1. RE: techport80
Thankyou for your input regarding netscape 4.7. I'm not able to
test for that version of netscape because I deleted my last copy
of that browser 2 or 3 months ago.. Techport80 uses web technology like
CSS,W3C Dom, and javascript. The point is you'll need a
current browser to access my page. I've tested the site with....
Netscape 6.2
Netscape 7.0 Beta
Netscape 7.0 (just released yesterday!!)
Ie 5.5
Ie 6.0
Konqurer 2.0 (as distributed with Redhat 7.2)
Opera 6.0
Other current W3C standard browsers should work. As mentioned in
another to gain access to some of features requirer you to login.
Logging in is required because when you login, you'll have some limited
access to write text to my hard drive. Before I give that kind of
access, I would at least like to know a little about you. Like your
name and e-mail address for example. I invite you to come back to my
site and give it another try.
Ron_W
http://www.techport80.com
Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr wrote:
> I just tried to connect to the page, getting an intermediate condition.
> With Netscape 4.7, the home page looks horrible, although it is Ok with
> IE.
> I got no internal server error, but the code bank page asks for a
> logon-id a password.
>
> So?
>
> CChris
>
>
2. RE: techport80
On 17 Sep 2002, at 12:35, Ron W wrote:
>
> Thankyou for your input regarding netscape 4.7. I'm not able to
> test for that version of netscape because I deleted my last copy
> of that browser 2 or 3 months ago.. Techport80 uses web technology like
> CSS,W3C Dom, and javascript. The point is you'll need a
> current browser to access my page.
"Current" is not always good, see the latest java security report on
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1134931
If you have IE 6.x it may be a bit harder to disable Java, since MS has taken
away many of those settings which allow you to close the backdoors and
loopholes. Javascript is even worse. Do you want to show webpages, or do
you want people to open up their computers to any ole script kiddie? If you
require me to breach security on my computers to see your webpages, let
me assure you it's not worth it.
Kat
3. RE: techport80
Hello Ron,
I've a copy of Netscape Navigator 4.6 and if you don't mind the wait I
could snail mail you a copy on CD-R. Email me personally if interested.
The reason I make this offer is that I think it is important that if you
want as many visitors to your website to have a "good experience" then
their choice of browser should not penalise that opportunity. The only way
you will know if your site looks good on Netscape 4.6 is to try it yourself
hence my offer.
Why do people run with "old" and "arcane" browsers like Netscape Navigator
4.6?
There are two reasons I can see but I'm sure there are others:
Reason #1
Security. Bleeding edge browser technology contains bugs. The older
browsers have bugs too but patches might be available or you are more
driven by...
Reason #2
Not everyone has a machine that can run the latest browsers. Netscape 6.X
and up and IE 6.0 are resource hogs. They won't fly without major
turbulance on a Pentium 100 (and BTW that is what I use to surf the web).
Having your website only work "nicely" if you run an up to date browser is
like telling a user to switch to 1024x768 display resolution before they
can run a particular application.
Regards,
Andy Cranston.
At 12:35 17/09/02 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Thankyou for your input regarding netscape 4.7. I'm not able to
>test for that version of netscape because I deleted my last copy
>of that browser 2 or 3 months ago.. Techport80 uses web technology like
>CSS,W3C Dom, and javascript. The point is you'll need a
>current browser to access my page. I've tested the site with....
>
>Netscape 6.2
>Netscape 7.0 Beta
>Netscape 7.0 (just released yesterday!!)
>Ie 5.5
>Ie 6.0
>Konqurer 2.0 (as distributed with Redhat 7.2)
>Opera 6.0
>
>Other current W3C standard browsers should work. As mentioned in
>another to gain access to some of features requirer you to login.
>Logging in is required because when you login, you'll have some limited
>access to write text to my hard drive. Before I give that kind of
>access, I would at least like to know a little about you. Like your
>name and e-mail address for example. I invite you to come back to my
>site and give it another try.
>
>Ron_W
>http://www.techport80.com
>
>
>Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr wrote:
>> I just tried to connect to the page, getting an intermediate condition.
>> With Netscape 4.7, the home page looks horrible, although it is Ok with
>> IE.
>> I got no internal server error, but the code bank page asks for a
>> logon-id a password.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> CChris
>>
>>
>
>
>
4. RE: techport80
On 17 Sep 2002 Kat wrote:
>>"Current" is not always good, see the latest java security report >>on
>>http://www.vnunet.com/News/1134931 If you have IE 6.x it may be >>a bit
>>harder to disable Java, since MS has taken away many of those >>settings
>>which allow you to close the backdoors and loopholes. >>Javascript is
>>even worse. Do you want to show webpages, or do
>>you want people to open up their computers to any ole script >>kiddie?
>>If you require me to breach security on my computers to see >>your
>>webpages, let me assure you it's not worth it.
>>
>>Kat
>>
Thanks for posting the article on Java security. Very informative. I
would like to point out a new key points about that article and that web
page though. Also I agree with you in the fact that newer isn't always
better. Further, I would like to state that JavaScript is used
sparingly on my website and that you can read anything on my site should
you choose to turn JavaScript off. I'm a professional web developer and
would never 'require' you to breach security on your computer to read my
website. The article you pointed to states that Java, shipped with the
latest versions of IE, has know security flaws. And according to the
article these flaws are very serious. But if you make it to the bottom
of the article, it points out 2 important facts. First the JVM in
question is a Microsoft 'modified' version of the JVM and not the
official Sun version. Secondly what the article doesn't state is that
the latest IE browser are shipping the antiquated JVM version 1.1.4.
(for more info go to http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-937059.html) The
latest version 1.4.x by Sun, do not have the security flaws mentioned in
the article you referred to. For that matter, neither did the Suns
version of Java shipped way back then. I don't use any Java on my
website though. But the reason for that is that there is no way for me
to know in advance what (if any) version of Java the browser is using.
This sad fact is quite unfortunate because Java (by Sun) is a truly
great product.
You stated that you feel that "JavaScript is even worse." Worse?? Worse
than what?? JavaScript is safe. There is very little you can do with
JavaScript, as a standalone tool, that is not what it was intended to
do. When combined with other tools, JavaScript poses a little more of a
risk, but that risk is minimal. If you know something contrary to what
I'm stating here, please point me to your resources so that I can
further investigate this matter. In the meantime, allow me to post a
link back to a website I know you trust.
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1132579
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1131845
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1133109
The above three links go a long way in pointing to the real security
issues a web surfer faces. And I can assure you, Kat, that these
articles are not pointing to CSS, W3C DOM, JavaScript, or
http://www.techport80.com for security related issues.
Ron_W
5. RE: techport80
acran at readout.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
> Hello Ron,
>
> I've a copy of Netscape Navigator 4.6 and if you don't mind the wait I
> could snail mail you a copy on CD-R. Email me personally if interested.
Thankyou for your offer. I'm very concerned with the user experiance of
my website. Before I take you up on your offer, I need to make
absoultly sure that I dont have an older version of Netscape on cd. It
would apear that you are not the only one wanting me to improve my site
for the legacy browsers. I've never concidered the either of your 2
reasons for having a browser of the era. If you dont mind, I'll contact
you via email if I cant locate an older browser on my own..
Ron_W
6. RE: techport80
On 17 Sep 2002, at 22:41, Ron W wrote:
>
> On 17 Sep 2002 Kat wrote:
>
> >>"Current" is not always good, see the latest java security report >>on
> >>http://www.vnunet.com/News/1134931 If you have IE 6.x it may be >>a bit
> >>harder to disable Java, since MS has taken away many of those >>settings
> >>which
> >>allow you to close the backdoors and loopholes. >>Javascript is even worse.
> >>Do
> >>you want to show webpages, or do you want people to open up their computers
> >>to
> >>any ole script >>kiddie? If you require me to breach security on my
> >>computers
> >>to see >>your webpages, let me assure you it's not worth it.
> >>
> >>Kat
> >>
>
> Thanks for posting the article on Java security. Very informative. I
> would like to point out a new key points about that article and that web
> page though. Also I agree with you in the fact that newer isn't always
> better. Further, I would like to state that JavaScript is used
> sparingly on my website and that you can read anything on my site should
> you choose to turn JavaScript off.
Strangely, turning it off, *if you can*, doesn't prevent your puter from going
out to download the latest addons to the scripting languages, as i found out
the hard way a few months ago. They are downloaded, even if you had
checked Do Not Run, in case you might want to run them later. The badly
botched auto-install deleted/corrupted needed files for IE and Explorer. I am
still missing the proper icon for IE, but that's no problem.
>I'm a professional web developer and
> would never 'require' you to breach security on your computer to read my
> website. The article you pointed to states that Java, shipped with the
> latest versions of IE, has know security flaws. And according to the
> article these flaws are very serious. But if you make it to the bottom
> of the article, it points out 2 important facts. First the JVM in
> question is a Microsoft 'modified' version of the JVM and not the
> official Sun version. Secondly what the article doesn't state is that
> the latest IE browser are shipping the antiquated JVM version 1.1.4.
You said:
The article you pointed to states that Java, shipped with the latest versions
of IE, has know security flaws.
Secondly what the article doesn't state is that the latest IE browser are
shipping the antiquated JVM version 1.1.4.
Ok, so if you go get IE6, you get either antiquated code, or buggy code.
> (for more info go to http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-937059.html) The
> latest version 1.4.x by Sun, do not have the security flaws mentioned in
> the article you referred to. For that matter, neither did the Suns
> version of Java shipped way back then.
As was pointed out, the Sun jvm doesn't have the problem. The re-coded MS
versions do, probably intentionally.
> I don't use any Java on my
> website though. But the reason for that is that there is no way for me
> to know in advance what (if any) version of Java the browser is using.
> This sad fact is quite unfortunate because Java (by Sun) is a truly
> great product.
>
> You stated that you feel that "JavaScript is even worse." Worse?? Worse
> than what??
Java
> JavaScript is safe. There is very little you can do with
> JavaScript, as a standalone tool, that is not what it was intended to
> do. When combined with other tools, JavaScript poses a little more of a
> risk, but that risk is minimal.
I lost a computer to javascript. The bios was written to, and was not
recoverable or replaceable. The harddrive was corrupted, and i lost a lot of
material. Javascript is used for redirects, windows that can't be closed, etc
etc.
> If you know something contrary to what
> I'm stating here, please point me to your resources so that I can
> further investigate this matter. In the meantime, allow me to post a
> link back to a website I know you trust.
Please know that i do not have any explicit trust in this or any website. It
was the handiest url i had when i sent the email.
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1132579
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1131845
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1133109
>
> The above three links go a long way in pointing to the real security
> issues a web surfer faces. And I can assure you, Kat, that these
> articles are not pointing to CSS, W3C DOM, JavaScript, or
> http://www.techport80.com for security related issues.
I never accused *you* of security breaches. But i won't open the computer
anyhow, in case your site is breached, and malicious code installed for me
to get without your knowledge.
I am sure you can do a diligent web search to discover the counterpoint to
your arguement, if you wanted to.
Kat
