- #1
mech-eng
- 828
- 13
Hi,I had to refreshed my win 8 but know I can't watch youtube clips on internet explorer but there are sounds.microsoft's third-party component shockwave flash object is active.what is the problem?
Are you serious? I worked at MS for 15 years (not in IE), and I can see that they are very committed to fixing problems with security. One indication of that is the number of Windows updates that go out about every week or two, and these updates include updates to IE.enorbet said:Just a note - Aside from features and abilities that come in alternative browsers, MS is not highly motivated to fix security holes (or anything else) in IE because they have the Lion's Share of the Market.
enorbet said:In general, built-ins are rarely as good as 3rd Party apps. If you can wean yourself off IE, you will enjoy much happier computing in the long run.
The folks in Windows don't share your opinion about there being little competition in the OS space, especially with the demand for desktop computers declining, and the rise in tablet and mobile devices. There is enormous competition from Apple, Google, not to mention Linux. If you think that the developers and managers in Windows aren't aware of this, then you are misinformed.enorbet said:@Mentor - Just ftr I stated specifically "in IE" and this is well documented as well as I have seen it first hand by penetration testing my own boxes and those I maintain for a living.
Also, I don't hate Windows. It obviously provides an important service and they employ large numbers of fine coders. What they assign their coders to is another issue, however, because they, like all large (and in charge - 90+% market share) corporations have a bottom line and shareholders to please above all. Squeaky wheels always "get the grease" and when there is little competition "the squeak" tends to be very small.
Is it? Your statement seems naive to me, as it completely ignores the cost of losing repeat customers who no longer trust the company (this applies to any company, not just MSFT) to produce a quality product.enorbet said:This is not me ranting at all. It's just as much a fact of life as some picnics get spoiled by rainstorms. It's just cheaper to deal with the aftermath than fix it beforehand.
Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with Java. However, they do have a lot to do with .NET Framework, which supports a number of managed code languages, including C# and several others.enorbet said:That said, the vast majority of functioning security issues are not the fault of software but rather the lack of administration skill and irresponsible actions on the part of common users. This should never be construed to think that software bugs and holes do not exist or have no importance, however.
I'm fully aware that MS loves to employ NSS to tout it's IE security features to the discredit of others and on the surface this might seem like IE is very solid. However many of these features are simply sales incentives and overly cautious alarms (Are you sure you're sure you want to do that?) based on mistrust (and competition) with any software not originating from MS or having at least spent the money for certs. These are "spun" as security features when in fact they do little to improve security but do bolster the impression of security.
Another big area has been JIT hardening but this is a lost cause since Java is all but dead on the Net.
There's a setting in IE that you can turn on or turn off scripts. It's in the Advanced menu item on the Internet Options page. It appears that you aren't aware of this capability.enorbet said:It's just too convenient to crack. Whichever browser you use, you should have an addon for blocking scripts.
enorbet said:Just sliding a radio button up a scaled ladder is mindless and nowhere near enough. At some point that slider becomes useless because you can no longer go anywhere or do anything. Below that it is ineffective exactly because it has been so dumbed-down and general instead of specific.
If you don't see this is real or just doubt me (and don't wish to spend your own time penetration testing), you will be able to see for yourself and make up your own mind as to just how crucial and effective these updates are to security when there are still large numbers of XP boxes active but also many uncompromised in the next months and years and conversely how many Win8 boxes (or the follow up) will be compromised*(see note).. The uncompromised ones will mostly be boxes using 3rd party antivirus and especially anti-malware (which is a much larger problem) apps, and good firewalls NOT the one built into Windows which is one-way only.
Bottom line - don't blindly trust that the maker of your OpSys can and will protect you. Get proactive and handle it yourself. In that vein, don't support software that assumes you are a moron but makes you feel good doing it, while actually doing little that's useful as well as effective.
*Note - that was not meant to imply that security was better on XP than on 8 since, it wasn't and isn't. MS has improved the overall security of it's operating systems over time. It's just that many of the so-called security updates fix tiny holes where parts of the house have a missing roof. Here, too, to be clear I am not one of those tin-foil hat believers that NSA and the Chinese have purchased backdoors via Trusted Computing. I'm talking about the real world.
Cherry picking, yes, but diverting, no. What I cherry picked were what I consider to be the most egregious things you said. I don't see how this can be construed to be a diversion, though.enorbet said:@Mentor Look I'm sorry if I've offended you as it seems I have since you seem determined to fight by cherry picking and diverting.
True enough, but from your remarks it appeared that you were saying the only way to deal with scripts was the sliders on the Security page.enorbet said:I respect the fact that you worked for MS and am in no way trying to denigrate your job. My job, however, often includes fixing and ultimately understanding how the average user created a mess that needed fixing. In my experience few Windows users look past the sliders but are willing to download or activate an addon.
Nothing of the sort. My responses were intended to correct misinformation in your post.enorbet said:Use this information as you wish, but I'm not going to engage in what's beginning to feel like a puffed chest ego battle.
Here, I agree with you 100%. I hate Win8. Sometimes the marketing weasels get their way. Windows 8 might be OK for novices, but showing all of the apps on a computer as boxes on a screen is really stupid, IMO. I don't want to communicate with the computer by touching boxes on the screen. If you can't type, I guess that's a reasonable interface, but if you want to manage hundreds or thousands of files on a computer, the concept is brain-dead.enorbet said:The only thing I'd like for you to consider is regarding MS's attitude about repeat customers. Consider the utter disregard of their user base in the sweeping change to the default Win8 desktop [Bold]with no option to return to the previous configuration as in all previous windows[/Bold], which btw is designed to be portable to phones, tablets and other touchscreen based systems.
As I've already said, if you're talking about a significant change in the user interface, a la Win8, then we're on the same page. OTOH, if you're saying that MSFT believes that it's OK to ship a product full of security holes, and deal with then later, then I disagree completely. When the date for a product to ship is approaching, the developer leads and program managers meet every day to look at new bugs that have been entered. Bugs that have very serious consequences are called "ship stoppers". As the name implies, bugs of this severity cause the ship date to be changed. Does that sound like the philosophy is "get the product out the door, and we'll deal with the mess later"?enorbet said:Regardless of what anyone wants to believe it is there as an actual event and a choice and also a reflection of the basis for choices being exactly what I stated "It is cheaper to deal with the aftermath than fix it beforehand".
enorbet said:IMHO to conclude otherwise is naive, so apparently we have very different standards. Let's leave it at that.
Mark44 said:The folks in Windows don't share your opinion about there being little competition in the OS space, especially with the demand for desktop computers declining, and the rise in tablet and mobile devices. There is enormous competition from Apple, Google, not to mention Linux. If you think that the developers and managers in Windows aren't aware of this, then you are misinformed.
Mark44 said:Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with Java. However, they do have a lot to do with .NET Framework, which supports a number of managed code languages, including C# and several others.
Mark44 said:"Nothing of the sort. My responses were intended to correct misinformation in your post."
"what I consider to be the most egregious things you said"
"It's in the Advanced menu item on the Internet Options page. It appears that you aren't aware of this capability."
enorbet said:Tally -
Claim-
Mark44 said:The folks in Windows don't share your opinion about there being little competition in the OS space, especially with the demand for desktop computers declining, and the rise in tablet and mobile devices. There is enormous competition from Apple, Google, not to mention Linux. If you think that the developers and managers in Windows aren't aware of this, then you are misinformed.
Status - Disproven
You have agreed that Win8 is a clear sign of the degree of lack of concern for customer reaction, and I contend the reason is the disproving of the latter part ie- "enormous competition" eg- in Desktop Only category Windows enjoys a 93% Market Share as of January 2014. If we include phones and tablets that percentage drops, as of March 2014, to 76.28% because of Android, IOS, etc. However Mac has 6% and Linux 1.2%. To call that enormous (let alone worrisome) is absurd.
So we have established, contrary to your claim that I am naive about how corporations function, that, as is almost always the case when corporations get this entrenched, wealthy and powerful, Microsoft, while putting on a show of concern (and some actual comcern in some departments as Corporations are complex and often bi-polar entities) at the bottom line are aware that while many will gripe, few will actually switch. Therefore shipping a product that the userbase will consider deeply flawed has little impact compared with not demonstrating Windows has every intention of moving into phones and tablets with a vengeance.
Mac is viewed as overly expensive even on $100 iPods, let alone desktops (iPhone is just barely an exception because it was so revolutionary and at first had no specific, real competition). Linux is viewed as "geekware" with a steep learning curve and a paucity of usable apps. These are arguably wrong views but they are, nonetheless, the consensus of the Winows userbase that I see, whether private or in business.
You say this proves your point, but what exactly was your point? You said "Another big area has been JIT hardening but this is a lost cause since Java is all but dead on the Net."enorbet said:Claim -
Mark44 said:Microsoft doesn't have anything to do with Java. However, they do have a lot to do with .NET Framework, which supports a number of managed code languages, including C# and several others.
Status - Proves my point.
IE must still deal with Java and the boys at the top of MS well recognize that a browser is in essence a sandbox OS. The purpose of .Net along with Mono and C# is to diffuse and defuse the cross-platform ability of Java by writing their own proprietary "spinoff" with differences just enough to give their batteries of lawyers anti-patent fodder.
How far back are you talking about here? This has to be at least 20 years back. It surely seems like grasping at straws if these are the best examples you can come up with.enorbet said:This is an old trick of MS somewhat similar to creating completely incompatible "updates" with no other value than to thwart competiton not only to cash cows like Office but even simple partioning schemes. Originally an extended partition had the CHS value of 0x05 so along comes Microsoft, increasingly disturbed at competition to DOS, who changes it to 0x0f, calling it LBA. This was utter bs. They changed literally one bit and that was in the description! not the functioning code, but it was enough to be a minor show-stopper for many DOS vendors and even OS/2.
As I mentioned earlier, when bugs are found, they are rated on two scales: severity and priority. Pri 1, sev 1 bugs are fixed immediately. What you said, "MS is not highly motivated to fix security holes (or anything else) in IE " is simply not true.enorbet said:The above may be inherited diversion rather than your own but it is still diversion. The bottom line is that as it pretty much has to be, corporations must put themselves first, not their customers once they have sufficient power of market share (similar to drug pushers and addicts, although Billy's Gang owns almost all the corners making them especially insular) to minimize any losses and maximize profit. It is through pure, cold, ruthless cost/benefit analysis, calculating in damage control, that fuels decisions. Many security bugs are considered so obscure and trivial (especially compared to gaping holes) that it is simply cheaper to not have to fix it.
I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here. So most of your customers don't know what packet sniffing is. What's your point?enorbet said:The simple truth is that in almost 25 years of working with computers I have met maybe a handful of Windows users who even knows what packet sniffing is, let alone how to do it. Because of such as this, bugs in IE are too easily "tossed off to the other guy" so why spend money?
My reply was to this statement from you: "I'm not going to engage in what's beginning to feel like a puffed chest ego battle."enorbet said:Regarding agenda and ego - You worked for Microsoft. I'm presently self-employed and have no allegiance to any corporation, just users, including some small businesses. You keep making thinly veiled personal remarks, like
Statement examples -
Mark44 said:"Nothing of the sort. My responses were intended to correct misinformation in your post."
The most egregious wereMark44 said:"what I consider to be the most egregious things you said"
How else was I to interpret what you said, which was "Whichever browser you use, you should have an addon for blocking scripts"? You gave no indication that you knew about the Advanced tab on the Internet Options page.Mark44 said:"It's in the Advanced menu item on the Internet Options page. It appears that you aren't aware of this capability."
enorbet said:There are a few more but this should be sufficient to display your condescending attitude and assumption that you couldn't possibly be mistaken and that I am a misinformed, naive moron. This is hardly a scientific approach as you seem unassailable, utterly convinced of your own correctness despite any evidence to the contrary, some of which you agree with all but the conclusion. You seem to want to make this binary and it is not and I haven't been either. This is about degrees.
YahooTechNews said:UPDATE: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security advised computer users to consider using alternatives to Microsoft Corp’s Internet Explorer browser until the company fixes a security flaw that hackers have used to launch attacks.
The United States Computer Emergence Readiness Team said in an advisory released on Monday morning that the vulnerability in versions 6 to 11 of Internet Explorer “could lead to the complete compromise of an affected system.”
No. Did you actually read the article whose link you posted? If so, you would have seen that they are not saying that the problem is only with Win XP. MSFT stopped supporting Win XP earlier this month (April 8), so it seems entirely reasonable that they would advise people who are still running XP to upgrade to a newer OS version.enorbet said:Good Timing -
Microsoft's first reaction? (besides rushing to fix it) "Upgrade to Win7 or Win8" as if the problem is only with XP and not with IE no matter what Windows version.
The announcement that support would be ending for XP was made several years ago. We're talking about an OS that was released to the general public in August of 2001, which is almost 13 years ago.Extended support for Windows XP ended on April 8, 2014 meaning that the operating system is now end-of-life, and new security updates or support information will no longer be provided for free.
enorbet said:
Mark44 said:No. Did you actually read the article whose link you posted?
Mark44 said:If so, you would have seen that they are not saying that the problem is only with Win XP. MSFT stopped supporting Win XP earlier this month (April 8), so it seems entirely reasonable that they would advise people who are still running XP to upgrade to a newer OS version.
From a wikipedia article on XP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP -
Mark44 said:The announcement that support would be ending for XP was made several years ago. We're talking about an OS that was released to the general public in August of 2001, which is almost 13 years ago.
enorbet said:MS is not highly motivated to fix security holes (or anything else) in IE...
Mark44 said:I can see that they are very committed to fixing problems with security. One indication of that is the number of Windows updates that go out about every week or two, and these updates include updates to IE.
So now you've switched your complaint from "Microsoft is not highly motivated to fix security holes" to complaining that they do too much.enorbet said:I'm fully aware that MS loves to employ NSS to tout it's IE security features to the discredit of others and on the surface this might seem like IE is very solid. However many of these features are simply sales incentives and overly cautious alarms (Are you sure you're sure you want to do that?) based on mistrust (and competition) with any software not originating from MS or having at least spent the money for certs.
enorbet said:Another big area has been JIT hardening but this is a lost cause since Java is all but dead on the Net. It's just too convenient to crack. Whichever browser you use, you should have an addon for blocking scripts. Just sliding a radio button up a scaled ladder is mindless and nowhere near enough. At some point that slider becomes useless because you can no longer go anywhere or do anything. Below that it is ineffective exactly because it has been so dumbed-down and general instead of specific.
If you were aware of this capability, you certainly didn't mention it. BTW, JIT has nothing to do with Java - the acronym is for "just in time". I guess you meant the Java Virtual Machine, or JVM.Mark44 said:There's a setting in IE that you can turn on or turn off scripts. It's in the Advanced menu item on the Internet Options page.
From the article you linked to:enorbet said:Microsoft's first reaction? (besides rushing to fix it) "Upgrade to Win7 or Win8" as if the problem is only with XP and not with IE no matter what Windows version.
... which are versions of IE present in XP, Vista, Win7, and Win8. As already mentioned, MSFT announced years ago that XP was reaching the end of its supported life this month.Microsoft disclosed on Saturday its plans to fix the bug in an advisory to its customers posted on its security website, which it said is present in Internet Explorer versions 6 to 11.
There could be various reasons why Youtube is not working on Internet Explorer. It could be due to browser compatibility issues, outdated browser, corrupt browser cache, or a problem with the Youtube server.
To fix Youtube not working on Internet Explorer, you can try clearing your browser cache, updating your browser, or using a different browser. You can also try restarting your computer or checking for any network connectivity issues.
Yes, Youtube has stopped supporting Internet Explorer since August 2021. This means that new features and updates may not work properly on Internet Explorer. It is recommended to use a modern browser like Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge to access Youtube.
Yes, you can still watch videos on Youtube using Internet Explorer, but some features may not work as intended due to the lack of support from Youtube. It is recommended to use a different browser for a better viewing experience.
If Youtube is still not working on Internet Explorer after trying all the solutions mentioned above, you can try clearing your browser cookies, disabling any ad blockers or extensions, or resetting your browser settings to default. If the issue persists, you can contact Youtube's support team for further assistance.