New RPCSS security holes

Post everything else here

Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, Other/Off Topic Moderators

User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

New RPCSS security holes

Postby munky » Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:24 pm

patch as necessary

Affected Software:
Microsoft Windows NT Workstation 4.0
Microsoft Windows NT Server® 4.0
Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0, Terminal Server Edition
Microsoft Windows 2000
Microsoft Windows XP
Microsoft Windows Server 2003
Not Affected Software:
Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition


notice Win9X is not listed in Affected or N/A software. thats because win9x is no longer supported by microsoft (old patches still available). if you're still running win9x, it's time to upgrade.
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.
User avatar
lucy
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 6:22 pm
Location: graceland
Contact:

Postby lucy » Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:03 pm

well thats crappy.....
so they dont make new windows98 patches anymore? :((

i hate upgrading.
i dont wanna lose or reinstall everything.
User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Postby munky » Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:23 pm

i know at least 98->98se upgrade would attempt to save your registry so that all your programs would still work
i'm not sure if this also holds for 98*->ME (though, IMO, ME is the worst OS put out by microsoft since the earlier versions of DOS, for its time)
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.
User avatar
HM2K
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:34 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby HM2K » Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:59 pm

98 -> ME works fine, i've tried it, I also presume 98 -> XP or any other such update/upgrade would work fine...

Though a clean install is ALWAYS recommended.

They have stopped supporting Windows ME and below because of their lifecycle thing... I was annoyed about that when trying to find out info on Windows CE for my PDA...

Oh well, I guess its another way to try and rip people off :p
User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Postby munky » Wed Sep 10, 2003 10:07 pm

no, ME is still supported through Dec 31, 2005

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycleconsumer.asp

Mainstream support for Windows 98/98 SE ended on June 30th 2002, and no-charge incident support and extended hotfix support ends on June 30th 2003.

if you pay for support, you can get through Jan 2005 (no new patches, just old patch availability)
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.
User avatar
HM2K
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:34 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby HM2K » Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:26 pm

Err what did I say that for? I ment Windows 9x. Sorry.
User avatar
corrupt
Site Admin
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Danville, KY
Contact:

Postby corrupt » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:32 am

Windows ME might be the worst mistake Microsoft ever made :)
Josh Baird
[corrupt]@EFNet
O: irc.choopa.net
biggy
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 7:26 pm

Postby biggy » Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:13 am

M$ worst mistakes
1.) Windows ME
2.) clippy in Word
should we continue?
but really, does MS get credit for all the shit the do right? never hear a word of that.
Shane
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Postby Shane » Thu Sep 11, 2003 5:06 am

lucy wrote:well thats crappy.....
so they dont make new windows98 patches anymore? :((

i hate upgrading.
i dont wanna lose or reinstall everything.
I do a clean install of windows once every few months. I really should get around to burning an image of my C: drive the next time I do a clean install, finish installing my drivers/essential software, finish downloading all the windows patches and finish doing all my settings. Would save me a few hours.

I'm the kind of person who wants all his settings just so, and his start menu etc. well organised all the time. I wish you could config windows XP by using text files. Or maybe I should seek help.
User avatar
HM2K
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:34 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby HM2K » Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:39 am

To be fair, I really don't think Windows ME was that much of a mistake, It was more of a transaction OS... the change between Windows 98SE to Windows 2000/XP, Since Windows 98SE still had a DOS based startup, where is Windows ME illiminated that and was sold as an upgrade for as little as £30 (I think), therefore because it was so bad, people then upgraded from Windows ME to Windows XP. Though it did actually make Microsoft alot of money, not as much any other OS I would imagine, but I assure you it was no mistake.

Enjoy.
User avatar
deww
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 7:17 pm

Postby deww » Thu Sep 11, 2003 12:28 pm

HM2K wrote:... Since Windows 98SE still had a DOS based startup, where is Windows ME eliminated that and was sold as an upgrade for as little as £30 (I think), therefore because it was so bad, people then upgraded from Windows ME to Windows XP. Though it did actually make Microsoft alot of money, not as much any other OS I would imagine, but I assure you it was no mistake...
That was the evil master plan! It was supposed to be what XP is... and it did not really eliminate DOS, it just hid it better than Windows 9x did. Check out this http://www.geocities.com/mfd4life_2000/ . And you're right. It did exactly what it was intended to do. Let people start thinking in terms of no more MS-DOS (at least as an option to start up). I think you're right, from MS's standpoint, it probably did well enough. It came out at a good time with a "good" name. Windows 2000 Pro didn't really work all that great with older games and by the time when XP was supposed to come out (think along with Windows 2003 Server, not when vendors like HP forced them to push out a new killer app to bring hardware sales up when they were stagnant or dipping), many people would've and should've abandoned "legacy" software.
User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Postby munky » Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:50 pm

i should clarify. i don't hate WinME for its features or lack of features. sure, DOS core, whatever, i accept that it's win9x based. but if i were building an old p200 box for a relative or something, i would use win98se, not winME. reason being, in my experience, ME is god awful slow. i used ME when it first came out on a brand new pimpin dell with a 2ghz p4. it felt like it was running the speed of win2k on my celeron 458. it was horrible. i was waiting on more taskbars on that p4 than my celeron.
that and the dell loadset had you using msn explorer, rather than internet explorer, and there was no way that i could find to change that default without uninstalling msn explorer (i was there to fix her network, not install/uninstall software).
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.
User avatar
clunked
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:14 pm
Location: UK

Postby clunked » Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:44 pm

I dont think ME is too bad, its been reasonably stable on this 500mhz/192mb box. 2000/XP (which i'd much rather use) hate my motherboard and the USB WLAN adapter I use, it detects it as a damn "memory device" and refuses to work no matter what I try.

So, it looks like I'm using ME here until I (a) run a wire through my house (b) wait until the experimental support for it works well in Linux (c) I find some way to fix the problem in XP/2000 (not likely)

I suppose I dont install much on here to give it a good test when its getting crap thrown at it... :P
User avatar
corrupt
Site Admin
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 1:08 pm
Location: Danville, KY
Contact:

Postby corrupt » Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:50 pm

Heh, "stable" and "Windows ME" do not belong in the same sentence together. It is the most unstable operating system that Microsoft has EVER released. My Windows 3.11/WFW boxes were more stable I believe. It simply is trash. You should run Win2k if you can't run XP.
Josh Baird
[corrupt]@EFNet
O: irc.choopa.net
User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Postby munky » Fri Sep 12, 2003 3:06 pm

i had a roommate who was able to install and use win2k+office xp on a 486dx4 66 with 64megs of ram. it was a little slow starting winword, but once it was started, it ran pretty good.

xp requires pentium class or better (though i think there's a hack to get around that).
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest