full-disclosure - 70 million computers are using Windows 98rightnow

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <A4F3081BB4DFA34E9F50DAB5109D78BD01CA28B9@ptle2m02.up.corp.upc>
Date: Fri Jul 14 19:50:28 2006
From: ACastigliola at unumprovident.com (Castigliola, Angelo)
Subject: 70 million computers are
	using	Windows	98rightnow

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:bkfsec@....lonestar.org] 
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:06 PM
To: Castigliola, Angelo
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk; 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