Nomen

So what's the deal with this IE vulnerability that has existed for almost 10 years but has somehow, mysteriously, never been discovered until just days after XP goes EOL? Supposedly affects IE6 - but is that the same IE6 that win-9x/me and 2K uses, or the IE6 that only XP and higher can use? Has anyone downloaded WindowsXP-KB2964358-x86-custom-ENU.exe and unpacked it? I can't seem to find a direct download link for it. Does it function on win-9x? Or does it die when its exposed to a win-9x system - just like so many other windows and IE exploits?

Using WinMD5Free v1.20, I get an MD5 of 644bd3b6d12e3bf89c02316bb7ad9d3b - which is matched to yours. File size is 497,345 bytes. Winrar (version 3.71, Sept. 20/2007) is not able to unpack that file. Well, it unpacks it, but all files have size of zero bytes. Winzip (version 18.0, Aug 16/2004) does not recognize it as a format it can unpack. 7-Zip (7zG.exe, version 4.65, 2/3/2009) acts similar to Winrar (generates files of zero length). Universal Extractor (version 1.6.1, 5/12/2010) is a program that I installed a few months ago, and it also can't unpack that file - but trying just now on several other .zip and .rar files and it also can't unpack those either, so obviously either my version is broken or it's not compable with win-98/kex. edit: I just scanned my entire computer and I have a grand total of 12 (twelve) .7z files (and 6 of those are hacked versions of npswf32.dll). I know I have thousands of .zip and .rar files. I must conclude, as I stated previously, that .7z files are "odd-ball" in the windows world. It's my impression that they come from the unix or linux world (or maybe atari or something equally arcane). The largest of those 12 is mplayer_lite_r35250.7z (9.4 mb) - dated 10/21/2012, and winrar is able to unpack it without errors.

After downloading this: http://www.mediafire.com/download/2wx6fb9pscad3zl/RegUtils.7z Both Winrar and 7-zip are giving me errors while processing RegUtils.7z: --------------- WinRar is saying this: Unknown method in RegUtils\RegCon\REGCON!.TXT Unknown method in RegUtils\RegCon\REGCON.TXT Unknown method in RegUtils\RegiStrip\REGSTR!P.TXT Unknown method in RegUtils\RegCon\REGCON.EXE Unknown method in RegUtils\RegiStrip\REGSTRIP.EXE In addition to having problems with the above 5 files, 7-zip is also saying this: Unsupported compression method for RegUtils\Regcon\UNLHA32.DLL -------------- Uni-extract also has problems with this file. Can someone explain why an abscure compression method that is rarely used to compress files in the Windows world was used for this RegCon software?

I'll try RegCon - once I sort out and unravel which version I should be using based on the convoluted discussion happening about it here. Regarding Rloew's information regarding large system.dat files and having gigabit ethernet, here's another data point: Another win-98 system I have has a system.dat file with size 13,565kb and D-link DGE-530T Gigabit ethernet adapter. I don't know if the adapter has to be set to 1 gb (or be using jumbo frames, or both) for the "gigabit-ethernet" effect to kick in (in terms of causing problems with large registry files) but I believe the card is working at giga-speed (it is connected to a 24-port switch with giga-speed capability). Just out of curiosity - what is the registry size of a default install of Win-98, say on an i845 motherboard with nvidia agp graphics, directx 9c, all MS updates and patches applied?

Ok, I had a look at the CTH thread from 2012, and I obtained regcompact1.0 (file date 12/01/00) and I ran it. Results: System size 12676kb - Compacted 12652kb - Ratio 0% User size 1860kb - Compacted 1856kb - Ratio 0% I killed RegCompact (I use cctask) before it could make any changes. It doesn't seem to have done much to reduce the size. Should it have? I have on-board ethernet on this system (Davicom 9102/A PCI Fast Ethernet Adapter) it only does 10/100 speed. I have disabled that adapter on my other win-98 PC and have installed a 1000/100/10 PCI ethernet card on that system (offhand I don't know how big system.dat is on that system - I'll check tommorrow). So what's my next option to compact my registry - since RegCompact did squat? Should I try SmalReg4 (mentioned in the 2012 thread) ?

crap. posting to wrong thread...

A while back I posted about having a system.dat file that was 15 mb in size. Scanreg /fix /opt from DOS did nothing. I uninstalled about a dozen (maybe more) programs from control panel, and midway through that I noted that system.dat size did go down to 14 mb, but did not change even though I continued to uninstall more stuff. I ran regclean about 3 or 4 times in a row (until it no longer gave me the "fix" button to click) and I forgot exactly that scanreg (dos) did, but when using the /fix and/or /opt it either did nothing or it hung. None of those tools did anything to reduce the size of system.dat below 14 mb. I then fired up Norton SystemWorks 2002 and ran either Windoctor or Optimization wizard, but one of them spent a lot of time analyzing the registry, and had a bunch of entries that it wanted to fix (either a drive assignment was changed, or delete the entry). It was only after running the Norton programs that system.dat was reduced to 12.7 mb. The win-98 version of scanregw doesn't seem to detect anything wrong with the registry, but the win-2k version immediately says there's something wrong and replaces it with an older backup (15 mb version) which it doesn't seem to check before it replaces it. So is there a program that will run on win-98se that can correctly diagnose if there is a problem with a system.dat registry file (even a LARGE system.dat file)? Is there a program that can really fix and/or optimize a large system.dat file without hanging? What exactly is known about how large the system.dat file can be under win-98se without exceeding some limit or causing operational problems? PS: I have version 4.1a, build 7364.1 of microsoft regclean. It's dated as December 30, 1997. Does a more recent version exist?

The problems that my home win-98 system has are as follows. I've often wondered if they're inter-related: 1) If I use "my computer" to browse to the "c:\program files" directory, I don't get a listing of the Program Files directory. I get a listing of the c:\windows\fonts directory. The directory address shown in the Address bar is C:\Program Files. If I type in the address of a sub-directory inside c:\Program files, then I can navigate those sub-directories without issue. 2) I am unable to permenantly set the folder-view options to Detailed. Every time the system is started, the view-mode is set as large icons. If I change the mode to detailed, then set Folder-options - View - Like current folder, the system will open all file-browser windows in detail mode for the rest of that session until the computer is restarted. 3) In any version of firefox 2.0.0.2x that I install or run, when I open different sites in multiple tabs and switch between the tabs, the address bar does not change to reflect the URL of the site currently being viewed. What is shown is the first URL opened in the first tab. If I put the cursor in the address bar and hit ESC, then the address bar is changed to show the URL of the current page, and that URL will remain in the address bar even when I change to a different tab, until I again hit the ESC key. If I have multiple sites open and FF crashes, when I restart FF and it asks if I want to resume the previous session (open all the sites again) and I say Yes, FF will invoke the tabs but none of them will show a URL in the address bar, and they will all show the circulating round-arrow as if they are busy doing something. These phenomena do not happen when I bring up multiple tabs in Opera, Pale Moon 3.6.32, or Navigator 9.0.0.6. My system.dat and user.dat file are 14,993 kb and 3,525 kb in size, and I have no policy.pol file. I suspect there is a problem with my registry files - and I have to admit that I have pretty much never messed around with diagnosing and analysing registry files, nor do I know what the current situation is regarding the recommended way to go about measuring the health and/or optimizing the registry of a win-9x/me system using either Microsoft or third-party tools, expecially if the registry has grown to a large size.

I honestly don't know what points you're trying to make. I don't know why you keep mentioning javascript. I don't run noscript. I DO run yes-script. But I don't see how javascript has anything to do with iframes. I am now running FF 2.0.0.20 (I seem to be able to type a reply in this text-editor box, don't know why it works now). It does not show the iframe box on the quirksmode page. But the same version of FF, running on my win-98se system at work, DOES show the iframe box.

Submix: I'm going to use notepad to compose a reply to your reply, since I find it easier to do this rather than struggle with the needlessly complex editor that this site uses. submix8c said: > Points of interest > (...) > Going to this - http:(...) gives me "Iframe - NO" > "Temporarily allow ALL this page" (Noscript Option) gives me > "Iframe - YES" If you read what I've posted above, I turned off all add-ons, and I also get "Iframe - Yes". > This text is displayed in a "box" above the said > messages in both cases - Test page in iframe And Firefox (Bon Echo) and Pale Moon ->DO NOT SHOW THAT BOX<- > I REPEAT! It's all in the CODE of any given website/page > and not something "necessarily unique" to a given > Web Browser which may/may not support such a feature. The iframe code on that page is very simple. Do we know that FF 2.0.0.23 does not support that iFrame code? Why does Netscape Navigator version 9.0.0.6 render that iFrame box correctly? Isin't NN-9 and FF-2 based on the same part of the Mozilla "tree" ? > Did you even read said Topics? (A: Nope, right?) I can't follow every link you post. If you know of any relavent or key nugget of information that can be applied to this thread, then why don't you cut and paste it here? > I assume you have looked here (instructions on that page)? > > Firefox - Go to about:config -> search for “frames” > -> click on browser.frames.enabled > Mine is set to "true". From the very first post in this thread, I said: "For some reason, FF and Palemoon do not render these at all, but NN does. For all of them, the setting "browser.frames.enabled" is set to True (about:config)."

No, this is not a youtube issue. Here - focus on this: ------------- If I go to this page using FF: http://www.quirksmod...iframetest.html the word "Yes" is displayed in the small text-entry "Iframe:" box. But if I visit the same page using NN, there is a large box above the small "Yes" box, containing the words "Test page in iFrame" in a large mono-spaced font. Looking at the source code on that page, my bon-echo version of FF is not displaying or handling this element: <iframe src="iframetest2.html"></iframe> --------------

I found a couple of hostperm.1 files (one each for FF and NN) and they were not marked as read-only. I edited them in notepad and removed these lines: ======== host popup 2 hausaufgaben–referate.de host install 2 hausaufgaben–referate.de host image 2 hausaufgaben–referate.de ========= When I restarted FF, the "hausaufgaben" entries were gone. Strange. Perhaps there was a parsing error when FF encounters a dash (-) in the domain name. Any idea why FF and PM are not displaying iframe content (such as youtube video's) ? If I go to this page using FF: http://www.quirksmode.org/iframetest.html the word "Yes" is displayed in the small text-entry "Iframe:" box. But if I visit the same page using NN, there is a large box above the small "Yes" box, containing the words "Test page in iFrame" in a large mono-spaced font. Looking at the source code on that page, my bon-echo version of FF is not displaying or handling this element: <iframe src="iframetest2.html"></iframe>

So I have Firefox 2.0.0.23pre (bon echo) and Netscape Navigator 9.0.0.6 installed on this win-98se system (and a couple other browsers, like Opera 12.02 and PaleMoon 3.6.32). For both FF and NN, under Tools - Options - Content, the list of exceptions for "Block pop-up windows" and "load images automatically" both have an entry named "hausaufgaben" configured as "blocked". Regardless how many times I clear those lists, that entry always comes back. According to google translate, hausaufgaben is German for "homework". I've searched the registry for hausaufgaben - nothing found. Any idea what's going on with that? Also this question: A lot of media sites have embedded videos coded as iframes. For some reason, FF and Palemoon do not render these at all, but NN does. For all of them, the setting "browser.frames.enabled" is set to True (about:config). I've disabled all add-ons in FF, but still can't get it to render the iframe content. Lastly, will any version of Opera higher than 12.02 run on win-98se with kex?

I have about 10 different files going by the name js3250.dll, but they all say version 4.0 in file properties (but a few of them don't have a version tab in file properties). File dates range from 2/19/2008 to 7/19/2012. File size ranges from 443 kb to 1016 kb. They are associated with FF 2.0.0.2x, Navigator 9.0, and a couple different versions of Palemoon. Are they interchangeable? Is there a "best" version (in terms of stability, performance) to be running on a win-98 system for FF 2.0.0.2x ?

This page has some interesting information about fireshot: http://alshedupur.com/fireshot-pro-for-free/

===== I also use Windows 98SE as my primary OS on most of my machines. The remaining ones runs AmigaDOS. Kex is fine for general users, but I would not describe it as suitable for a default. It is not 100% compatable with all Software and can cause problems for a Developer like me. ===== (sorry - the quote attributions got messed up in this overly complex editor window that this site uses as I use Opera 12 to post this) Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a given exe or dll is not compatible with Kex, then would setting the Kex properties for those files to "Disable KernelEx Extensions" not be a sufficient remedy? Can you (or anyone else) give an example of an application that can't run if a system has Kex installed (and Disable Kex extensions has been set) but runs just fine if the system doesn't have Kex? I mentioned that you (and the other 4 developers in the world that code on win-98 platforms) are not included in the blanket statement that "Kex should be part of a default install of win-98". But if the code that you develop for win-98 users ultimately can't function in the presence of Kex, then you're forcing users to decide which is more important - your code or Kex.

I agree. I've been running Kex for more than 3 years, and unlike probably most people here I run win-98se as my primary computing platform both at home and at $dayjob. And I'm not talking about as a virtual machine. I think that anyone that is not a developer or does not run a dual-boot NT/98 platform but instead runs pure win-98se, there's no question that Kex should be default for such a system. Now if systems with pre-2003 hardware (486, Pentium 2 or 3, AMD equivalent, etc) if there are issues with Kex and ancient hardware like that, then you have self-imposed hardware issues that are more important.

http://wincountry.com/ There's something about the call sign that is just so - familiar.

Here's something about this random-port business: ------------ http://marc.info/?l=gauntlet-user&m=98450705427468&w=2 At 11:08 AM 3/13/2001 -0600, Talamantes, Jeremiah R. (TC) wrote: > Looking for some help and an explanation to these security alerts... > > The source connection info ":53" from "10.1.1.55:53" obviously indicates DNS > activity, but what type of DNS activity would utilize random porting? DNS queries go out from port 53 (usually) to port 53 on a destination server. When a query is about to be sent, the local DNS server allocates a random UDP reply port for the return response; the request effectively says "here's my question, send the response to this random port". That's why you're seeing random port DNS activity. The destination port is different to allow the responses to be associated with an active query. Why you get security alerts is because the DNS servers are aggressive - a query will be sent out, and if a response isn't quickly returned, another query goes out to one of the other nameservers for the domain. As soon as one of the outstanding queries for a request gets a response, the listener on the other ports gets dropped. If the response for one of the abandoned queries finally struggles it's way back, you get a security alert. ------------------- I just visited that site (www.rpg.net) with FF2 using it's default user-agent string - and the page came up no problem. Obviously in your case it is keying in on win-95. There was a comment in this thread about how your IP is now banned on that site. I don't know how common it is for an ISP to hand out static IP's (especially for residential customers) but I get a different IP from my isp when I tell my modem to disconnect and reconnect. Not to start a flame war, but I really don't see the point of running win-95 vs win-98. Yes, that site is stupid for blocking win-95. But if you're going to run win-9x/me, then whats the advantage of 95 over 98? Seems there are more limitations and troubles than advantages.

Looking at your list: 1) it's called a HOSTS file, and the use of it and the entries contained in it and ad-blocking in general doesn't necessarily belong in a forum focused on win-9x/me. 2) probably a single post would suffice for that. 3) I'd rather see a set of sticky-threads devoted to single applications, each containing info on how to make those applications run on win-98. Those threads need not focus on Kex dependency because the installation of Kex should be assumed as default for any given system anyways. 4) Don't care / less important than #3. 5) Win-9x/me doesn't need to be running AV software anymore - hasn't needed to for the past 5 or 6 years. 6) Not a fan of huge lists that need to be maintained. Software programs that are seen as staples or universal for all win-9x/me systems should be handled as described in #3, and that list is not necessarily a long one.

This discussion about the HOSTS file is somewhat universal across various versions of Windows, so I'm not sure it belongs in this win-98 forum. That said, here's what I can tell you about how use the hosts file. First, the correct file is not "hosts.sam". That is a sample hosts file. Windows only recognizes and uses "hosts". A good starting point for a third-party hosts file for the past 10 or so years has been the MVPS hosts file, located here: http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm My current hosts file is an old(er) version of the MVPS, to which I add my own entries as I encounter them. For example, I have many ad-serving google entries, as well as facebook and twitter (because most websites force your browser to contact those sites for one reason or another). Here are the google entries in my hosts file: 127.0.0.1 clients1.google.ca 127.0.0.1 googlesyndication.com 127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com 127.0.0.1 googleads.g.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 www.mygooglepagerank.com 127.0.0.1 google.tucows.com 127.0.0.1 googleadsense.ya.com 127.0.0.1 googlefastfind.info 127.0.0.1 google-analytics.cc 127.0.0.1 domains.googlesyndication.com 127.0.0.1 pagead.googlesyndication.com 127.0.0.1 adservices.google.com 127.0.0.1 video-stats.video.google.com 127.0.0.1 4.afs.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 feedads.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 imageads.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 partner.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 www.googleadservices.com 127.0.0.1 googleads.g.doubleclick.net 127.0.0.1 google-search.ru 127.0.0.1 google-analistyc.net 127.0.0.1 google-analytlcs.com 127.0.0.1 googleanalytlcs.com There is at least one entry I have that appears on MSFN.org: 127.0.0.1 www.gravatar.com Win-9x/me seems to have an advantage over the NT line in terms of the size of HOSTS file that you can have. For some reason, having a large hosts file has a performance impact on NT whereas 9x/me network tcp/ip or DNS operations don't seem to take a performance hit regardless how many entries you have in your hosts file. A good way to know what domains or sites your computer is accessing as you browse is to log into your modem or router and look at the outgoing access log. Just scan through the list and pick out domains / hosts that you've never typed in or book marked in your browser's address bar and add them to your hosts file.

Maybe this was posted somewhere else in this thread? http://www.paragon-software.com/home/ntfs-win98/download.html See also: http://www.storageforum.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-817.html and http://www.wilderssecurity.com/archive/index.php/t-350929.html

Something really strange about your 12 mb torrent. I found another source for the .torrent file, and was surprised by the relatively large number of seeds and peers (over 100) which is a large number for a software file that is specifically identified as being for Windows 98. I downloaded the file and submitted it to VirusTotal. Here's were it gets weird. VT says the first time the file was uploaded was 2014-01-07 17:58:04 UTC, and the last time was 2014-01-11 03:58:06 UTC (literally only minutes before my submission). If this file has existed as a torrent for (presumably) many years, then why was it first uploaded to VT only 3 or 4 days ago? And why are so many people downloading it? File properties gives the company name as "Acresso Software Inc" and file name as "Setup.exe" (not "Paragon NTFS for Win98.exe"). The wikipedia entry for Arcresso Software links directly to Flexera Software. I'm guessing that this file is identified as Acresso software because of Installshield. The file doesn't unpack with winrar or 7zip. VT scan comes up negative. I'll try running it after I post this - just in case my machine crashes. I've set the Kex compatibility to win-98se. Lets see what happens... ------ Well, nothing seems to happen. I've tried several Kex settings, and using cctask I can see the program does run when I start it, but it exits soon after, with no messages or any indication that it even started. Checking my hard drives - no new files or directories were created. wait - I ran the file through importpatcher, and if I understand the output correctly, it said that patches are needed for the file htmlayout.dll. I scanned my system for htmlayout.dll, and found it in windows/temp, with a time and date stamp that matches when I first ran the executable. So this file does unpack htmlayout.dll into the windows temp directory. Anyone know what that file is all about? ============== htmlayout.dll (931 kb) Version 3, 3, 3, 12 HTMLayout - embeddable HTML rendering and layout component Copyright © 2002-2012, Andrew Fedoniouk and Terra Informatica Software, Inc., http://terrainformatica.com Internal name: h-smile core, win32 wrapper Public version. Free for commercial and private use. HTMLayout contains libPNG (www.libpng.org), ZLib (www.zlib.org),libJPEG (www.ijg.org), AGG (www.antigrain.com) and PGBA (http://crl.nmsu.edu/~mleisher/ucdata.html) , special credits to their authors ================

Anything useful here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/299656 ? =========== It is best to prevent storage of the LM hash if you do not need it for backward compatibility. If your network contains Windows 95, Windows 98, or Macintosh clients, you may experience the following problems if you prevent the storage of LM hashes for your domain: * Users without an LM hash will not be able to connect to a Windows 95-based computer or a Windows 98-based computer that is acting as a server unless the Directory Services Client for Windows 95 and Windows 98 is installed on the server. * Users on Windows 95-based computers or Windows 98-based computers will not be able to authenticate to servers by using their domain account unless they have the Directory Services Client installed on their computers. * Users on Windows 95-based computers or Windows 98-based computers will not be able to authenticate by using a local account on a server if the server has disabled LM hashes unless they have the Directory Services Client installed on their computers. * Users may not be able to change their domain passwords from a Windows 95-based computer or a Windows 98-based computer, or they may experience account lockout issues when they try to change their passwords from these earlier clients. * Users of Macintosh Outlook 2001 clients may not be able to access their mailboxes on Microsoft Exchange servers. Users may see the following error in Outlook: --The logon credentials supplied were incorrect. Make sure your username and domain are correct, then type your password again. =============== See also: http://www.imss.caltech.edu/node/414 ================ Installing DSCLIENT for Windows 9x In order for a Windows 95, 98, or ME computer to access the IMSS Active Directory, it is necessary to install the Active Directory Client Extension for Windows 9x software (also known as the DSClient), and make a change to the Registry to enable NTLMv2. This webpage provides simple step-by-step instructions that detail how to install the client and make the necessary registry changes. =================

Are there win-98se drivers for a GeForce 8400gs video card? The card in question is PCI (not PCIe or AGP) with 512 mb ram.