Youtube is not working on explorer

[mech-eng]

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?

 

[adjacent]

Why do you use internet explorer?Firefox is the best for watching youtube videos,In my opinion.

 

[Psinter]

Shockwave Flash Player and Flash Player are different stuff. Check if you have Flash Player installed, not Shockwave.

Source: http://helpx.adobe.com/shockwave/kb/shockwave-player-faq.html#main_3

For Flash Player see: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer.html

For Shockwave Flash Player see: http://www.adobe.com/products/shockwaveplayer.html

 

[enorbet]

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. 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.

 

[Mark44]

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.

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.

I get it that a lot of people don't like Windows, but if you're going to make spurious claims like the above, you need to be prepared to back them up.

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.

 

[enorbet]

@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. 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.

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. 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 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.

 

[Mark44]

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's just too convenient to crack. Whichever browser you use, you should have an addon for blocking scripts.

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.

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.

 

[enorbet]

@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. 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. 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.

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. 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". IMHO to conclude otherwise is naive, so apparently we have very different standards. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Mark44]

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nothing of the sort. My responses were intended to correct misinformation in your post.

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.

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.

Vista also was not such a good idea, one that resulted in the president of the Windows division being let go (Brian Valentine). I wasn't in Windows any longer when Vista shipped, but there must have been a huge amount of pressure on the Windows management to get something out the door, as there hadn't been a new release of the OS in the five years after XP (in 2002, as I recall).

The context of your remark that I replied to wasn't about OS versions, but was about whether MSFT is responsive in fixing security problems in a given OS. I'm here to tell you that security is a very high priority at MSFT. So that you don't think I'm blowing smoke, when I was still in the Windows division, the company paid for two-day training sessions for every employee in the division, even the ones who didn't write code. If I remember correctly, that was training for 7500 employees.

As far as squeaky wheels and grease go, for every product there is a bug database, and any bugs filed are rated for their priority and severity. I guarantee you that any bug that affects the security of the product gets marked so that it's taken care of right away, sometimes by calling the developer whose code is affected at 3AM.

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".

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"?

IMHO to conclude otherwise is naive, so apparently we have very different standards. Let's leave it at that.

 

[enorbet]

Utterly OT other than how it relates to those using IE and those recommending a change - hope this helps someone make a choice. Scroll to the bottom for the non-TLDR version

Tally -

Claim-

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.

Claim -

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. 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.

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. 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?

It reminds me of the spoof in an old comedy movie where a TV ad appears showing this bucolic vista of mountains and lakes and little by little as we zoom in we see the lake has a thick oil scum and is just full of industrial garbage while the soundtrack with a James Earl Ray type voice keeps stating how concerned Esson Oil Corporation is, how much they side with the common man, "our esteemed customers!, after all", and "here at Esson we are utterly committed to The Environment...why in just the last month we spent over 30 Million Dollars on this commercial to convince you!" ;)

It may be over-the-top but not by a lot.

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 -

"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."

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.

Short Version -
Back On Topic - OP, This hasn't been an argument as to whether IE is an utterly unredeemable, bug-ridden piece of junk and others are Heaven's Light, it's just a comparison of decent and a little better. The learning curve for most alternative browsers is not steep and they are worth giving them a tryout. Firefox is one but there are many to suit just about anyone who cares to look. One important thing to remember is that hackers expect IE exacxtly because it is so prevalent. 'Nuff said?

Whether this will fix your YouTube problem remains to be seen as there are many players in transition right now, HTML5 being one, all of which affect YouTube. It is worth a shot.

 

[Mark44]

Tally -

Claim-

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.

As I have already said, the context of your original statement was about MSFT not being responsive to "squeaks" relating to security issues. Later, you changed the thrust to talk about the UI change from Win7 to Win8. If the context is paying attention to security issues, I disagree completely, and I hope I have given ample evidence that is contrary to your claim.

With regard to the sweeping UI change from Win7 to Win8, that was a bad decision on the part of the higher-ups at MSFT, IMO. The dilemma for them, I believe, is that there are at least two distinct groups of users: the old hands, who are comfortable working with Windows Explorer and even the DOS console versus the legions of users who have grown up using mobile devices. No one choice is going to make everyone happy.

As far as the statistics you showed are concerned. the folks at MSFT are taking a longer view than your snapshot, and are attempting to see how trends play out in the next three to five years, and longer. A very significant statistic is that 76.28% that you cite. The managers look at that number and see projections for the proportion of desktops continuing to fall, and more and more people doing their computing on tablets and smart phones. That's the competition I'm talking about.

Claim -

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.

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."

The Just In Time (JIT) compiler translates code written in any of the .NET Framework languages into intermediate language (IL), which is then compiled into native machine code for the machine the code is running on. In any case, what does this have to do with Java?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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 -

"Nothing of the sort. My responses were intended to correct misinformation in your post."

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."

My replies weren't about ego - they were responses to your statements that are not true. Since I no longer work at MSFT, I don't have any ties to them. The points that you made that I replied to were these:
1. "MS is not highly motivated to fix security holes (or anything else) in IE"
2. "Another big area has been JIT hardening but this is a lost cause since Java is all but dead on the Net."
3. "It's just cheaper to deal with the aftermath than fix it beforehand."

"what I consider to be the most egregious things you said"

The most egregious were
1. Your claim that MSFT is not motivated to fix security holes.
2. It's cheaper to deal with the aftermath than fix it beforehand.

"It's in the Advanced menu item on the Internet Options page. It appears that you aren't aware of this capability."

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.

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.

 

[enorbet]

@Mark44 - It seems to me you are disregarding the fact that of course you still have ties to MS. It is part of your life history and pride as it well should be. Microsoft is an extremely important and successful company. The keyword there, though, is company, in this case, huge and powerful corporation. When corporations get this big they tend to lose a singular identity as some branches are in competition with others.

A simple case in point (on the surface) with MS is the XBox Division versus the Desktop Divisions. I'm fairly confident that quite a few man-hours were spent and meetings held to weigh the pros and cons of XBox launch. It's not as simple as "sell more stuff, make more money" if one product's sales reduces another's sales. As you pointed out (paraphrasing here) "Sometimes the Sales Department overrides Engineering". I contend that final decisions, are rarely simple mistakes. These are rarely concluded on mere whims. I severely doubt that the choices made for Win8 were in fact a mistake. I think it was a hard, but necessary choice and one that will ultimately payoff in the longrun for Microsoft.

I am even more confident that making the somewhat dubious and underhanded choices to alter Office app formatting, release slightly modified in-house versions of software as their own, and alter one bit on the extended partition descriptor (Note - incidentally being old is exactly what I wanted to show with the last example to provide evidence for a deep seated and long-running pattern of behavior) were all profitable and by that standard, good choices. Please note NONE of these (and there is a rather large list of others) directly benefitted users, customers or the world of computing. In some cases it made things worse but it did benefit MS stockholders, of which you may even be one, having been an employee. Lucky you, if so.

The bottom line as it applies to this thread (and that is what is most important here, right?) is that we can speculate and argue and sort out corporate policy until we are blue in the face, but as far as IE goes, and how it is commonly used "out in the field", it is not more secure than alternatives, and sometimes less secure because of convenience and user choices and numerous other factors not the least of which is how commonplace and expected it is.

@OP - This is what Microsoft recommends http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2532294. Google Help says Channel viewing problems are fixed similarly or "use another browser".

 

[enorbet]

Good Timing -

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.”

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.

One article here - https://www.yahoo.com/tech/new-security-flaw-affects-all-versions-of-internet-84085229159.html

 

[Mark44]

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.

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.
From a wikipedia article on XP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP -

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.

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.

One article here - https://www.yahoo.com/tech/new-security-flaw-affects-all-versions-of-internet-84085229159.html

 

[enorbet]

No. Did you actually read the article whose link you posted?

I don't know about you, Mark44, but I never post a link to a page I haven't read, and rarely one about something I don't already understand.

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 -

Are you currently wearing rose-colored glasses? I mean, come on!, they imply it, just as when the feces hits the fan some lower-level guy will be canned and all the blame goes with him. Their statement is pure damage control. All that poker at Harvard paid off :D

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.

Gee! No kidding? I suspect anyone who owns a computer, even many Mac users, are very aware of the EOL on XP. What remains to be seen is if they actually stick to their guns if enough class action suits gain traction. I contend that if their lawyers determine (and if they haven't already, years ago) that it is cheaper to update XP than go to court, that's what they will do because that's what stockholders expect corporations to do - protect dividends.

 

[Mark44]

Enough, already! This thread has gone off-topic for way too long.

If you want to start a new topic that bashes MSFT or IE or whatever, go ahead, but the question in the OP has been asked and answered.

It's very frustrating to have a conversation with you, enorbet. You make a statement that is incorrect, I respond, and then change the goalposts by responding as if you had originally said something quite different.

Here's what I'm talking about.

MS is not highly motivated to fix security holes (or anything else) in IE...

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.

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.

So now you've switched your complaint from "Microsoft is not highly motivated to fix security holes" to complaining that they do too much.

After that, you went on to when seemed to me to be a nonsequitur:

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.

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.

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.

Finally, and I'm leaving some of the other back-and-forth out, the last bit about the article whose link you posted.

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.

From the article you linked to:

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.

... 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.