Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Patches "Google Hack" Flaw In IE

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the you-saw-this-coming dept.

Internet Explorer 142

An anonymous reader writes "As expected, Microsoft has issued an out-of-band security patch to address a remote code execution hole in Internet Explorer that was used in the recent Chinese attacks disclosed by Google. Ars Technica has all the download links you need."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fosty patch (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852050)

a bajillion to go!

Re:fosty patch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852858)

bajaina vagina LOL vagina bajaina. vagina bajaina frosty bajaina vagina, bajaina piss bajaina vagina bajaina AAAAAAAA! bajaina. vagina RLY vagina bajaina vagina... bajaina vagina GNAA vagina bajaina vagina /. mods are little hitlers and murderers vagina bajaina vagina!!

Microsot (5, Funny)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852174)

Ugh, Microsoft! Get it right.

Re:Microsot (2, Funny)

GrosTuba (227941) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852252)

Almost as craptacualr [penny-arcade.com] as the reserachers [slashdot.org] from the front page, who unfortunately got fixed in the meantime :)

Re:Microsot (2, Funny)

burkmat (1016684) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852266)

Perhaps we should stop bashing MS all the time, after all, where would the anti-virus industry be without them?

Re:Microsot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852308)

Slashdot just needs a spell checker.

Re:Microsot (1, Funny)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852752)

Slashdot just needs a spell checker.

No... just Timmah!

Re:Microsot (4, Insightful)

draconx (1643235) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853088)

No, what slashdot needs are editors: people who read and correct errors in written works prior to publication.

Re:Microsot (1)

Alphathon (1634555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854044)

Presumably catering to whatever OS is no. 1 without them having been in the picture. Windows is not targeted for viruses because it is insecure, but because it has had probably 70%+ of the market share for the last 10-15 years at least (I don't honestly know how long they've been on top. Heck I was born in 1988 and didn't get a computer in the house 'til 1999).

Re:Microsot (3, Funny)

lousyd (459028) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852998)

I thought it was a clever, subtle jab at MS. Like, they're sots. Tiny sots.

Re:Microsot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30853444)

Should have been Microsod, because they will always sod you.

Quick turnaround! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852198)

This just goes to show that OSS is better because the fixes come out fas...

oh this was IE?

Oh...

I mean... this patch just goes to show the lax security and horrendous coding of IE!

(In all seriousness, it's actually quite nice to see the hole fixed and tested in such a quick time. I think MS actually deserves kudos for the quick turnaround and out-of-band release)

Re:Quick turnaround! (1)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852380)

The cynic in me wonders iff this wasn't such a visible and highlighted Google highlighted would they bothered to push it sooner or even at all or even to let people know there is a problem. But yes it is good you can hold publicly traded company's feet to the fire by having a few countries denounce your product which is totally unlike OSS!

Re:Quick turnaround! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852418)

The cynic in me wonders iff this wasn't such a visible and highlighted Google highlighted would they bothered to push it sooner or even at all or even to let people know there is a problem

Could you repeat that? My gibberish-to-english translator is on smoke break, and I'm nowhere near as fluent as he...

Re:Quick turnaround! (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852672)

"Has anyone really been as far as decided to use even want to go look more like?"

Re:Quick turnaround! (0, Troll)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853538)

It was more likely the source of the exploit, the Government of China using the source code provided by M$ to attack users of M$ software, pretty much a double attack, one aimed at Google and the other aimed at M$. Ballmer is likely throwing around more furniture than just chairs at the moment, "Because you, Mr. Bill Gates, are a friend of China, I'm a friend of Microsoft," http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/19/politics/main1510792.shtml?source=related_story [cbsnews.com] , with friends like M$ and the government of China, who needs enemies.

Re:Quick turnaround! (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852544)

No it goes to show how fast MS can release a patch (and out of their normal cycle) when face with a large amount of negative PR. Normal vulnerabilities usually have to wait til Patch Tuesday. But when Google announces that IE was to blame in a large number of attacks, both France and Germany advises their citizens not to use IE for a while, MS better patch it sooner than later.

Re:Quick turnaround! (3, Informative)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852916)

Apparently some of the bugs were reported to MS back in September. So it really wasn't *that* fast.

Re:Quick turnaround! (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852986)

It only proves my point. MS sat on the bugs for months and only released a patch after public disclosure by Google. How much longer would have they sat on them if it wasn't for the bad PR.

Re:Quick turnaround! (3, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853206)

How much longer would have they sat on them if it wasn't for the bad PR.

Stupid question. Answer is of course "Forever!".

Re:Quick turnaround! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30853214)

According to Computer World [computerworld.com] , Microsoft was notified about this bug last August.

Re:Quick turnaround! (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853000)

Nothing quite like two national governments recommending against using your product to raise the priority of fixing the problem.

Re:Quick turnaround! (2, Insightful)

bstone (145356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854440)

>>Nothing quite like two national governments recommending against using your product to raise the priority of fixing the problem

Nothing like people actually switching browsers in droves because of the warnings to raise the priority of fixing it. Now that they've switched, what are the chances of those lost users switching back?

Re:Quick turnaround! (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853176)

According to the BBC [bbc.co.uk] they've known about it since September. Back to the bashing as usual...

Re:Quick turnaround! NOT! (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853216)

Microsoft knew about it last September.

Re:Quick turnaround! NOT! (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853802)

They also very likely had no intention of fixing the bug, and no tenative patch. Then, the moment they start getting a boatload of bad PR from Google and a couple governments, they have a patch out extremely fast. So yes, it does prove they could have an amazing turnaround, if they spent the resources for it.

Of course... (-1, Offtopic)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852220)

...this does not apply to Mac users, because Mac's don't suffer from drive-by downloads and other malware. My PPC G5 running Safari on Snow Leopard is rock-solid and secure.

People think that Mac's are expensive, but the safety and security alone are reasons to justify the high price. The sleek, advanced looks are just the icing on the cake.

Re:Of course... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852280)

Mactard sighting above.

Re:Of course... (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852320)

...this does not apply to Mac users, because Mac's don't suffer from drive-by downloads and other malware. My PPC G5 running Safari on Snow Leopard is rock-solid and secure.

I take it you haven't heard the news? [cnet.com] Granted, it's much more secure...but not secure.

People think that Mac's are expensive, but the safety and security alone are reasons to justify the high price. The sleek, advanced looks are just the icing on the cake.

Uh...OSX is what is safe and secure...not Apple hardware. Install OSX onto a hackintosh [wikipedia.org] and it will be just as secure as your overpriced "icing". Macs ARE expensive, and the low-cost of upgrading to Snow Leopard just proves that you are paying far too much for hardware, not the software that it utilizes.

Come on. If you are gonna fanboy for a single system, at least get your facts straight.

Re:Of course... (-1, Flamebait)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852394)

Hi, you got trolled.

Re:Of course... (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852436)

"0" "O" "0"

That's how I troll.

Re:Of course... (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852698)

So you finally show up your face!! Leave MySQL alone!!!!1 Grrr!!

Re:Of course... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852918)

Yeah, but they were real gentle-like, so it wasn't too big of a deal :P

Re:Of course... (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852326)

No matter how much ass kissing you do, Steve will never give you free Apple products. So just stop.

Re:Of course... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30853102)

bajaina vagina Mac vagina bajaina. vagina bajaina PPC bajaina vagina, bajaina piss bajaina vagina bajaina Intel bajaina. vagina RLY vagina bajaina vagina... bajaina vagina UNIX vagina bajaina vagina I buy anything Apple makes vagina bajaina vagina!!

Re:Of course... (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853316)

Psh, you think your safe? Not as much as me. I don't even run a fucking computer. I'm transcribing this via telephone to a guy in Malaysia.

Re:Of course... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30854182)

Ignoring the fact the PPC Macs do not run snow leopard which comes with intel only binaries....

Re:Of course... (1)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 4 years ago | (#30855248)

You can't run Snow Leopard on a G5. Intel only

WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (5, Informative)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852236)

It will force shutdown even if you don't check the box at the end of the installer. How can this be so wrong at so many levels.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (5, Insightful)

mrjohnson (538567) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852302)

Rebooting to upgrade a browser is at least five levels of wrong!

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30854558)

Unless the patch was to the Trident libraries, in which case I can understand. Trident is the rendering engine behind MSIE, and is in use by other programs even if MSIE isn't using it.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1)

mrjohnson (538567) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854816)

Rebooting to upgrade a library because you can't replace an in-use file is 15 levels of wrong. :-)

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30855688)

Better than the alternative, which is to potentially leave software running with a still vulnerable browser, and a user with a false sense of security because they 'just installed the patch.'

Allowing libraries to be modified on disk while in use is a solution to the upgrade problem which is simple, elegant, and terribly, terribly wrong.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30854678)

You say rebooting to upgrade a browser is wrong, while I do agree, Apple does it to Safari makes me reboot my mac just as IE does.

It could be worse... (2, Interesting)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 4 years ago | (#30855204)

You could be one of those people who is stuck using XP SP1, so it won't install to begin with.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1)

dmomo (256005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30855358)

Which, most likely means it's a browser exploit, but the problem is much deeper. And why a browser's code has to go that deep? Beyond me.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852350)

Wonder if it will take Skype down again [nytimes.com] with it too.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852426)

I tested a server and a desktop (Windows 2008 R2, Windows 7) and neither auto-rebooted from the Windows Update.

What are you talking about?

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852612)

You're right my forced reboot was on XP SP3 and IE8 via downloaded patch. I installed earlier in w2k SP4 IE6 via win update and it didn't forced shutdown so it's maybe .. random(tm), still, If you unchecked the box IT SHOULD NOT RESTART! thanks good I'm a beaten wife that know this kind of things happens, didn't lose anything unsaved.

hey Adobe, would you ever port your software to Linux?? : ( Not holding my breath.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30855146)

My XP SP3 gave the dialog of restart now or later via Microsoft Update. So I chose later. Odd that directly getting the patch would be different.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852524)

That's because it is not a normal browser-an application running under an OS.
MS IE is intimately intertwined with the OS, which is why the security holes are so severe !

The patch is to the OS, not the browser probably. (have not yet read the Ars article)

Shutdown IS the fix (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852546)

It will force shutdown even if you don't check the box at the end of the installer. How can this be so wrong at so many levels.

You don't get it. Shutting down your computer IS the security fix. If you start it up again, you're back where you started - with Windows and IE.

Re:Shutdown IS the fix (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852660)

Actually you're correct, it restarted on my Mandriva install :)

Bus since I'm working in some designs I had to reboot to Windows. The forced shutdown it's more related to the patch you download, windows update does not force shutdown AFAIK.

Re:Shutdown IS the fix (1)

jisatsusha (755173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853964)

If you use Automatic Updates, and the updates it installs require a reboot, it'll show a 5 minute countdown, after which it'll forcefully reboot. If you happen to not be at the computer when it does, you can say goodbye to any unsaved work you might have had.

Re:Shutdown IS the fix (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30854644)

Why would you walk away from your pc for more than 5 minutes without saving anyhow. Comments like this just make me wanna scream dumbass.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854250)

I use Win7 and it installed then said it was done. No reboot or prompt/question to reboot.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854508)

nvm. There was a different out of band critical update that didn't require a reboot. This one did need a reboot to take effect, but it didn't force it.

Re:WTF! FORCED SHUTDOWN (0, Flamebait)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854874)

I should have recoded the update, oh wait, It would have fucked up the recording. I left unchecked the "restart now" because I was about to update firefox too but then "oh noes" Dreamweaver, uTorrent (I had to re-check something I was downloading aka KILL), Opera, photoshop and Windows Explorer just started to close at the same time AND THEY CLOSED FASTER than closing them up one by one, it was a forced shutdown. Why would I made up this?

I'm happy you didn't suffer the annoyances from "random Microsoft bug"(tm) : )

Just a thought. (2, Interesting)

burkmat (1016684) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852410)

Now, if I had that kind of exploit (along with the Windows source code) to play with, and the skills to individually target a specific Google machine, I'd sure as hell make sure to sneak my exploit into the soon-to-appear Microsoft patch site...

And honestly, so far the chinese have struck me as the competent types.

Re:Just a thought. (3, Interesting)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852756)

And honestly, so far the chinese have struck me as the competent types.

The several thousand failed attack attempts in my logs would care to disagree.

Re:Just a thought. (1)

burkmat (1016684) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852984)

Do you really think they'd keep it up if it wasn't successful to some extent? :)

Re:Just a thought. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30854776)

If a million... no, if a billion monkeys doing random keystrokes go at it for a billion years then yes... eventually your server will go down...

Google has BACKED DOWN in China (2, Insightful)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852416)

This is a bit off-topic but I have nowhere else to post this. I have attempted to post the reports that Google has backed down in China and re-enabled search result filtering in Google.cn despite of the lack of REAL actions from the Chinese government [slashdot.org] in the last two days, but /. editors keep refusing to put this relevant in the headline. Right, how can we be critical of our new found American hero defending the precious "freedom" and fighting the evil China? How can a hero backing down to the evil China? Hero can't make fundamental principle error, or you are not allowed to know when it does. Can someone find a way to post this news report (which can be verified search "June 4" in google.cn [google.cn] and which I can't find any English language sources)?!

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852626)

Actually they haven't removed censorship yet. They would be talking with the Chinese government about a way to provide an uncensored search within the law.

"We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."

A new approach to China [blogspot.com]

So, we're still on hold as to if they will remove censorship.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (0)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852728)

As mentioned in my post and in /. front page last week, google has suspeneded the filtering after their announcement. Why re-enabled rather quietly? That part I have problem with. If they have stood up, why backed down? (And the Chinese government only made some general stanard statement, no real threat either. Why is that not mentioned in Western media?) all in all, I'm as disappointed by our media as by the CCP's.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30853966)

The link in the article [publicaddress.net] , even on the day it was posted on slashdot, talked about conflicting reports.

Current status @ 07:20 NZT, 02:20 Beijing time, 14-01-10: Still conflicting reports coming out. It could be that Google has already lifted its own censorship measures. Or it could be that the censorship measures are still up, but because of the intense interest generated (and click-thrus) on sensitive subjects, small holes in the wall are being publicised and magnified.

That was probably some over-enthusiastic blog. Google would have officially annouced it if it had lifted censorship. Last official status from Google is that they're talking to the Chinese.

I know people don't read articles here, but let's just hold our horses for an official announcement on Google's status. =)

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1)

elFisico (877213) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852662)

Hmm, searching for "Tianamen" in images still gives you pictures of the student in front of the tank. Isn't this supposed to be censored as well?!

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30852732)

Calling China "evil" is childish, naive, narrow-minded, and stupid.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853142)

Calling China "evil" is childish, naive, narrow-minded, and stupid.

As long as China is killing people for cheating on their taxes and harvesting their organs, then selling them on the world market, then they are evil. As long as they are imprisoning Christians for their religious beliefs, gang-raping them and sending them to work camps to make plastic gewgaws (like christmas lights) for sale in the US, they are evil. And as long as we buy them, we are also evil.

Why, oh why, have you not logged in? Could it be because you know your ideas are not worth the attachment of a name?

abuse of moderation (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853340)

"Troll" does not mean "anything with which I disagree". It is trivial to find citations for the examples I give above. Try the China Aid Society first. Or read up on the Chinese Death Vans — they execute ten times more people per capita than the USA that they admit to and actually had vehicles created for the purpose. The condemned enter the vehicle, and they never leave — and their family is not permitted to see the body, which is considered extremely important by nearly all peoples on the planet. Organ supplies coming from China are all out of proportion.

Way to try to bury my opinion (on evil) and the facts (on China) at the same time, though.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (4, Informative)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852794)

Looks pretty un-censored to me. images:tiananmen square [google.cn]

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853374)

I don't think so.

English version: a few pretty colorful images, one broken bicycle image, 11 tank men.

Chinese version: 1 tank man, one broken bicycle image, 14 pretty pictures.

Looks censored to me, with one tank and one broken bicycle so it doesn't look whitewashed.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (2, Funny)

kramulous (977841) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853380)

Yup. This [redbubble.net] poor bastard was never seen again.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853620)

Doesnt really make a difference. The great Firewall of China [wikipedia.org] inspects packets for certain words and spoofs a RST packet to break the connection and blocks that IP for x amount of time. I doubt the Chinese can actually see those results. I wouldnt be surprised if the results were IP based (if china IP then censor).

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854256)

Try to search in Chinese http://images.google.cn/images?q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8%E5%B9%BF%E5%9C%BA&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&gbv=2&hl=zh-CN&um=1&sa=2&start=0 [google.cn]

Generally, the Chinese government does not censor most English contents but almost all Chinese contents.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852900)

Uum, you know that you can submit stories for the firehose. If it’s interesting (as in this case) it should quickly get voted to the top, and then get put the front page.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854304)

Thanks. I can try there

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1)

kramer2718 (598033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852926)

Mod Parent Up!

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853136)

I probably shouldn't respond to this but Google did the right thing. Their employees would be jailed and maybe even executed if they refuse to follow chinese law while operating inside the country. It would be extremely foolish of them to disregard Chinese law while still operating inside the country because as I said it could even get some innocent employee killed. If they abandon the Chinese market and then still keep the results censored, then you have a complaint but until they pull out the Chinese government could do bad things to innocent people to punish the corporation.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30853152)

AFAIK, Google never announced that they stopped censoring. So claiming that they "backed-down" is disingenuous. They've already made good on their threat by delaying the release of 2 phones pending talks with the government. Feel free to lambast them once they've concluded the talks and yet still censor results.

Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China (1)

Tanman (90298) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853478)

I hate to say it, but everyone who thinks Google is going to stand up to losing that much profit (and China IS a land of opportunity for corporations) is fooling themselves. Google is not your friend. Google is a MARKETING COMPANY. They do data mining and advertising. I have no clue why everyone has such a glint in their eye when they think about them.

Google only published this attack as a method of negotiating with the Chinese. Nothing more.

What if IE could be uninstalled? (4, Interesting)

davet2001 (1550151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30852740)

Since I never use IE and never intend to, it's a shame that there's no uninstall option in XP.

Removing IE would save me bandwidth on all the patches and more importantly spare me the forced reboots.

I'd probably find that a lot of rendered local text would stop working without IE such as help pages, but I usually find google more effective than built in help these days any way.

Re:What if IE could be uninstalled? (3, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853058)

Removing IE is easy, its a wrapper GUI around a browser engine. Delete iexplore.exe, there you deleted IE.

The rendering engine is in a shared DLL thats used by just about everything now days, even if the app doesn't use the renderer directly, the built in help system is HTML based and uses the shared library for its renderer.

Its also used by HTML style dialogs, which are basically dialogs that use HTML to define the layout rather than the old style dialog resources.

This isn't really different from any other modern OS which uses HTML all over the place. I can't think of any modern desktop OS that doesn't have massive dependancies on an HTML renderer.

Re:What if IE could be uninstalled? (3, Interesting)

WraithCube (1391567) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854224)

Troll? I know the parent missed the point of the GP that the operating system should not depend on an html rendering engine of a buggy browser, but is quite far from a troll. He brings up a good point. There are a lot of apps that for right or wrong use the IE rendering engine, including plenty of in house applications.

As far as removing IE goes, iexplorer.exe will get rid of the gui leaving just the engine behind it. However, removing an html rendering engine should not break an operating system. Years ago I mistakenly tried to forcibly remove the rest of the engine from windows xp and ended up with more errors and problems than I could figure out. It breaks windows explorer and if I remember correctly causes internet connection problems since connection properties are configured through IE.

Though I would have to call into question how much any modern OS depends on an HTML renderer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both KDE and GNOME would be able to operate with only minor lost functionality without an html rendering engine. I know khelp uses an html library (that oddly is not installed in opensuse by default). GTK+ and QT can both use webkit, but are in no way dependent on it.

Somebody get BitZtream an English coach please (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30854662)

See subject and please: Learn to write more than 2 words to make your points. Your "see dick and jane run" prose in your replies truly and absolutely sucks.

Re:Why not just disable it instead. (2, Interesting)

Old Flatulent 1 (1692076) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853094)

here [techsupportalert.com] is a good way to disable IE and make sure that nothing can access it and all stupefied widows only morons will be forced to use the default browser you set up. There sure as heck would not have a clue as to why IE will not work.

Then remove the entries from the start menu and take all the icons off the desktop. Of course this is not practical with XP but will work just fine with vista and 7 as the updates are independent of the default browser. It will work if you control the updates in XP and only enable IE when a critical update happens.

Re:What if IE could be uninstalled? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30853328)

You can use this website to uninstall IE completely: http://www.ubuntu.com/GetUbuntu/download [ubuntu.com]

Re:What if IE could be uninstalled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30854532)

Add or Remove Programs >> Add/Remove Windows Components >> uncheck IE >>click next

Re:What if IE could be uninstalled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30854614)

If you upgrade to Windows 7, you can uninstall MSIE. Go to Control Panel -> Programs and Features -> Change Features. Un-check Internet Explorer, click OK, and it will be uninstalled.

You cannot, however, remove the Trident rendering engine used by MSIE. That engine is used by other applications, such as Steam.

There's times you MAY use it not intending to (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30854906)

"Since I never use IE and never intend to" - by davet2001 (1550151) on Thursday January 21, @05:18PM (#30852740)

See my subject-line above, & realize, that SOME apps do not launch by "filetype associations" & FORCE a user into launching IE!

(Those apps should do it by your default browser file association, ala ShellExecute type API calls for instance in the Win32 API, which would INSTEAD summon the default webbrowser associated with webbrowser files like .html/.htm type file extensions etc. / et al):

An example thereof would be one like WinVulnScan:

Now, before I go anywhere pointing out that is "wrong" with it? Well, first of all - The author of it has the RIGHT IDEA in his application & by ALL MEANS!

HOWEVER, THE "PROBLEM":

He "forces" a user to use IE in it!

(As to that happening? Well - My guess is, is that he "hardcoded in" the actual std. commandline for IE into his app is why)...

Still - it's a decent app that helps secure your system though, by finding out what the latest patches are for your Windows NT-based OS' that your system lacks (easy to write one like it too pretty much, but, who has the time anymore (my days of shareware/freeware creation for instance, are LONG behind me now, & trust me: It's WORK, especially fielding users' requests & such)).

Fact is? Well - I've been thinking of writing that fellow (the dev of WinVulnScan) & running this idea by he... I just might @ that, now that I noted it here.

APK

P.S.=> Just pointing out an actual instance, with an application no less, that FORCES the use of IE on a user (albeit, not the BEST ONE probably, it was all I could come up with on "short-notice" is all)!

HOWEVER - There ARE other apps too, that do the same, mind you!

(Thank goodness though, the author of WinVulnScan only directs users to MS sites, which are MORE-OR-LESS, safer than others probably are (MS does get decent talent in coders (e.g.-> Dr. Mark Russinovich & Mr. Anders Heijelsberg as 2 examples thereof whom I respect a great deal for their accomplishments in this "art & science" of computing for example) & I expect their network tech/network administrator/network engineering staff is doubtless of EQUAL CALIBRE on that end also))... apk

How did they pull it off though? (1)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853254)

So IE has a buffer overrun. This wasn't something on port 135...so how did the Chineese get in.

Did it get in via a viewing of an email inside of Outlook?
Did some stupid user visit a bad site sent thru email?

The end user had to go to a site which then allowed a trojan to get install...is this what happened?

I came, I duped, I duped again (1)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853324)

I know it's exam season Slashdot, but seriously - my lecturers would be proud:

Say what you are going to say
Microsoft To Ship Emergency IE Patch [slashdot.org]

Say it
Microsoft To Issue Emergency IE Patch [slashdot.org]

Say what you said
Microsoft Patches "Google Hack" Flaw In IE [slashdot.org]

Thanks Microsoft! (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853404)

I just remembered I hadn't ran `sudo apt-get upgrade` for a month or two.

Not that there's much danger of me getting hacked, but that's a 100mb download. Just imagine how much crap I'd be downloading if you waited for patch Tuesday!

I thought that read "Patents" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30853740)

So China will have to pay IE royalties next time.

Am I the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30853800)

...who read "Patents" instead of "Patches"?

*shudders*

"out-of-band" (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30853960)

Ooooh, we all talk like com techs. Aren't we all so clever?

PR Spin (1)

liam193 (571414) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854828)

Am I the only one who thinks the headline on this reads like common media spin? So basically Microsoft has a bug that happened to be used against Google and the headline reads like Google was doing some hacking. This only leaves me wondering how much did the Microsoft PR people paid to get that worded that way.

Re:PR Spin (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 4 years ago | (#30855198)

Probably a googol Internet dollars. At today's conversion rates, that's roughly a brazillion USD.

Ars Technica (1)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 4 years ago | (#30854926)

Ars Technica has all the download links you need

And here they are... [arstechnica.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?