attention to browser strings, you need to understand that some browsers allow the user to modify that thring to an arbitrary value. Nothing surprising or immoral in that, it's just a fact.

      However, that means the browser string shouldn't be interpreted as meaning "this is the browser I'm using" but rather as meaning "this is how i want to be treated".

      Does that make it clear to all of you non-IE web surfers? You're using something other than IE for reasons of your own, and then asking the world to treat you as if you were actually using IE.

      How are you expecting the world to interpret your actions?

      --
      A new kind of meat designed to appeal to vegetarians.
  116. This qualifies more as "troll" than "flamebait" by oGMo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Flamebait is typically written to elicit strong emotional response and name-calling from the target audience... this falls under the "troll" category which gives a more subtle feeling of disturbance, saying something usually inaccurate or incorrect in a seemingly reasonable manner to generate lots of "discussion". Let's go point-by-point:

    Remember Michael's over-the-top misinformed rant about this 3 days ago?

    Seeing as michael's story was neither misinformation nor an over-the-top rant (read the story), this plays on the popular opinion that slashdot gets a lot of stuff wrong all the time, as well as our obvious anti-Microsoft bias, to pretend that it was in fact an over-the-top misinformed rant.

    ... they refuse to provide any information about when a patch might be made available, if ever.
    I'm surprised he posted this fix, kinda points out how far off base /. was a short 3 days ago.

    Did they provide information about when a patch was available? At the time, they did not, so this is hardly misinformation. Whether they release a patch today or three months from now, "no information" is still "no information".

    Hey, I'm no M$ fan and I kinda expect some opinion on /. posts ... but there comes a point when it turns into yellow journalism and becomes childish M$ name calling.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "M$" is childish name calling. "If it agrees with me, it's opinion, otherwise it's bias": This just about sums it up. There is nothing wrong with bias; there is no way to avoid it, claiming something is unbiased is a great indication that something is trying to be intentionally misleading. I read slashdot because the bias mostly agrees with my own. Perhaps your time would be better spent looking for a more agreeable forum, instead of trolling on this one.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

  117. all "known" vulnerabilities by Jettra · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In the spirit of legal debate over the meaning of the specific usage of words, what is meant by 'known'?

    Since Microsoft anounced it's policy of attempting to keep the lid on the security holes that exist within it's software, I would assume that 'known' means ones that they are willing to reveal to us.

    So the word 'all' preceeding 'known' has no meaning since Microsoft itself admits to witholding the true extent of the damage its software can do to your system through security holes.

    I consider this another decietful marketing attempt to make consumers feel safe about their products despite their worse than poor track record. They may not be outright lying, but there planting the seeds for others to do it for them. How many sysadmins will now send out an email saying that "IE will be free from all security bugs by installing this patch"? Of course that is a lie.

  118. Windows 95 patch compatibilty? by {Hecubus} · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if this patch supports Windows 95?

    IE 5.5 is available for Windows 95, but Microsoft recently "retired" Windows 95.

    Has anyone tried it?

    If it's not supported, does anyone else find it a little peculiar that MS would wait until just after the end of 95's "lifecycle" to release this patch?

    Perhaps a way of ensuring that people stop using 95 and have to upgrade?

    --
    Unix is mysterious, and ancient, and strong. It's made of cast iron and the bones of heroic programmers of old -
    1. Re:Windows 95 patch compatibilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The conspiracy is worse than that.

      Each time Windows 95 is mentioned here in this context here on Slashdot, two more infant children in the third world are crushed to death, slowly, by Microsoft agents.

      They are EVIL. It is ALL A CONSPIRACY.

      (actually, no, you are just a fucking tool)

  119. Passport by bigbadbuccidaddy · · Score: 1

    ... just sign up for Passport and MS will let you download it!

  120. Yeah, and it just happens to include Magic Lantern by Atomic_Furball · · Score: 0


    It's hard for me to believe that, just because of the recent press on IE's huge problems, MS busted ass to quickly create a modo patch for it. They didn't give a damn before, so why do they now?

    I'm not saying I honestly think Magic Lantern is in the patch. I'm just pointing out that there must be some other motivation for MS to do this...

  121. Can't turn off search-from-toolbar?? by I-man · · Score: 4, Informative
    Interesting. After installing this patch, I typed in some garbage to the address bar to make sure it was still seeing my proxy (which should display a custom no-such-address page).

    What happened? That bloody search-from-the-address-bar thingy had turned itself on. Oh well, I say, just go to Options -> Advanced -> Do Not Search From The Address Bar. I do this, type in "asdfa sdfsdfsa dfwer" (note the spaces) and POW: search-from-the-address-bar turns itself back on.

    Much the same thing happens if you change the option and then restart IE.

    WTF?

    1. Re:Can't turn off search-from-toolbar?? by karlm · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Much the same thing happens if you change the option and then restart IE.

      WTF?

      I guess that aspect of functionality wasn't tested thuroughly, becuase it's not officially supported for MS Sheeple. Silly power user, don't you know you're not supposed to be monkeying with settings? Most of those pulldowns are there just for decorations on the pretty XP title bars.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  122. Show me some proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise, you're just another opinion.

  123. Windows Update - useless by Evro · · Score: 1

    I just visited Windows Update with IE 5.5 SP2 and under "CRITICAL UPDATES AND SERVICE PACKS" it said there were no updates. What is the point of Windows Update if it's not up to date?

    --
    rooooar
  124. Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, i have this crazy idea.

    If every single person who bitched about how Microsoft is ruining the world spent HALF the time doing something productive and proactive to help the open source/linux projects, Microsoft would no longer be in the position to ruin the world.

    Those who can, do.
    Those who can't, bitch about Microsoft on /.

  125. Re:Oh, come ON. - installed but not on by aero6dof · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the appropriate legal process would be to go ahead and install Magic lantern, but not turn it on until a court order is issued?

  126. windows update is slow by Indy1 · · Score: 1

    it usually takes them a few weeks to get stuff on windows update, which blows, but thats microsloth incompentence for you.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  127. So, I need this for Eudora? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm using Eudora and Mozilla on my box, and I just checked and sure enough there is a copy of MSHTML.DLL
    in the system32 directory from 1997. Should I update it? And if so, where can I get this particular dll without all the other BS? Thanks!

  128. OT:Oh, come ON. by linzeal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm pretty far from the right wing and don't believe in legislating anything but I'd like to clear some disinformation up. "what I can do with my body (if I were female, that is)". Since when does a woman have 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 hearts, and 2 brains? Ding, Ding, Ding wrong she never does. Just because some people think they are above being responsible for pregnancy (short of rape) in this day and age of ubiqitious contraception of which I am wholeheartedly for does not mean they are justified in their beliefs. People should not have sex until they are ready to face up to the consequences of raising a child, getting an STD, etc. Sheesh, but at least I agree with most if not the rest of your tirade.

    1. Re:OT:Oh, come ON. by mrseth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >Since when does a woman have 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 hearts, and 2 brains?

      A zygote has none of these. I do agree with you that late term abortions should be very rare as I think it is absoutely the worst form of birth control. Perhaps abortion would be even more rare if we had real sex education classes like they do in some more enlightened European countries. Their abortion rates/teen pregnancy rates are far lower than ours.

      http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1728.55272

    2. Re:OT:Oh, come ON. by Danse · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Problem is, many of the same people that want to outlaw abortions also try to keep sex education out of our schools. Can't win with these people.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:OT:Oh, come ON. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      free to those under the age of ~25

      What, only people under 25 should be allowed to have guilt-free sex? It's gotta be either free for all or income based. There's no reason to implent weird age restrictions.

      I like the idea, though!

    4. Re:OT:Oh, come ON. by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Yeah income based would be better. I was just throwing ideas out there.

    5. Re:OT:Oh, come ON. by linzeal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh I don't want to outlaw abortions. I mean murder is outlawed but it still happens because it is a social issue. Sex education is the most important things to change individuals but how do you change society? Social revolution?

    6. Re:OT:Oh, come ON. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was born at 6 months, 2.5 lbs

      And retarded, apparently; at least, you seem never to have learned how to properly punctuate an english-language sentence. linzeal, you are why we need late-term abortions.

  129. Re:Question for you, moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest that you pretend that you are a computer newbie and visit your first computer store. How many different browsers do you find on the software shelves? And IE comes installed "for free"! To the newbie it is obvious which browser MUST be best!

    And how do browser reviewers decide what to review? Why they are guided by which varieties appear on store shelves!

    I rest my case! I distrust the judgement of newbies and reviewers equally!

    Opera or Mozilla may well be wonderful browsers, but hardly any ordinary computer buyers will ever know.

  130. Won't even install! by GeckoX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cute!

    Tried installing the 6.0 UberPatch on 2 separate boxes now, both running W2kPro sp2 with IE 6.0 installed with VS.NET beta2.

    (IE v. 6.00.2462.0000 to be exact)

    The installation quits with an error telling me I must have IE 6.0 to install.

    Also seen as mentioned above similar effect on 5.x versions other than 5.5 with that version install.
    Leaves me not exactly feeling warm and fuzzy about whether the actual patch will really patch the holes it's supposed to or not!

    --
    No Comment.
    1. Re:Won't even install! by trommaster · · Score: 1

      Same thing happened to me, and i have the version that comes with WindowsXP (not that i use it).

      Hmmmmm. Whats going on here......

    2. Re:Won't even install! by Kevinb · · Score: 3, Informative
      (IE v. 6.00.2462.0000 to be exact)

      2462 is not the final release build of IE 6. I think that's IE 6 beta 2, or maybe the "public preview" that went out before XP shipped.

      The shipping version of IE 6 is 6.0.2600.0. If you go to Windows Update you should be able to install it, and then after you do that install the patch.

    3. Re: Won't even install! by jamesbromberger · · Score: 1

      I have a machine with MSIE 6.00.2600.0000, and it STILL does not install. Take a look at this page I have written with a screenshot clearly showing the MSIE 6 version dialog box, and this package not wanting to install because it requires MSIE6!

    4. Re:Won't even install! by Accelerated+Joe · · Score: 1

      The shipping version of IE 6 is 6.0.2600.0.

      Microsoft made an official product numbered 2600? I guess they must have known that it had many security holes. :-)

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
    5. Re: Won't even install! by AidenK · · Score: 1

      I had this same problem. v6.00.2600.0000 is installed, and yet the patch still asks for me to install IE6.0 onto my computer. :(

      I'd love to know if anybody has a solution.

    6. Re: Won't even install! by CTho9305 · · Score: 1

      same here :(

      build 2600, it says IE isnt installed

    7. Re: Won't even install! by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      No help, but have you done anything to improve the security so that Magic Lantern would not be able to be installed?

  131. M$ is a string variable by yerricde · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "M$" is childish name calling.

    M$ is a name for a string variable in a language that Bill Gates and Microsoft popularized on early 8-bit home computers. This language was Basic. This code works on Applesoft Basic (the Basic interpreter included with Apple II) and QBasic (the Basic interpreter included with MS-DOS until about 7.1). I haven't tried it on Visual Basic.

    10 M$ = "HELLO WORLD"
    20 PRINT M$
    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:M$ is a string variable by oGMo · · Score: 2

      I stand corrected. :-)

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

  132. Re:Download URLs - Must Have 5.5 SP2 by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

    Supposedly ie 5.5sp2 and ie6 do not run java. However, I have ie 6 as included with XP. If I go to http://java.sun.com/applets all the demo applets run just fine.

    Shrug

  133. The Microsoft Theory by bluenirve · · Score: 1

    I know this new scientific/medical theory will needed to be proved many times, but my most recent proof for it works.
    For every new update Microsoft releases, the end user will need to re-install Windows within a 24 hour peroid. Those who continue in this pattern will eventually become brain-dead and will forget the difference between tcp/ip and an icecream shop. The only cure comes from cirtain "open-source" OS's, such as GNU/Linux and BSD.
    Any changes to this theory will be welcome. It will be submitted to my proof math book soon.

  134. Re:why the F was slashdot just down for 90 minutes by snoozerdss · · Score: 1

    My mistake. I was under the impression that slashdot was not a technology. Silly me ;)

    --
    Snoozer.
  135. IE Vulnerability Page by djaxl · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:IE Vulnerability Page by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1
      I decided to give that link a look, and tried the Javascript BSOD simulation here.

      Since i'm using Netscape 6.2, it popped up a normal browser window instead of (i'm assuming) a BSOD, that kept re-opening itself no matter how many times it was closed, and I had to totally restart Netscape to kill it :P



      If you're going to link to things like this, at least make sure they work correctly...

  136. Re:Don't they already have that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a real Kevin Mitnick?

    Or is his real name 'Zoltan the Ferocious' or something. Like that tool 'Emmnuel Goldstein' who pretends he's Eric Corley when in court to keep his mom from finding out.

  137. Re:Question for you, moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera is a pretty nice browser.

    Mozilla is a big experiment in how many people can be involved in what should be a tightly managed project.

    In other words, it's a cluster fuck.

  138. Uber patch, eh? by Greedo · · Score: 1

    So Microsoft *really* wants me to quit smoking, eh?

    --
    Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
  139. Sucky Patch.. by Ruis · · Score: 1

    So I installed the patch and have noticed a LOT more IE crashes afterwards.. Nice..

    1. Re:Sucky Patch.. by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2

      They haven't got the bugs worked out of the Magic Lantern code yet :D

  140. "Uber"??? by trommaster · · Score: 1

    Come on, its only 2MB.
    What kind of "Mother of all patches" do you call that.
    It should be at least 30MB, maybe even more.....

  141. Re:Ahhhh GOOD! by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

    They got snakes out here this biiiig?

    --
    "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  142. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  143. Rollup patches by WyldOne · · Score: 1

    Either that or the fruit flavored nicotine patches to stop smoking

    --

    make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
  144. Securty hole existing for "2 releases" by Mr+44 · · Score: 1

    And how many releases has the Solaris/AIX hole been around for? IIRC, something like 5 years!

  145. Handle based on MIME types. by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

    OK, so I read a MIME type, and it says that it's image/x-JPEG ... I pass it on to my file handler, telling it it's safe to process.

    My file handler looks at it, and oh! It's name is sucker.jpg.exe. It's an executable, and my file handler was told it is safe to execute...so I'll just spawn it and...

    oops

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
  146. http://www.mozilla.org by lkaos · · Score: 1

    Feeling better already ;-)

    --
    int func(int a);
    func((b += 3, b));
  147. in any group there will be inconsistencies by David+Jao · · Score: 2
    Yesterday you bashed MS for not going public about anything, and now you bash them for patching the program.

    Slashdot is a group, and a group can have diverse opinions. Unless you can produce examples of the same individual adopting both these views, there is nothing inconsistent to cry about.

  148. BFDs by David+Jao · · Score: 1
    Tabbed browsing is a BFD because ctrl-tabbing through the tabs is much more convenient than alt-tabbing through all the windows you have open. I like to be able to cycle through my browser windows without worrying about my Excel window popping up.

    Per-site JS management is a big deal because I can enable javascript on the few sites that I trust, and disable it everywhere else. You have no idea how blissful it is to browse without worrying about popup ads.

    1. Re:BFDs by MushMouth · · Score: 1

      That can be done on IE, as you can just add a site to the trusted sites list, and enable JS on those sites.

  149. There's a difference... by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

    ...between instaling a keylogger on someone's computer and retrieving data from it.

    Thanks to ex post facto, they won't legally be able to use data logged before the date of the court order.

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
  150. Submitted too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all we know, somewhere in some US military base, the words "All your base are belong to us" is flashing on Pvt. Payne's monitor. All because he had to get his quick fix of pr0n...

  151. 5.0 to 5.5 SP2 by Kalkin · · Score: 1

    So, sure, you update to 5.5 so you can be patched. Oh...it installs MS Outlook Express. Express changes the regular Outlook as part of the update - now Outlook won't run properly without it. Greattt....and now I have a big blue E on my desktop.

    Your IT guy runs the most recent fix, then it's discovered that the other criticals were not checked for.

    Download more patches - wait! The Nov. 13 patch WON'T install now. Greaattt...

    Is this a clever MS ploy to break up their monopoly by encouraging the use of other browsers?

  152. Prepare for a totally new bug-xperience by Nuteater · · Score: 1

    Taking the current speed of someone discovering yet another hole in IE (bugs/day), I would say Microsoft should consider this 'über-patching' a weekly routine.

    And we are not talking about holes as in "Oops, I sense a draft coming from somewhere", but really huge chasms of sloppy programming, big enough for Bin Laden to hide in.

    Über-patch or not, I consider IE a worthy browser when the releases start to be safe and stable out-of-the-box, and when MS stops considering 'security', 'privacy' and 'standards-compliance' as curse words. (Subtle hint: Ain't gonna happen)

    // Ego sum Nucivorax, me clamare audi.

  153. Re:why the F was slashdot just down for 90 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wow, you pointed out someone's typo.

    You're a genius!

  154. Thats strange... by Mofo_abc123 · · Score: 0

    I read this, then used windows update and it said no new patches. So do you have to be '1337' to get this patch, I mean god forbid the masses getting this patch.

    1. Re:Thats strange... by TeddyR · · Score: 1

      Most of the security updates from microsoft do not come from the windowsupdate site till its too late... :-)

      A better place to look is

      MS HotFix & Security Bulletin Service

      --

      --
      Time is on my side
  155. mainly dumbass people clicking on attachments!!!! by SHiFTY1000 · · Score: 1

    so many of those virii are propagated by stooopid people clicking on email attachments, the main problem is psychological, teaching people not to click on wierd looking emails... btw i use ie, its fast and reliable. But mozilla rox too....

  156. In MS we trust. by doodleboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would just like to say at the outset that I am not a raving nut. But I have puzzled at the unusually close relationship between Microsoft and the Bush administration. And consider the following disclaimer from the End User License Agreement (EULA) at passport.com:

    .NET Passport will disclose personal information if required to do so by law or in the good-faith belief that such action is necessary to:

    . . . d. Act under exigent circumstances to protect the personal safety of users of Microsoft, the .NET Passport Web Site, or the public.


    With the recent terrorist activities and the sweeping new anti-terrorist legislation, any "exigent circumstances" could be said to be met as a matter of course. So what guarantees do we have that MS and the gov't doesn't have a secret agreement in place to continuously sift and profile all the data (OUR data) that the .Net databases will surely contain? And is there a person on the planet who believes that MS wouldn't use its users privacy as a bargaining chip to extract a favourable deal from the gov't? (Not that they ever had any respect for it before, of course.)

  157. Hey perdida! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did Adequacy ripoff that "Hacker" article you're bragging about in your sig from this antionline article? A lot of it seems to be almost word-for-word.

  158. uh..does anyone know if this requires reboot? by NeoCode · · Score: 1

    My win2k machine has been up for about 16+ days. Me and my frinds are going to see how long this boxes can hold up w/o getting knocked over.

    My linux machine has uptime of 108 days. (I am sure /.ers have seen that come and go :)

    Thanks

    1. Re:uh..does anyone know if this requires reboot? by Oily+Tuna · · Score: 1

      It does need a reboot.

      --
      Mmmmmmm ... sushi.
    2. Re:uh..does anyone know if this requires reboot? by fizban · · Score: 1

      uptime, shmuptime. I keep my Win2K machine up for weeks, only rebooting when Tribes 2 crashes (which is a Tribes 2 bug) or when I install new software the requires the boot. And I only reboot for Tribes 2 because it screws up the screen gamma correction and it looks horrible. The OS handles it all in stride. No crashes, no pain, no shit.

      Besides, I don't measure the quality of my OS from its uptime. I mean, I'm not an application server here, I'm a desktop user, and god damn it if Windows 2000 isn't one of the finest OSes ever. It's pretty damn sweet and I'm not a Microsoft junkie either. I will run whatever works well for me, switching between Windows and Linux frequently in the early nineties. But ever since I installed WinNT 4.0 and then Win2K, I haven't gone back. The UI is just better. The applications are better. Visual Studio is a kick ass IDE and the games, man. The GAMES!

      The only things people can gripe about regarding Microsoft's OSes are the 3.1, 95s and 98s. Trust me, the new OSes are much, MUCH better. The only people here who continue to deride Windows do it with no reason whatsoever except their desire to stroke themselves. Fuck that, I'll stick with Win2K, ladies and gents.

      --

      +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

  159. Show me proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give us an example where current-ish IEs are worse in compliancy than current-ish Mozillas?

    Don't know about the newest versions, as I tend to develop for the 5.0 area.

    Mozilla being more html compliant used to be the case, but it hasn't been for a while now.

    1. Re:Show me proof by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Sure, here you go.

      The last one is especially nice, because it's a very objective review against Mozilla - showing while IE gets things "mostly right", Mozilla does it to the spec. Which has pretty much been their goal from the beginning, whereas IE's goal is to take over market.

      Mozilla is also better than IE for another reason: Good PNG support.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    2. Re:Show me proof by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      ...which is why I use Opera v6.0 on Windows. =P

    3. Re:Show me proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sad, sad, sad man. Try searching for IE6, the main point of which is improved CSS support, or keep your straw horse links to yourself

      Sure, it ain't perfect yet. Shall we discuss Mozilla's wonderful crash-o-matic DOM support?

    4. Re:Show me proof by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      hehe, I love AC's. You whole argument is shot, assuming you are the same person as above. IE5 is what was requested, and that is what I showed.

      Sorry if you can't handle you are just plain wrong, I'd rather be a sad man that's right - then a poor fool who won't admit when wrong.

      The fact is IE had to work to come to standards compliancy because of competition of Opera and Mozilla. You want lightweight and standard you use Opera, you want full feature and standard you use Mozilla. End of story. IE is only for the drooling Mom'n'Pops of America in reality. They are the ones who are behind. The fact that IE6 has a 'main point' of being standards compliant is proof of this. IE's share is slipping, Mozilla and Opera are on the rise. You know why? Because it works the way it is supposed to.

      YHL, HAND.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    5. Re:Show me proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ho ho -- Netscape 6/Mozilla can't even steal marketshare from Netscape 4 (the browser of choice for the REAL drooling retards of the world). The browser is almost at Opera-levels of irrelevency in terms of userbase. Realistically, any cross-browser project would wisely be developed for IE 5.5 first, Netscape 4.7 second, and everything else as an afterthought.

      If you want CSS nirvana, IE 6.0 has 10x the deployment of Netscape 6/Mozilla + Opera.

      [Insert lots of links about how Netscape 4 sucks] [Insert conclusion that Netscape and Mozilla sucks] [Declare victory]

  160. Re:Try about 3 weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been known to the public for that long. You should really check you info before posting. Ever hear of something called bugtraq? It sure wouldn't seem like it according to your totally incorrect statement.

  161. Keeping track of the total MB of IE Patches by thumbtack · · Score: 1

    How many MB of downloaded patches have been required to fix all of these security holes? It sure seems that at least once a month (if not more) I need to download a critical update for either IE or Office. I just got done three days ago with a 13MB "security patch" for Office. Then today another 2.5 MB for IE. I did something similar last month and the month before. Beyond that it's just a blur.

    Anyone have an idea of how many MB or GB of patches have been required so far? This sure is getting tiresome.

  162. +5 funny? hmmm, ok... if u say so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gotta be the least funny "+5 funny" mod ever.

    1. Re:+5 funny? hmmm, ok... if u say so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't been on Slashdot very long, have you?

    2. Re:+5 funny? hmmm, ok... if u say so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny thing is that I was being serious, not funny.

  163. Uber-Patch by James+Foster · · Score: 1

    Merry Christmas Windows users!!! (A free patch from Microsoft!)

  164. Re:Keeping track of the total MB of IE Patches by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

    Like somebody else said, "Release early, release often...unless it's Microsoft. Then, deride them for not getting it right the first time."

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  165. Re:Download URLs - Must Have 5.5 SP2 by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

    AOL version of IE is the locally installed version it uses the IE engine much the same way that Galeon uses the Mozilla engine

    --
    This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
  166. A little late for that. by fm6 · · Score: 2

    IE itself is the ultimate trojan horse!

  167. Actually, it's quite simple (was Re:Uber Patch) by Enahs · · Score: 2
    The folks who actually care about the news on /. are most likely MacOS/*n?x users using a variety of browsers.



    The trolls and other people who don't care, the people who're just here to ruin the experience for everyone, use IE on Windows.



    Simple when you think about it, really. And it makes sense.



    Oh, I know; I have no proof. But hell, it'd be funny, wouldn't it?

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    1. Re:Actually, it's quite simple (was Re:Uber Patch) by SuperLiquidSex · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actully I read it for the so called news, however I use IE simply because it's better than the alternatives on my desktop. Linux isn't for desktop, I dislkike macos, that leaves windows. IE is the best browser for windows.

      --
      Oops....you'll know what I'm talkin about in a bit.
    2. Re:Actually, it's quite simple (was Re:Uber Patch) by Enahs · · Score: 2
      Linux isn't for desktop, I dislkike macos, that leaves windows.

      Linux isn't for the desktop? Damn. I've been such an idiot for the last 5 years. This easy-to-use KDE2 desktop I'm using right now (I just backed up /var/cache/apt/archives by opening the dir in Konqueror, right-clicking, and choosing "create ISO image", which fired up KreateCD, and one click on "Burn CD!" burnt a CD. Wasn't that hard?), despite the fact that it's so damned easy to use, isn't for the desktop.

      Nevermind that I installed an IDE CD-RW drive last night, and it took me a fraction of the time to set up under Linux than it did under Windows The software bundled with the drive managed to hose several "trivial" files like SYSTEM.INI. And then, after reinstalling Windows (yep) I had to go through 12 different sequences of steps to get my video card's drivers working again (a Voodoo3 2K, which is very well supported...at least under Linux.) Windows is certainly more ready for the desktop, yessir.

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  168. Installed Perfectly by VividU · · Score: 1

    Download - Execute as Administrator - Reboot - Done.

    And it didnt have to "de-integrate" the browser from local file aceess either. Mike :)

  169. really wild and crazy folks ... by Erris · · Score: 3, Interesting
    you're nuts if you put a Windows box directly on the Internet

    And you are nuts if you put one behind the firewall where any old Outlook or MSIE flaw will put a keylogger, sniffer or what ever. What's the point of a nice little firewall when some goon can soap his way through the browser?

    I suppose you just have to be wild and crazy to use M$ at all. Look at what your money buys: a poor security model with intentional bypasses, monthly crashes, Magic Lantern, WMP sound, Digital Rights Management (now patented!), remote kill switches, and the opertunity to pay again and again. What a bargain, but spending is good for someone else's economy so party on, fanboy!

    Posted using Mozilla, running through a secure shell from a 650MHz Athlon to my punny little 150 MHz Pentium laptop on my lap in my bed. Try that with M$ garbage. What MSIE won't run in 24MB RAM? What Billy G won't let you run coppies of it on more than one machine at once? Where did you want to go yesterday?

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  170. Re: Mozilla? by hendridm · · Score: 1

    I don't know... I'm sick of the long arm of Microsoft too, and I've been trying to find an alternate browser, but Mozilla just doesn't cut it. I've *tried* to give it a chance time after time hoping it improves, but I have had HORRIBLE stability problems on EVERY machine I've installed it on (all Win2k except one WinXP box and two Linux boxes). Additionally, I'll puke before I will allow my browser to decide to open an extra "pane" on the screen when I use Google, which is every few minutes for me. WTF with the Google anti-feature?!

  171. Re:User Agent by No+Panic · · Score: 1

    I already tried doing that...

    "User Agent"="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Konqueror/2.2; Linux)"

    Doesn't do a thing. Bummer !!

  172. Re: Mozilla? by Xerithane · · Score: 2

    Try a recent build, much much much more stable (since 0.9.4 - on my laptop I had some weird issues with it, but otherwise it's been very solid) and it is pretty speedy since 0.9.2 - Opera is still the choice for quick browsing though, but I just can't get past the interface.

    As for the search pane, yeah - I am with you, that irritated the living hell out of me.. till I disabled it 2 minutes later ;)

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  173. here's �ber patch 4 u : IEradicator by slaida1 · · Score: 1

    fixes all problems with IE, present and future alike. www.98lite.net/ieradicator.html

    --
    Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
  174. Twas the night I tried to update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twas the night I tried to update
    And all through Windows update
    Not a critical download, not even a service pack.
    As I sat back in my chair
    What did I hear?
    A Uber patch update for IE!
    I quickly clicked the linked and open the page.
    What did I see?
    I line that said "Maximum Security Rating: Critical"
    As I quickly click go
    The download started, but I thought I heard Microsoft say,
    "Merry Christmas to all, and to all a wonderful nightmare!"

  175. Re: Mozilla? by crealf · · Score: 2
    Additionally, I'll puke before I will allow my browser to decide to open an extra "pane" on the screen when I use Google, which is every few minutes for me.

    Agreed, they should had a button "Disable this feature forever" in this pane. I was relieved later to discover that it could be disabled in the "Preferences" menus.

  176. Alternative solution (funny) by edunbar93 · · Score: 2

    Actually, I think that if you send out an e-mail virus that patches IE automatically and then propogates itself, that would work quite well, despite the fact that you've been screaming and shouting for people never to open e-mail attachments. Just remember to use a subject line like "free porn!" ;)

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  177. Well if everyone here got bullied by MS... by Otis_INF · · Score: 2

    But I hardly think that's the case. Most MS-bashers are just following a loud-mouth because it makes them belong to some group, be popular in some weird way.

    For the people who got bullied by MS, agreed, you have a point, for the rest of them (imho a majority): they should grow up.

    --
    Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
  178. Isn't this like PHB's reading Dilbert, kinda? by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    a significant protion of the readership *does* use IE


    Isn't this like PHB's reading Dilbert... and not getting it, either?

    How many of those were IE for Mac? Until the advent Mozilla, that was a pretty reasonable choice. Things like fixed-position HTML objects actually worked.

    Probably the Uber-Patch installs Linux in a VM and runs IE under that. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  179. You'll probably find that your soundcard works now by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    ...at least, that's the traditional thing for an IE patch to do. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  180. Netscape PlugIns by Corrado · · Score: 2

    Waht effect does this have on IE 5.5 in releation to the removal of the Netscape PlugIn architechture? I don't want to install this "patch" if it removes my ability to use NS plugins.

    --
    KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
  181. MS patch by cvhome · · Score: 1

    Good Morning folks, Why not use a good browser like Opera 6,and forget about MS Explorer. It has a few short commings but if you havent tried it, do so. I think you will like it.

  182. Offtopic? by jackl420 · · Score: 1

    You go, Mr. Seth! Nobody will probably see this response at this point, but I'd mod you back up to where you started at least if I had mod points. Just about the whole thread was about "spyware", which leads pretty quickly to civil liberties and your comments regarding the WoD were extremely prescient.

    I wish more techies would understand politics well enough to understand that we're well on our way to the classic police state of mid-20th century fascism or communism...all in the name of a culture war that hates hip intelligensia that aren't into traditional "values" (e.g., conservative forms of xian worship). If you think this is an overstatement, read the DEA's explanation/history of the WoD on their website. See, http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/deamuseum/home.htm).

    And I wish moderators here would stop modding down strongly argued opinions they disagree with as "off-topic", especially if they don't really have enough background info to understand the thread to begin with...

    Not holding my breath, though...

  183. The First Company To... by SonnicJohnny · · Score: 1

    Slap a EULA on spackle.

    --

    I'll add a sig just as soon as I clean up this room...

  184. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  185. bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    old news.

  186. Patch doesn't work!!! by Puppet+Master · · Score: 1
    Okay, I have a Windows workstation at home... So I decided to install the patch. I downloaded the 6.0 version (knowing full well that I have IE 6.0 installed).

    When I run it, I get a message "This update required IE 6.0" with an OK button.

    I immediately verify that I am running 6.0 (which I am), and try again... Same result.

    So I decide to try the 5.5 SP2 version... This one states that I have to have IE 5.5 SP2 installed...

    The really sad part is that in order for me to call Microsoft and inform them that the patch doesn't work, I have to pay $35.00 on my credit card.

    Oh well... Another Micro$loth fsck-up.

    --
    The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
  187. IE 5.5 SP2 Trials & Tribs.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK....so there is a patch to plug the gaping hole in the dyke (reminds me of little boys with fingers for some reason).

    Download the patch. Then find out that you need IE 5.5 SP2 installed. OK....go download the SP2 update.

    Hmmm...it's only 500K. Run it and I find it then connects and downloads another 8+ meg, with no provision to save the pack for use on other machines). Look around a bit...no full install available anywhere.

    Figure I might a well try it on one machine. It tells me the install fails and then reboots the machine without asking.

    The install then restarts asking if I want to d/l again. Yeah...right....on a slow modem. Sure Bill! I think I'll wait till it comes out on an MSDN DVD.

    BTW....SP2 supposedly broke QuickTime support since IE SP2 no longer supports Netscape-style plugins. Wanna bet this was deliberate.

    Good thing I use Opera for my primary browsing.

  188. Jpegs no longer view properly after Uber Patch. by HitecDrftr · · Score: 1

    After installing the patch for i.e. 6.0 and rebooting, all my jpegs are now messed up when viewed in the browser. Apple quicktime viewer was the program I had set up to open jpegs previously (when not using the browser). Thank you Microsoft! Anyone else have this problem?

  189. another good question; by jafac · · Score: 2

    how many fucking reboots to apply THIS one?

    I swear, every goddamn time I go to Microsoft's update website, it's threee reboots minimum. IE service pack update, SP update, critical updates, application compatability update, security update.

    I thought that with NT, reboots would never be needed (that's what they were saying back in the 3.0 days) - and of course, the "rare" occasions where a reboot was necessary, they promised to fix those in 4.0. Well, now I'm running Win 2000, and I feel like I'm rebooting more often than I did with Win95.

    Don't worry, I run Linux at home. 2000 at work where it's mandatory, lest the jack-booted IT thugs hunt me down as a "terrorist".

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  190. Full Install? (Re:IE 5.5 SP2 Trials & Tribs... by mirabilos · · Score: 1

    %systemroot%\\Windows Update Setup Files\\*

    Also you can activate (in advanced setup) a full
    download, which exactly is what I've done for IE6.
    Not that I'd need IE for browsing, but I have my
    box to be available for the cstrike scene, too.

    My primary browser is lynx2-8-4 by the way. Opera is broken (even more than Konqueror, except for memory issues).

    --
    My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And /. still does not get UTF-8 right in 2012. Wow.)
  191. The Weakest Link: Cookies by Snover · · Score: 1
    SCHecklerX wrote: [Mozilla has] Cookie management on a per-site basis
    My whole deal with Mozilla's cookie management is that it's EXTREMELY incomplete (as far as information given to the user) in comparison to IE -- in Mozilla, you get a "yes" a "no" an "always" or a "never" -- but you don't know what the cookie IS or what it CONTAINS. This is compounded by the fact that the program I use to manage my cookies, Cookie Crusher, will not work with Mozilla because it can't get the information.

    With Cookie Crusher, whenever there's a cookie, you get the following information and selection choices:
    • domain/subdomain the cookie is from
    • the cookie's name
    • the cookie's content
    • the cookie's expiry date
    • an option to always/never accept JUST that cookie, or JUST that domain/subdomain, or ALL subdomains and the domain
    Just to give a more complete explanation, here's what its documentation writes (long, written in layman's, but probably invaluable to anyone that thinks this is a GOOD IDEA and wants to have complete documentation on exactly how it works):
    This page displays two lists of web sites (or servers) from which cookies will be automatically accepted or rejected. In addition, you can specify how cookies not on these lists should be handled.

    The lists contain servers (or web site names) in the form of their domain names or IP addresses. For example, you could add "www.thelimitsoft.com" to the reject list to always reject any cookies you receive from The Limit Software's web site, or you could add 209.68.15.185 to the accept list to always accept cookies from the web server at address 209.68.15.185.

    For more stringent control over cookies originating from any web site (or server), you can add the server name, followed by a semi-colon, and finally the cookie name. For example, if "www.thelimitsoft.com;SAFE_COOKIE" was listed in the "Reject from" list, only SAFE_COOKIE would be rejected from the domain www.thelimitsoft.com. All other cookies from that domain would be handled in accordance with the "Unknown Cookie Option" selection (see below).

    Accept cookies from
    This list displays the servers that you will always accept cookies from. You can click on the "Add" button below this list to add a new server to the list, or you can select a server from the list and click on the "Delete" button below the list to delete a server from the list. To modify an item currently in the list, click on the item and then click on the "Edit" button below the list.

    Reject cookies from
    This list displays the servers that you will always reject cookies from. You can click on the "Add" button below this list to add a new server to the list, or you can select a server from the list and click on the "Delete" button below the list to delete a server from the list. To modify an item currently in the list, click on the item and then click on the "Edit" button below the list.

    Cookie Crusher stores the site filtering files in "FILTER.DAT" and "FILTER2.DAT." The former handles the accept list, while the latter handles the reject list. Both files can be manually edited with a text editor, since they are stored as plain ASCII text files. This makes it easy to accept or reject items by pasting them from your bookmark or favorites list.

    Using wildcards in filters
    You can use the wildcard character (*) in filters to accept or reject cookies from all web sites on a given domain. The asterisk can be used at the start of a domain name or at the end of a numeric domain address.
    For example, specifying "*thelimitsoft.com" as a filter will match www1.thelimitsoft.com, www2.thelimitsoft, and xyz.thelimitsoft.com.

    Cookies from unknown servers
    The options in this group allow you to specify what should be done when a cookie is received from a server not in either of the two lists above. You can choose from the following three options:

    Reject all - Set this option to automatically reject any cookies received which are not in the "accept from" cookies list.
    Accept all - Set this option to automatically accept any cookies received which are not in the "reject" cookies list.
    Ask for confirmation - Set this option to bring up a dialog box whenever a cookie is received from a site that is not in the above lists. The dialog will display information about the cookie and then will ask whether or not you want to accept the cookie. You can answer using one of the following buttons in this dialog box:

    Reject only those that expire - If this option is selected, Cookie Crusher will reject unknown cookies that expire. In other words, any cookie that would be stored on your system and listed under the Cookies tab would be rejected. Temporary cookies that are not stored on the system would be accepted.

    The Cookie Alert Window
    Accept - Selecting "Accept" will accept the cookie just this one time. If the cookie is received again in the future, you will be notified again.
    Reject - Selecting "Reject" will reject the cookie just this one time. If the cookie is received again in the future, you will be notified again.
    Always - Selecting "Always" will accept the cookie and then add the name of the server from which the cookie was received to the "accept from" list. Whenever any cookies are received from this server in the future, they will automatically be accepted.
    Never - Selecting "Never" will reject the cookie and then add the name of the server from which the cookie was received to the "reject from" list. Whenever any cookies are received from this server in the future, they will automatically be rejected.

    Cookie Classification
    The cookie classification option gives you Cookie Crusher's best estimated opinion on what the cookie's function is. The degree of certainty would be indicated as checkmarks next to the button with this classification.

    4 Checkmarks - Extremely certain of the cookie's function
    3 Checkmarks - Very certain of the cookie's function
    2 Checkmarks - Somewhat certain of the cookie's function
    1 Checkmark - Educated guess

    If you click on the button with the classification's name as the title, you can receive more information on what the cookie does.

    Wildcard Domain Checkbox When the confirmation window pops up, a checkbox will appear in the lower left hand corner of the window. The checkbox allows you to use a wildcard server name, such as "*thelimitsoft.com," instead of the server name that sent you the cookie. This feature is useful when you click the always or never buttons because it stores the wildcard server name into the appropriate site filter listbox. This way you will accept or reject cookies from the entire domain, instead of just an individual server.

    Cookie Name Checkbox
    When the confirmation window pops up, a checkbox will appear in the lower right hand corner of the window. The checkbox allows you to use the cookie name with the server name. This feature is useful when you click on the always or never buttons, and want to restrict the program to automatically handling a particular cookie from the server. This option can be used in conjunction with the Wildcard Domain Checkbox (see above).

    I warned you it was long. If you're still here, then you probably like how Cookie Crusher works -- go tell the Mozilla team and mod this up! Oh, and apologies if your browser doesn't like some of the quotation marks/apostrophes above -- the help file "helpfully" had angled quotes.
    --

    [insert witty comment here]
  192. The Browser Holy Wars and W3C compatibility by Snover · · Score: 1

    I find it amusing how much /.ers debate and contradict themselves. Whenever the W3C makes a bad move (as they did in their privacy DTD a while back) everyone goes and says how BAD and EVIL the W3C is, but then whenever they talk about how much BETTER browser X is than browser Y, they talk about how COMPATIBLE it is with the very same people's DTDs.

    The other thing I find amusing is the fact that /. (and SlashCode) uses a LOT of depreciated code (and the site isn't HTML 3.2 OR HTML 4 compliant!).

    --

    [insert witty comment here]