Hi Hoody!
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 03:51:17 +1000, Ben Hood wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2001, at 16:14, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
>> I was unable to do any online banking activities there because of all the
>> javasnit. So then I thought I would just crank up my WIN95 machine and use
>> MSIE 3.02. I couldn't even access the logon screen because of some stupid
>> messages returned by MSIE saying that the security certificates were not
>> valid. Then I called the technical support people who operate the online
>> banking service and I told them about my problem.
> Did you ask if there was a way to avoid using JavaScript? Tell them
> JS is not very secure!
It has always been my understanding that viewing a webpage having JavaScript,
and with JavaScript enabled on a browser capable of interpreting it, can do
no damage to your computer and cannot cause any of your personal data to be
compromised, unless your computer is infested with certain types of "spyware"
programs. Viewing an email message having embedded JavaScript, or viewing a
web page having Java Applets and Active X are a different story. So far I
have not yet heard that just viewing a web page containing JavaScript can do
any harm to your computer other than to cause it to just lock up on you. If
you are sure that far worse things than that can happen, then please provide
references. I should like very much to become informed of such things. As
far as "spyware" programs are concerned, there are some kinds that can
compromise your personal data with or without the web page's having
JavaScript.
>> Almost everyone
>> on this list knows that MSIE 5.5 is probably one of the most ravaging
>> devourer of computer resources out there. I certainly don't want to
>> install anything on my 100 Mhz dozeware Pentium that will make it run any
>> slower than it already does.
> Well, actually, I had a 486DX2-66 (w/16 MB RAM) that I newly
> installed W95 (original upgrade CD, but new install). I found IE5
> faster than IE3. This was going to a non-technical person, and I
> thought IE3 would be enough, but I wanted to try IE5 to see how it
> ran. It seemed faster, but probably at the expense of more RAM
> usage. This was after a failed attempt to get IE5 running on a 386. :/
>> One thing that would really be cool would be a setup where
>> I could log on with Lynx386 and then quickly switch over to MSIE 3.02 after
>> the logon was accomplished.
> Not possible, since it would all be encrypted. It would be like trying
> to eavesdrop on your neighbours' phone calls simply by picking up
> your own phone!
It would not appear as encrypted data because MSIE 3.02 can perform the
decyption just fine. The problem is that IE cannot access the logon page
because the security certificates had expired. Lynx386 can get to the
logon page because it doesn't care about security certificates.
>> Does anyone here know if you can run a DOS internet app while
>> connected via of a dialup winsock connection?
> STUB32? hmm something like VMWARE might work, if you enable
> some "Internet connection sharing" in w95 like wingate et al. but
> that's a LOT more cpu-intensive than IE5 ;-)
Thanks for your reply and the info.
Regards,
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
