Another reason why you shouldn't install Sun Java on your computer.

[Art]

Please post if you have any trouble. I held off on removing it from my W2K
box, to see if others did it successfully first.

I will. So far so good. Boots up and shuts down just as quickly.
Windows Update seems to work ok.

I suspect the reason MS withdrew the tool is the fact that there are
(according to MS) some third party apps that depend on it, in addition
to the requirement for it on some web sites. There is quite a bit of
info starting with this url and then followiing links on the page:

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/java/default.asp

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Art]

Please post if you have any trouble. I held off on removing it from my W2K
box, to see if others did it successfully first.

I have a question for you or anyone using Win 2K with patches, sp4 and
the recent rollup. Do you have RICHTX32.OCX and MSCOMCTL.OCX in your
\system32 folder? I found that I did not have them anywhere. I just
tried out a freeware app that complained about it. I found these files
on the internet, and the app quit complaining and started to work.

I'm wondering if the missing files had to do with the use of the
subject MSJVM removal util.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Yo Mismo]

I have a question for you or anyone using Win 2K with patches, sp4 and
the recent rollup. Do you have RICHTX32.OCX and MSCOMCTL.OCX in your
\system32 folder? I found that I did not have them anywhere. I just
tried out a freeware app that complained about it. I found these files
on the internet, and the app quit complaining and started to work.

Both are present in my system32 folder (Win2K + SP4 + recent
rollup).

Y.M.

 

[Art]

Both are present in my system32 folder (Win2K + SP4 + recent
rollup).

I have it from a knowledgeable source on a Win 2K n.g. that these OCX
files aren't _necessarily_ present. They are placed there by apps you
have added over and above a base install + rollup, etc. So I doubt
very much that my use of the MSJVM util had anything to do with the
fact that they were missing on my PC.

Thanks for responding.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[David]

I was wondering about this. I always thought that online banking
required Javascript or ActiveX. Never heard of any bank requiring Java.

My bank does use Javascript. ActiveX is another mechanism I will not
permit on my computer.

 

[John Corliss]

My bank does use Javascript. ActiveX is another mechanism I will not
permit on my computer.

Heh. I have a friend who routinely uses an ActiveX website to monitor
his futures options and stocks. He's very brave, but hasn't had any
problems as of yet and continuously turns a profit.

*I* wouldn't do it though.

 

[kara mc weeney]

*I* wouldn't do it though.

Because you have no idea how to do so, Johnnie.

 

[Peacerose]

When I had Java, I had RedSherrif and no way to stop it.

I think it is important to remember that malware is written in many
different programming languages. Java did not add the RedSherrif folder;
RedSherrif put a folder for itself in the Java directory.

I had RedSherrif once, too, but I got rid of it and kept the Java because
benefits outweigh the "danger".

Another thing to remember is that the various AV and adware
scanners/blockers, etc. have become increasingly proficient at preventing
infection. And its not the end of the world if your computer is infected
with some kind of malware, but rather an opportunity to increase your
technical know-how and experience.

Peacerose

 

[John Corliss]

I think it is important to remember that malware is written in many
different programming languages.

While this is true, I've been able to block all of the non-Java stuff so
far.

Java did not add the RedSherrif folder;
RedSherrif put a folder for itself in the Java directory.

Yes, I know that. Same as malware ActiveX websites. And a good point to
remember. Since I have Java disabled in the "Restricted Sites" security
zone in IE, I could have simply added the site that installed RedSherrif
to that zone. On the other hand, it's impossible to predict which sites
have RedSherrif on them so reinfection would be likely.

I had RedSherrif once, too, but I got rid of it and kept the Java because
benefits outweigh the "danger".

Well, this is a clear case of "YMMV". I never really had any use for it
or found a Java program that I absolutely must have.

Another thing to remember is that the various AV and adware
scanners/blockers, etc. have become increasingly proficient at preventing
infection. And its not the end of the world if your computer is infected
with some kind of malware

Well, when the day comes that I can't deal with a malware and must
tolerate its presence, that's the day I yank the cable out of the back
of my computer and cancel my internet account. That's how*I* feel about it.

but rather an opportunity to increase your
technical know-how and experience.

Heh. Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it.

 

[David]

Because you have no idea how to do so, Johnnie.

He's not alone. I will not permit ActiveX on my machine in any shape
size or form. I do not use any M$ $oftware to browse, access the net,
or e-mail.

 

[John Corliss]

kara mc weeney trolled:

He's not alone. I will not permit ActiveX on my machine in any shape
size or form. I do not use any M$ $oftware to browse, access the net,
or e-mail.

David,
You're wasting your time. "kara mc weeney" (AKA 39 year old Jon Skomp
from a location in Southern California) is this group's resident #1
troll who is stalking me. You'll get no constructive conversation out of
him. Best thing to do is to killfile his messages. On the other hand, he
uses endless sock puppets, so it doesn't work for long.

You'd think that Jon would grow up by now, but people like him don't
take their medication as often as they should.

 

[jacaranda]

He's not alone. I will not permit ActiveX on my machine in any shape
size or form.

Can someone tell me what ActiveX is? I always thought it was MS's version
of javascript, but to play certain embedded video files on Firefox, you
need to install an ActiveX plug-in. I'm wary of doing that.

 

[dak]

Can someone tell me what ActiveX is? I always thought it was MS's version

A loosely defined set of technologies developed by Microsoft for
sharing information among different applications (cross-software
communication). ActiveX is an outgrowth of two other Microsoft
technologies called OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) and COM
(Component Object Model), and it is to be replaced with the Microsoft
..NET framework. The name, ActiveX, can be very confusing because it
applies to a whole set of COM-based technologies. In early 1996
Microsoft renamed some parts of OLE relating to the Internet as
ActiveX, and then gradually renamed all OLE technologies as ActiveX,
except compound document technology as used in Microsoft Office. Most
people only think of ActiveX controls which represents a specific way
of implementing ActiveX technologies.

 

[Art]

Well, what I don't understand is that Microsoft Java remains on my
system, yet no problems with that.

John, I somwhat arbitrarily picked your post as a vehicle for adding
more info on the subject of removing MSJVM. First, I posted on the
subject on both alt.comp.virus and alt.comp.anti-virus back on the
9th. Then I got to thinking that the subject might make a good
article for the claymania antivirus web site. Now, I'm getting some
high powered advice on this on a private list we use for supporting
claymania.

I'm being encouraged to recommend the removal of MSJVM.
I don't have it all together yet, but users who insist on Java
because of certain web sites will be encouraged to use Sun
Java with Gecko browsers or Opera. Others of us will not
have Java installed at all, and our systems will be incapable
of running Java applets. What's not entirely clear (if it ever
will be for certain) yet is the issue of third party app
dependencies on MSJVM. But the attitude seems to
basically be "screw that" since it was unwise and actually
stupid in the first place. I might add that there is real anger
and frustration with MS for no longer offering their MSJVM
removal util.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Art]

If you live in some non real world, you don't need Java. If you carry
online banking, and a host of other necessary sites, it's either java or
bust.

Do you know of any that only work with IE and its MSJVM and not with
an alternate browser using the latest Sun JRE?

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Art]

My bank does use Javascript.

But dioesn't require IE? I'm doing a survey

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[jacaranda]

A loosely defined set of technologies developed by Microsoft for
sharing information among different applications (cross-software
communication). ActiveX is an outgrowth of two other Microsoft
technologies called OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) and COM
(Component Object Model), and it is to be replaced with the Microsoft
.NET framework. The name, ActiveX, can be very confusing because it
applies to a whole set of COM-based technologies. In early 1996
Microsoft renamed some parts of OLE relating to the Internet as
ActiveX, and then gradually renamed all OLE technologies as ActiveX,
except compound document technology as used in Microsoft Office. Most
people only think of ActiveX controls which represents a specific way
of implementing ActiveX technologies.

Hey thanks. That puts it all into perspective.

 

[John Corliss]

John, I somwhat arbitrarily picked your post as a vehicle for adding
more info on the subject of removing MSJVM. First, I posted on the
subject on both alt.comp.virus and alt.comp.anti-virus back on the
9th. Then I got to thinking that the subject might make a good
article for the claymania antivirus web site. Now, I'm getting some
high powered advice on this on a private list we use for supporting
claymania.

I'm being encouraged to recommend the removal of MSJVM.
I don't have it all together yet, but users who insist on Java
because of certain web sites will be encouraged to use Sun
Java with Gecko browsers or Opera. Others of us will not
have Java installed at all, and our systems will be incapable
of running Java applets. What's not entirely clear (if it ever
will be for certain) yet is the issue of third party app
dependencies on MSJVM. But the attitude seems to
basically be "screw that" since it was unwise and actually
stupid in the first place. I might add that there is real anger
and frustration with MS for no longer offering their MSJVM
removal util.

Art,
I noticed yesterday that in Internet Explorer, I have the following
options set:

Tools/
Internet Options/
Advanced/

Scroll down to "Microsoft VM"

There is no checkmark by any of the following:

1. Java console enables (requires restart)
2. Java loggin enabled
3. JIT compiler for virtual machine enabled (requires restart)

Also, in the following:

Security tab/
Internet/
Custom Level.../

Scroll down to "Microsoft VM" and "Java permissions", I have "Disable
Java" selected.

My system has been configured this way for a couple of years. I have
NEVER had any problems with it being this way. As far as I can tell, I
should be able to remove MS Java VM and it would make no difference.

 

[John Corliss]

Hey thanks. That puts it all into perspective.

Typical of Microsoft.

1. Obfuscate.
2. Confuse
3. Feign innocence.

It's all aimed directly along Microsoft's goal, which is to have
everybody online all the time, renting software which is temporarily
downloaded from their servers as opposed to buying a copy of software to
install on your hard drive.

Never forget that this is Microsoft's ultimate plan.

 

[Art]

Art,
I noticed yesterday that in Internet Explorer, I have the following
options set:

Tools/
Internet Options/
Advanced/

Scroll down to "Microsoft VM"

There is no checkmark by any of the following:

1. Java console enables (requires restart)
2. Java loggin enabled
3. JIT compiler for virtual machine enabled (requires restart)

Also, in the following:

Security tab/
Internet/
Custom Level.../

Scroll down to "Microsoft VM" and "Java permissions", I have "Disable
Java" selected.

My system has been configured this way for a couple of years. I have
NEVER had any problems with it being this way. As far as I can tell, I
should be able to remove MS Java VM and it would make no difference.

It won't unless you happen to have some app that depends on the
MSJVM. It is built into the OS. It may be that your disabling the Java
console in IE has effectively blocked apps though. I dunno. For those
of us who rarely use IE, I doubt if eradicating MSJVM has any big
effect on hardening the OS. It's more a matter of eliminating dead
weight, and getting rid of something that's obsolete. It's a nudge
to people to use a alternate browser.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg