Unfortunately, this thread has become less about the inherent risks of Microsoft's EOL decision regarding Windows 98 and is now a debate of open source versus Microsoft. This is my last post for this thread.
Again, my comment was to simply point out the underutilize method of surfing the internet as a non-administrator instead of the open source solution for Microsoft Windows. >The only "features" missing are ActiveX compatibility (even that can be >solved with a plug-in, but I wouldn't recommend it). Do you know how >many sites I have to load in IE that I can't view in Firefox or >Mozilla? (media rich sites, no less) None. Sure, there's the >occasional site with a broken media plugin link (I'll happily point out >that most of these sites don't work on a percentage of IE-based systems >either, as they're coded poorly because brain-dead slobs think poor >coding and IE-only compatability means "feature rich") but there's >always a better site to go to that isn't riddled with spyware or crappy >code. Not letting people view those sites is doing them a favor. >Over-permissiveness is not a virtue or we'd all be marrying prostitutes. What you missed in my previous note is that I am simply not referring to only websites but web applications also, specificity .NET web applications. When I refer to feature rich I am speaking of things such as view state, output caching, client-side validation, etc... Angelo Castigliola III Enterprise Security Architecture UnumProvident The posts and threads in this email do not reflect the opinions of nor are endorsed by UnumProvident Corporation, nor any of its employees. -----Original Message----- From: bkfsec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:06 PM To: Castigliola, Angelo Cc: [email protected]; Flavio Visentin Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] 70 million computers are using Windows 98rightnow Castigliola, Angelo wrote: > significantly lowering risk and still enjoy the >feature rich functionality that IE offers. > > > I stopped reading here. You're either joking, or trolling... because no sane person would make this statement. Feature rich? Man, are you all there mentally? Do you even know what web standards are? The only "features" missing are ActiveX compatibility (even that can be solved with a plug-in, but I wouldn't recommend it). Do you know how many sites I have to load in IE that I can't view in Firefox or Mozilla? (media rich sites, no less) None. Sure, there's the occasional site with a broken media plugin link (I'll happily point out that most of these sites don't work on a percentage of IE-based systems either, as they're coded poorly because brain-dead slobs think poor coding and IE-only compatability means "feature rich") but there's always a better site to go to that isn't riddled with spyware or crappy code. Not letting people view those sites is doing them a favor. Over-permissiveness is not a virtue or we'd all be marrying prostitutes. You have to be joking. Either that or you read that off the back of a pamphlet for a web development training company. -bkfsec _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
