From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0293_01C66318.1A55E6C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Because one aspect of the security update is that classes used as =
shell extensions are validated to ensure that they are well behaved =
before they are allowed to be loaded within the shell.  The HP extension =
is not well behaved.

   I read the nonsense you wrote and the support article.  It was clear =
from the nonsense you wrote that you either did not read, did not =
understand, or simply ignored the support article.

Rich

  "Geo"  wrote in message news:44458051$3{at}w3....
  I wasn't talking abou the HP shell extension, I was talking about =
MS06-015 which is the security patch that causes the HP shell extension =
to fail and requires a whitelisting in order to not scan that shell =
extension as part of the web client patch. Why don't you try reading?

  Geo.
    "Rich"  wrote in message news:44457ddd{at}w3....
       It has nothing to do with Trojans and there is nothing to be =
fixed in Explorer so take off your tin foil hat.  The problem described =
by the support article is that the HP shell extension behaves badly.  = You
can uninstall the HP component or you can get past the issue using = the
instructions described here.

       You should also some demonstrating you are an idiot and a whiner. =
 You would look less like an idiot if you read the articles about which =
you are commenting.

    Rich

      "Geo"  wrote in message news:444532ec$1{at}w3....


      Instead of fixing the exploit (if you ask me the web client =
service should
      just be removed as a bad idea in an untrusted environment), they =
added yet
      another program, this one scans shell extensions and it has a =
whitelist that
      is stored in the registry so simply adding a registry entry will =
make this
      new security shell extension scanner skip scanning your trojan =
shell
      extension? I wonder if it works based simply on the file name so =
using an
      existing whitelisted name exposes you again.

      Is this "fix", and I use that term loosly,  from Microsoft or =
Cheech and
      Chong?

      Geo.


      "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message =
news:4444ee0a$1{at}w3....
      >
      > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/918165?
      >
      >


------=_NextPart_000_0293_01C66318.1A55E6C0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Because
one aspect of the =
security=20
update is that classes used as shell extensions are validated to ensure = that=20
they are well behaved before they are allowed to be loaded within the=20
shell.  The HP extension is not well
behaved.
 
   I read
the nonsense you =
wrote and the=20
support article.  It was clear from the nonsense you wrote that
you = either=20
did not read, did not understand, or simply ignored the support=20
article.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:44458051$3{at}w3....
  I wasn't talking abou the HP shell =
extension, I=20
  was talking about MS06-015 which is the security patch that causes the =
HP=20
  shell extension to fail and requires a whitelisting in order to not =
scan that=20
  shell extension as part of the web client patch. Why don't you try=20
  reading?
   
  Geo.
  

    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:44457ddd{at}w3....
       It
has nothing to do =
with Trojans=20
    and there is nothing to be fixed in Explorer so take off your tin =
foil=20
    hat.  The problem described by the support article is that the =
HP shell=20
    extension behaves badly.  You can uninstall the HP component or =
you can=20
    get past the issue using the instructions described =
here.
     
       You
should also some =
demonstrating=20
    you are an idiot and a whiner.  You would look less like an =
idiot if=20
    you read the articles about which you are commenting.
     
    Rich
     
    
      "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
      wrote in message news:444532ec$1{at}w3....Inste=
ad=20
      of fixing the exploit (if you ask me the web client service =
shouldjust=20
      be removed as a bad idea in an untrusted environment), they added=20
      yetanother program, this one scans shell extensions and it has =
a=20
      whitelist thatis stored in the registry so simply adding a =
registry=20
      entry will make thisnew security shell extension scanner skip =
scanning=20
      your trojan shellextension? I wonder if it works based simply =
on the=20
      file name so using anexisting whitelisted name exposes you=20
      again.Is this "fix", and I use that
term loosly,  =
from=20
      Microsoft or Cheech
andChong?Geo."Rich
=
Gauszka"=20
      <gauszka{at}hotmail.com>">mailto:gauszka{at}hotmail.com">gauszka{at}hotmail.com>
wrote=20
      in message news:4444ee0a$1{at}w3....>>
=
http://suppo" target="new">http://suppo=">http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/918165">http://suppo=
rt.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/918165?>>

------=_NextPart_000_0293_01C66318.1A55E6C0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5