Re: WMF Vulnerability patch for win98 etc., REALTIME LOG
- From: see.my.sig.4.addr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:06:29 -0800
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:31:41 +0000, Peter <"veryhjdf"@kk.zz$> spewed:
>> >> >Decided to install it. For the patch see:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.nod32.ch/en/download/tools.php
>> >> >
>> >> >Below is the realtime log generated by INCTRL4 utility on a win98se PC.
>> >> >Note that I installed it to a non-default folder. The key thnig to note
>> >> >is the line:
>> >> >
>> >> >HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run\
>> >> >GDIPatch=D:\PROGRAMS\WMFPATCH\inject.exe
>> >> >
>> >> >This causes the patch to run on bootup (as intended).
>> >> >
>> >> >regards,
>> >> >
>> >> >Peter//
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Does it need to run all the time, or is it a run once?
>> >> So you're saying you have to change that line to how you have it or it
>> >> wont work?
>> >
>> >
>> >That line is a registry setting which loads the patch on every win98
>> >boot. So it runs all the time that win98 is running.
>> >
>> >But if you want to stop it runnnig do ALT + Ctrl + Del and cancel it.
>> >But it uses absolutely minimal resources, so I leave it running all the
>> >time.
>> >
>> >BTW no WMF exploit has yet been discovered for win98. But it's only
>> >prudent to install this patch IMO.
>> >
>> Ah, that's what I like to hear :)
>> Seems 9x is immune to most XP/2k exploits these days.
>> Nice excuse for "progress" with them eh?! But, what do you expect from M$
>> I guess.
>> Makes me wonder why you don't hear of people "downgrading" more, or going
>> to Linux or Mac more.
>>
>> So will the reg. line addition work for 95 too?
>> I've got one running that. Dunno if I'll install it if it may slow it
>> down, it's already slow enough, but I'd like to know in case any exploits
>> become known.
>
>Newer OSes tend to have more remote networking capabilities. Hence, if
>programmers slip up, more remote networking hacks!
>
>Advice I follow is to stick with win98se for internet. Use XP only for
>offline work as necessary. Dual boot is pretty easy [Google on win dual
>boot] FYI on a test system without firewall: XP -- 45 seconds to infect
>(!!) 98se -- much longer (I've seen misconfigured firewalls on win98se
>PCs that were not infected after 3 months+)
>
Personal test, or one you saw? I remember hearing similar, like 2min,
just outrageous! XP is just a disgrace. I shutter to think how bad the
next version they'll inflict on the world will be.
When I get multiputers up like I want, I think I will definitely be doing
as you do, 98SE and XP only when necessary and offline.
>As for win95 and this patch: don't know for sure. But as the patch is
>easily uninstalled, why not give it a try?
Laziness? heheheheh
Oh, BTW, have you seen a d/l warning from the site at top saying "no
security certificate" bla bla? I told my mother to install it (uses XP
despite my advise, like the rest of the sheep ;) and she said that's what
it gave. I didn't want to be responsible for telling her it was ok unless
it was normal, and verified ok anyway.
I don't pay a whole hell of alot of attention to those, but you never
know.
--
_____________________________________________________
For email response, or CC, please mailto:see.my.sig.4.addr(at)bigfoot.com.
Yeah, it's really a real address :)
.
- References:
- Re: WMF Vulnerability patch for win98 etc., REALTIME LOG
- From: see . my . sig . 4 . addr
- Re: WMF Vulnerability patch for win98 etc., REALTIME LOG
- From: see . my . sig . 4 . addr
- Re: WMF Vulnerability patch for win98 etc., REALTIME LOG
- Prev by Date: AVG Anti-virus and ZoneAlarms
- Next by Date: Re: AVG Anti-virus and ZoneAlarms
- Previous by thread: Re: WMF Vulnerability patch for win98 etc., REALTIME LOG
- Next by thread: Looks like Sober.Z is starting up...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
