Another Cumulative Patch for Internet Explorer

[Roy]

In article <Xns940B54406300Erobin2803@62.253.162.114>, robin2803
@hotmail.com says...

> To specify more exactly:
>
> My Activex settings are Prompt/Disable/Disable/Enable/Enable.
>

That's as clear as mud.

Do you have Activex enabled, disabled, or prompt?

Cheers,

Roy

[Robin T Cox]

Roy <z.5.RoyDent@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
news:MPG.19ea34a519f2235f9896c6@usenet.free-online.net:

>> My Activex settings are Prompt/Disable/Disable/Enable/Enable.
>>
>
> That's as clear as mud.
>
> Do you have Activex enabled, disabled, or prompt?
>

FWIW my Security settings are as follows -

Download signed Activex controls - Prompt
Download unsigned Activex controls - Disable
Initialise and script Activex controls not marked as safe - Disable
Run Activex controls and plugins - Enable
Script Activex controls marked safe for scripting - Enable

[Roy]

In article <Xns940BA9BB1E777robin2803@194.168.222.41>, robin2803
@hotmail.com says...

> > Do you have Activex enabled, disabled, or prompt?
> >
>
> FWIW my Security settings are as follows -
>
> Download signed Activex controls - Prompt
> Download unsigned Activex controls - Disable
> Initialise and script Activex controls not marked as safe - Disable
> Run Activex controls and plugins - Enable
> Script Activex controls marked safe for scripting - Enable

That's more like it.

I think you'd be well advised to change the last two to 'Prompt'. That
won't prevent you using any safe site, but you'll need to use your skill
and judgement in deciding which are which. It does at least leave the
decision up to you, not Microsoft.

There's only one site where I absolutely need to use IE, and that's my
bank (for full functionality), most of the rest of the time it's
Mozilla. But using that very safe browser you do have to accept that
some features of some sites may not work. It's all a question of what
your priorities are I suppose, safety, or adventure!

Cheers,

Roy

[Robin T Cox]

Roy <z.5.RoyDent@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
news:MPG.19ea9d64b6aae8929896c7@usenet.free-online.net:

> I think you'd be well advised to change the last two to 'Prompt'. That
> won't prevent you using any safe site, but you'll need to use your skill
> and judgement in deciding which are which. It does at least leave the
> decision up to you, not Microsoft.
>
> There's only one site where I absolutely need to use IE, and that's my
> bank (for full functionality), most of the rest of the time it's
> Mozilla. But using that very safe browser you do have to accept that
> some features of some sites may not work. It's all a question of what
> your priorities are I suppose, safety, or adventure!
>

Thanks Roy, I do know about the security settings etc. and like yourself I
rarely use IE. I didn't write my settings out at length because I assumed
that the average reader would understand that I was simply listing them
from the top down. Also, those settings were made in order to do the
Secunia test in such a way as to demonstrate whether the MS patch alone was
working or not.

My original post was really about my failure to understand correctly the
manner in which the Secunia test worked, and rather than blame the writers
on the Secunia page for poor instructions, I thought it might be more
constructive to get some help here. I was obviously not disappointed.

Thanks again!

Robin

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 22:25:33 +0100, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Roy
<z.5.RoyDent@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I've always understood that by enabling Activex on a page you were
> effectively allowing any code to be run remotely on your PC, so why are
> you surprised?
>
[snip]

Well, not exactly "any code"; but you've got the basic concept right.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Little Johnny]

"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news:shc6ovkfq5qcg5n3h7smbqn7ieobm7gj1l@news.rcn.c om...
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 22:25:33 +0100, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Roy
> <z.5.RoyDent@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > I've always understood that by enabling Activex on a page you were
> > effectively allowing any code to be run remotely on your PC, so why are
> > you surprised?
> >
> [snip]
>
> Well, not exactly "any code"; but you've got the basic concept right.
>
usenet01@appropriate-tech.net
>
> Jay T. Blocksom
> --------------------------------
> Appropriate Technology, Inc.
> usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
>
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to
mail.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly
prohibited
> under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
> $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-