Old 9th September 2002, 02:45   #81
BDA7DD
Senior Member
 
BDA7DD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada, eh?
Posts: 185
Send a message via ICQ to BDA7DD Send a message via AIM to BDA7DD Send a message via Yahoo to BDA7DD
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaz
3.0 DOESN'T EVEN SUPPORT CSS, DOES IT?
Hell, 6.0 hardly supports CSS. It supports the core specifications for CSS1 and CSS2 (the core specifications are the extremely limited "bare essentials", not the entire specifications,) and has no CSS3 support whatsoever. Mozilla has FULL support for the ENTIRE CSS1 and CSS2 specifications, and although it doesn't yet support ALL of the CSS3 specification, it supports quite a lot of it for what it does have and the developers are working hard to get Mozilla to be fully CSS3 compliant.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jaz
As my Computer Illiterate dad says: If it works, use it, no need to upgrade.
Computer software is the LAST thing in the world you should take the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" attitude towards. It may "work", but it may also be full of security holes and such. Also, new versions mean more new features and improvements on existing features. Besides, the more new software versions come out, the more the support for the older versions start to dwindle. Microsoft's tech support department doesn't officially support Windows 95 anymore, and I'm pretty sure they don't support Internet Explorer 3.0 anymore either (if they still do, then they probably won't be for much longer.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jaz
How do you change your profile, signature, and so on anyway? I just log in and post... Is it that 'My Control Panel' thing?
Yes, that's the one. Click on "My Control Panel", then look in "Edit Profile" and "Edit Options" for a plethora of customizable settings.
BDA7DD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2002, 18:37   #82
virulent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 137
Send a message via AIM to virulent
Hrm. I just tried to post this and things got messed up, so lets try again. Hopefully I rememeber what I was saying.

Ok, I have a question for you "browser gurus". Since we're talking CSS here, I'd like to bring up that IE is the only browser that supports scrollable layers. You can take a look at my old website for an example of what Im talking about. (please excuse the mess and the out-of-date-ness).

www.violentfluid.com

What you see is 3 "windows". What that actually is, is one background, created in Photoshop, with texted placed in layers made to fit the windows I created on the background. Now, this is a really good way to design a webpage in my opinion. It allows me to make custom graphics in Photoshop and design the actual elements in it, such as the transparent windows. Then I can just stick the text in on top of it in whatever manner I wish. It comes out looking very nice.

The problem with this, though, is that IE is the only browser that supports the scrollable layer like I have on the bottom left. I'm in the process of developing a new page and I have to do all sorts of crazy frames to make it compatable with all browsers. I hate frames. So whats the deal? Is it not a part of the CSS specification to make layers scrollable? Is that an IE only property? Either way, its really nice.
virulent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2002, 01:01   #83
BDA7DD
Senior Member
 
BDA7DD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada, eh?
Posts: 185
Send a message via ICQ to BDA7DD Send a message via AIM to BDA7DD Send a message via Yahoo to BDA7DD
Quote:
Originally posted by virulent
I'd like to bring up that IE is the only browser that supports scrollable layers.
You mean like this? Because if so, not only can Mozilla do it, but it can do it MUCH better than IE. Then again, this might be completely different from what you're talking about.

But as for IE being the only browser that can do this CSS feature, either you're lying (since Mozilla has full support for CSS1 and CSS2, unlike IE,) or it's just another one of IE's stupid non-standard CSS "additions" (which Mozilla won't ever support until and unless it becomes officially accepted as an addition to the CSS standard by the W3C, which is the way it should be done anyway.)
BDA7DD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2002, 12:30   #84
virulent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 137
Send a message via AIM to virulent
Uhm, why would I lie when asking a question?

Go to the site I posted. Im using Mozilla *right* now. The text doesn't stay in the layer, it just goes down the page. If you scroll down the page itself, you can read the text. What I'm talking about is the text itself staying inside a layer with a scroll bar on the side of the layer itself.

Again, why would I be lying. Look at the previously posted website with IE, then with Mozilla. You'll see what Im talking about. That page was made with Dreamweaver, so either Dreamweaver is writes non-standard IE only code or Mozilla doesn't support it. Believe me, if it did support it, it would make my life much easier.
virulent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2002, 21:17   #85
BDA7DD
Senior Member
 
BDA7DD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada, eh?
Posts: 185
Send a message via ICQ to BDA7DD Send a message via AIM to BDA7DD Send a message via Yahoo to BDA7DD
Quote:
Originally posted by virulent
Go to the site I posted. Im using Mozilla *right* now. The text doesn't stay in the layer, it just goes down the page. If you scroll down the page itself, you can read the text. What I'm talking about is the text itself staying inside a layer with a scroll bar on the side of the layer itself.

Look at the previously posted website with IE, then with Mozilla. You'll see what Im talking about.
Hmm... I see. However, that page does NOT follow the proper CSS specification, it uses IE-specific "add ons."

Quote:
Originally posted by virulent
That page was made with Dreamweaver, so either Dreamweaver is writes non-standard IE only code or Mozilla doesn't support it.
Dreamweaver only writes non-standard IE code if you tell it to, which I'm guessing you did, since support for non-standard features in Dreamweaver is disabled by default. This is because Dreamweaver is designed with cross-browser compatibility in mind. However, if you're using an older version of Dreamweaver, it'll write non-standard code no matter what.

Dreamweaver MX 6.0 (which I use) follows proper W3C specifications, including the most important web standard of them all, HTML 4.01 Transitional. Your pages don't even have a DOCTYPE declaration, the first and most prominent sign of a web page which doesn't follow proper web standards.

Also, to quote some things from your site:

Quote:
I realise that "layers" are not W3 compliant
You're right, layers aren't W3C compliant. However, you can get the same effects that you can get with layers using CSS instead. Take note that layers and CSS are not one in the same.

Quote:
I'm sorry if layers are an evil MS invention
Layers are an invention of Netscape, not Microsoft. Support for layers was pulled from Netscape as of version 6.0 to promote standards compliancy, but Microsoft decided to add layer support in IE at some time (I forget which version of IE was the first to support it.) Get your facts straight.

Quote:
Lets face it, the Battle of the Browsers is over. IE won.
Bullshit. The battle is still being waged, and if you ask me, IE isn't looking so good.

Netscape is already doomed to lose, that's a given. Netscape is nothing but old builds of Mozilla with tons of bloat packed on. Netscape sucks, plain and simple.

Mozilla and Opera, however, still have a fighting chance. As a matter of fact, Mozilla looks like it's winning due to its portability, its usage in other browser projects (K-Meleon, Galeon, Netscape, AOL 8.0, etc.) and its standards compliancy.

IE has a leg up over Opera, though, since IE is free, doesn't have forced ad banners and it renders more pages properly than Opera. Even though Opera has better standards support, it's more of a matter of quantity than quality. Opera supports a larger selection of standards, but the support for each individual standard is usually for old versions of their respective specifications.

Quote:
If Netscape wants to compete at all, I think they need to adopt some "MS innovations".
Netscape doesn't want to compete. They've pretty much displayed that with their obvious incompetence anyway. Mozilla, on the other hand, is a different story. Also, CSS is not an "MS innovation" by any stretch of the imagination. CSS is developed by the community of open-source programmers, not by Microsoft code monkeys. If CSS was a Microsoft thing, you could bet your ass they'd close the source on Internet Explorer's CSS rendering engine and refuse to licence it to anybody in an attempt to make IE bigger.

Quote:
If a good majority of webpages are designed to use IE then its not really giving in to include IE features, its simply making a browser that *works*.
Here's my position on this: If a good majority of web pages are designed to use IE, there are a lot of shitty and incompetent self-proclaimed "webmasters" out there. Find some better cross-browser compatible web sites if the ones you currently visit choke on anything but IE.

Quote:
Simply speaking, you either include the features that people are using, or people don't use your browser.
Now that's a pretty damn stupid idea. As said above, "webmasters" who use IE-specific features need to get some friggin' education on proper cross-browser compatible web design. For those who use FrontPage to design their web pages, they need to get some sense beaten into them.

Finally, for all these "features" about Internet Explorer that you love, I present to you the following examples of beautiful things that can be done using proper open web standards. These will only work in Mozilla and other browsers that properly follow the latest W3C specifications, and suffice it to say, they will NOT work on Internet Explorer:

Last edited by BDA7DD; 11th September 2002 at 21:59.
BDA7DD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th September 2002, 22:37   #86
virulent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 137
Send a message via AIM to virulent
Ok. A appreciate the information but Im aware of this already. As I said, it is my old page coded at the begining of the year (check the dates on the posts) when I didn't know standards from my ass. What I knew was that using Dreamweaver (MX was not avalible at the time it was coded) resulted in a page that only IE could render properly. Your tangent is taken with a grain of salt, however, because I know better due to educating myself on web creation a bit since the original conception of that page.

What Im asking you is whether Mozilla/Opera/Etc are able to do what Im looking to do. I thank you for informing me that the page *is* coded with IE specific things. That is what I was wondering about. I do not claim to be a super "webmaster" only a person that is attempting to make a new page that is standards compliant (after educating myself on what that means) and looking for a way to make my new ideas work in all browsers.

I think you need to calm down a little bit. You seem a little to agressive about web browsers. Take a deep breath man.
virulent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2002, 19:44   #87
Delicates
Junior Member
 
Delicates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney - Australia
Posts: 38
Send a message via ICQ to Delicates
Quote:
Originally posted by virulent
...Ok, I have a question for you "browser gurus"...
Your page fails both HTML and CSS Validation miserably.

In particular, in front of every rule that *tries* to implement your scrolling, you have "//-->". What is that? CSS has no such syntax. Yes JavaScript comments are done with "//", but CSS doesn't define how to handle those bizzare rules and as such they should be ignored, what Mozilla correctly (unlike IE) does. I would recommend you getting rid of all the comments in there.

If you bothered to learn some web standards, you would see that almost anything is possible with them.
---------------------
Anyways,

Stable release of Mozilla 1.0.1 came out. So if you're looking for stability and a solid bowser, this is it. Also bleeding edge 1.2alpha release is out (use at your own risk). Which is for you, if you are after new funky features and don't mind it crashing, losing your data and burning your house to the ground.

1.1 release is still there, which has a bit of both stability and features.

So take your pick and be happy.
Delicates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th September 2002, 19:56   #88
virulent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 137
Send a message via AIM to virulent
Quote:
If you bothered to learn some web standards, you would see that almost anything is possible with them.
If you bothered to read the above post you'd see that I've already explained what that page was created with, why what BDA7DD said was absolutly correct, and that I admited to not knowing anything about standards at the time the page was created.

As far as "bizzare rules" goes, I suggest you speak with Macromedia, as it was their software that put them there. Again, as I already said, I've read a lot about web creation since the original conception and coding of that page ealier this year. What I asked here was whether or not what was done on that site could be done in a way that would fit standards and allow all browsers to view it. I wasn't aware that it was coded with IE only features, hence my very first post asking the question.

You people seem to be a very poor goup to get answers from. Rather than being educated on something I didn't happen to know (which is WHY I asked in the first place), I get condecending remarks made with each reply.
virulent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2002, 19:41   #89
NetAddict
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 6
Send a message via AIM to NetAddict
New IE Vulnerabilities -- Again

Finland-based Online Solutions has recently posted to several security mailing lists regarding multiple serious vulnerabilities in the Java VM of Microsoft Internet Explorer. The vulnerabilities range from file reading exposures, to buffer overruns and other more serious vulnerabilities allowing code to run on the vulnerable system.

Reportedly, the vulnerabilities occur in native code called by "safe" system classes added to the VM by Microsoft for integration purposes.

In a separate advisory, a group of Israeli researchers at GreyMagic have announced yet another vulnerability impacting pages with FRAME or IFRAME tags -- those pages can be used to attack visitors via a cross-domain scripting flaw.

GreyMagic explains that frames can be hijacked because DOM checking is performed, but checking is not performed on potential security violations in calls to window methods. By setting the location.href property of the frame to javascript: URLs, it is possible to hijack the frame for the purposes of running script as the opener of the frame.

This vulnerability is further worsened by the fact that many versions of Windows (Win98 and later) ship with static resources containing frames, such as "readme.htm", that can be used to access local files, as well as run script in the zone of "My Computer", which runs without any security restrictions.

GreyMagic also provided a simple demonstration that easily bypassed the protection against accessing res:// URLs in IE 6.0 SP1 with a simple HTTP redirect.
NetAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2002, 11:20   #90
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
The following is not a direct IE vulnerability. Rather, it's in Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine.

There are a couple of flaws in the JDBC implementation of Microsoft's JVM, which can lead to arbitrary code execution. MS Security Bulletin here. All versions of Windows with any Microsoft JVM installed, up to and including MS JVM version 5.0.3805 (i.e. all current JVM versions), are affected.

At the time of this post, Microsoft is only providing updates through Windows Update. However, Microsoft expects to release KB article Q329077 (not yet a valid link at the time of this post) soon, which will discuss this flaw in details and will probably provide direct download links for security fixes.

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2002, 15:43   #91
BDA7DD
Senior Member
 
BDA7DD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada, eh?
Posts: 185
Send a message via ICQ to BDA7DD Send a message via AIM to BDA7DD Send a message via Yahoo to BDA7DD
I'm surprised nobody's commented on the security flaw in Windows XP (pre-SP1) that allows a simple one-line URL to delete the entire contents of your hard disk volumes. The Register has an article explaining about this.

At the Something Awful Forums, which I am a member of, "alyandon" had this to say about this security flaw:

Quote:
(This security flaw) goes way beyond a simple fucking bug/oversight and wanders into MAJOR FUCKING STUPIDITY. They are passing an input parameter UNCHECKED to a component/script that can delete files. I've NEVER had flaws like this in my code because I am meticulous about such things when it comes to exposing a component interface that can theoretically be called from anywhere. I was on a discussion board last night where someone had posted a link to a supposedly relevant article -- and I wondered why the hell "hcp://system/DFS/uplddrvinfo.htm?file://c:\*" showed up when I clicked on the link. Good damn thing I don't run pre-SP1 XP.

What kind of brain damaged tards does Microsoft hire that would ever write code for an externally loadable component that doesn't sanity check input parameters? What kind of fucking half-assed code review practices does Microsoft have in place that can't even catch these types of fundamental errors?
I couldn't agree with him more. This really is a stupid and dangerous error which should never have existed. I hope whoever's responsible for this flaw is fired from Microsoft and shot in the face at point blank with a sawed off shotgun. What a fucking moron...

Quote:
Originally posted by griffinn
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine.
I have Sun's Java 2 Runtime Environment installed and told it to be the default runtime environment for Java applets in IE and NS6/Mozilla. Does this mean I'm immune to this vulnerability?
BDA7DD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 00:14   #92
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
Quote:
Originally posted by BDA7DD
I have Sun's Java 2 Runtime Environment installed and told it to be the default runtime environment for Java applets in IE and NS6/Mozilla. Does this mean I'm immune to this vulnerability?
Try running "jview" from the command line. If it exists, that means you have the Microsoft JVM installed somewhere, in which case it would be wise to patch it anyway. You never know when some smart guy might find a way to reset your IE settings using a combination of unpublished flaws, and then exploit the Java vulnerability.

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2002, 00:18   #93
NetAddict
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 6
Send a message via AIM to NetAddict
The MS Java VM vulnerabilities do not impact users of the Sun Microsystems VM. MS are the erring party in these vulnerabilities.

However, MS has a history of not respecting defaults. As such, the MS virtual machine will load in IE in most cases.

I will have to say that the Windows XP hole was about the dumbest coding error Microsoft have ever made. :-)
NetAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2002, 22:30   #94
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
Another "critical" bug:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...n/MS02-065.asp

This time it's the MDAC component that's pre-installed in Windows XP/2000/ME by default, and comes as a standalone component (but is installed by most people anyway) in other versions of Windows.

This is a big one as it affects both web servers (those running IIS) and web clients (virtually everybody). Details about the exploit are sketchy, but it seems it involves a malicious web page making use of a buffer overflow condition to trigger Outlook 98/2000 to execute arbitrary code. The security bulletin states those who have set Outlook Express 6 or Outlook 2002 as their default mail client are not affected.

Go read the security bulletin (technical version, newbie-friendly version), and patch now.

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2002, 23:21   #95
BDA7DD
Senior Member
 
BDA7DD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada, eh?
Posts: 185
Send a message via ICQ to BDA7DD Send a message via AIM to BDA7DD Send a message via Yahoo to BDA7DD
Quote:
Originally posted by NetAddict
However, MS has a history of not respecting defaults. As such, the MS virtual machine will load in IE in most cases.
No problem there! I use Mozilla like every sane individual should be doing.
BDA7DD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2002, 00:29   #96
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
Ooh, Microsoft is getting busy tonight. Two more security bulletins:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...n/MS02-050.asp
This is an update on the SSL certificate chain validation bug previously reported here. Apparently, the previous fix itself was flawed, and it didn't address all the issues. Go read the bulletin again, and apply the new patch (even if you've applied it before).

Techie: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...n/MS02-066.asp
Newbie: http://www.microsoft.com/security/se...s/ms02-066.asp
This is a cumulative patch, the motherlode of all patches, for IE 5.01/5.5/6.0. Read, download and patch now. (No, it doesn't include the fix for the SSL certificate chain validation bug, for some reason.)

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2002, 09:05   #97
Twilightseer
Frenchoderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lavabo, fond du couloir, 3è porte à droite
Posts: 6,309
Apparently, a site has decided to specialize in fixing all of IE's security holes.

www.mozilla.org

Twilightseer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2002, 11:22   #98
binary hero
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,004
Send a message via ICQ to binary hero
Quote:
Originally posted by griffinn
Apparently, the previous fix itself was flawed, and it didn't address all the issues
is it me, or is that one of the most stupid things you can do? make a security patch that doesn't work...
binary hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st November 2002, 11:38   #99
Twilightseer
Frenchoderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lavabo, fond du couloir, 3è porte à droite
Posts: 6,309
Binary,

Griff didn't say the patch doesn't work. The patch does work. The only problem is that by fixing the problem, the patch creates other problems which themselves need a patch and so on. This whole process is what keeps Microsoft alive, actually
Twilightseer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th November 2002, 06:05   #100
BDA7DD
Senior Member
 
BDA7DD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada, eh?
Posts: 185
Send a message via ICQ to BDA7DD Send a message via AIM to BDA7DD Send a message via Yahoo to BDA7DD
Quote:
Originally posted by Twilightseer
Apparently, a site has decided to specialize in fixing all of IE's security holes.

www.mozilla.org

Gya ha ha ha ha...
BDA7DD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2002, 04:54   #101
Delicates
Junior Member
 
Delicates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney - Australia
Posts: 38
Send a message via ICQ to Delicates
Mozilla 1.2 is out.

Check out new document prefetching and Type Ahead Find features.
Delicates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2002, 07:41   #102
BDA7DD
Senior Member
 
BDA7DD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada, eh?
Posts: 185
Send a message via ICQ to BDA7DD Send a message via AIM to BDA7DD Send a message via Yahoo to BDA7DD
Quote:
Originally posted by Delicates
Mozilla 1.2 is out.
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!
BDA7DD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th November 2002, 13:07   #103
binary hero
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 7,004
Send a message via ICQ to binary hero
Quote:
Originally posted by Twilightseer
Binary,

Griff didn't say the patch doesn't work. The patch does work. The only problem is that by fixing the problem, the patch creates other problems which themselves need a patch and so on. This whole process is what keeps Microsoft alive, actually
aah, that makes sense now.
binary hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2002, 00:43   #104
virulent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 137
Send a message via AIM to virulent
Gah. Why does Mozilla still not have xft support enabled? AA'd fonts are so sweet. I tried compiling from CVS and failed miserably. -_- I just want pretty fonts. *wines*
virulent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2002, 03:52   #105
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
Quote:
Originally posted by virulent
Why does Mozilla still not have xft support enabled?
Um, it does. You just need a modern freetype library, and a modern xfree86, and a modern window manager.
Attached Images
File Type: png moz11.png (23.9 KB, 204 views)

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2002, 15:01   #106
virulent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 137
Send a message via AIM to virulent
d00t!

You're right. It said in the release notes for 1.2 that xft wasn't enabled yet (still). I knew there was *some* sort of support for it, but I thought you had to compile it from source to turn it on.
virulent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2002, 20:22   #107
Delicates
Junior Member
 
Delicates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney - Australia
Posts: 38
Send a message via ICQ to Delicates
There are at least 2 problems that happened to Mozilla 1.2 release:
  • Apparently some of the patches and fixes that are on 1.2 branch that should of been int it, are mysteriously missing from the release. (See bug 182506)
  • One patch on the branch has been backed out incorrectly, and this is causing a lot of grief. (See bug 182500)

Note, these are merely screwups in the branch management which affect this release, the main Mozilla trunk is free of these. So don't panic if you find yourself being unable to use some sites.
I'm not sure what they are going to do about it, and while first problem isn't critical, the second problem at the moment is a pain, so they (hopefully) might fix the release. If not, 1.2 will stay crippled until a next "stable" release comes out (planned for Feburary).

Alternatively 1.3alpha release is gong to come out in a week or two, with some absolutely fantastic new features. It won't have the above screwup, however being an alpha release will ofcoarse be Use-at-your-own-risk(TM).
Delicates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th November 2002, 20:31   #108
Delicates
Junior Member
 
Delicates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sydney - Australia
Posts: 38
Send a message via ICQ to Delicates
Oops, ofcoarse the Feburary 1.3 release won't be called stable. Just a release.

The next "stable" 1.4 release will actually come around May.

so yeah, a big bummer.
let's hope they decide to fix it.
Delicates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st December 2002, 03:56   #109
virulent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 137
Send a message via AIM to virulent
Just rebuilt Mozilla 1.2b from source with xft enabled as I couldn't figure out how to make it work with the standard build of 1.2 (which I noticed they've taken off the page for the reasons outlined above). In any case, it rocks. Fonts look beautiful. The best keeps getting better.
virulent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd December 2002, 04:29   #110
BDA7DD
Senior Member
 
BDA7DD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada, eh?
Posts: 185
Send a message via ICQ to BDA7DD Send a message via AIM to BDA7DD Send a message via Yahoo to BDA7DD
Mozilla v1.2.1 was released yesterday. It's pretty much the same as Mozilla v1.2, the only difference being that they fixed that atrocious DHTML bug.
BDA7DD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th December 2002, 21:55   #111
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
Another cumulative patch for Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6.0. It contains all previous fixes plus a new one that "eliminates a newly discovered flaw in Internet Explorer's cross-domain security model" (which allows scripts on one site to see the content of pages you've visited on another site, under special circumstances).

Geeks read this; newbies read this; all download this.

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2002, 12:30   #112
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
Another vulnerability... This one is a Microsoft Java Virtual Machine bug. It affects IE but is strictly speaking not a direct IE security flaw.

Newbie link: http://www.microsoft.com/security/se...s/ms02-069.asp
Techie link: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec...n/MS02-069.asp

The patch fixes "eight vulnerabilities, the most serious of which would enable an attacker to gain control over another user's system." All variations of the attack are carried out using a malicious web page.

The patch seems to be available only through Windows Update.

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2002, 12:36   #113
Twilightseer
Frenchoderator
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lavabo, fond du couloir, 3è porte à droite
Posts: 6,309
And as always, a 10Mb or so GLOBAL fix for all IE's security flaws can be downloaded at www.mozilla.org
Twilightseer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2003, 01:21   #114
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
Microsoft has released another cumulative patch for IE 5.01/5.5/6.0 for a code execution exploit. "As usual", this bug can be triggered by visiting a malicious website and the intruder can read your files or execute arbitrary code on your machine using a specially crafted URL.

Read the security bulletin for nerds and / or mere mortals, and download the patch.

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2003, 15:03   #115
griffinn
Court Jester
(Forum King)
 
griffinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Your local toystore
Posts: 3,501
Send a message via ICQ to griffinn
Another cumulative patch for Internet Explorer 5.x and 6.0 has been issued. The security issues addressed by this patch are rated as critical.

Customer bulletin

Technical bulletin

Patch (for most people)

Patch (for IE 6.0 for Windows Server 2003)

The smiley slot machine! | Quotable Blog
griffinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump