Internet Explorer flaw

Newsfeed

MyBroadband Newsfeed
Staff member
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
648
Internet Explorer flaw

Microsoft has warned of a zero-day flaw in Internet Explorer which is being exploited in the wild by malicious parties.

“A remote code execution vulnerability exists in the way that the scripting engine handles objects in memory in Internet Explorer,” explained Microsoft.
 
With every Windows 10 article there's all these people "bragging" how they still use Windows 7 and XP. They probably still use IE.
 
Image result for internet explorer crash gif
 
Lots of apps in corporate that ONLY work with IE, boggles the mind i tell you
Doesn't boggle the mind. It's simple. SSRS (at least till the 2008 version, unsure of the newer 2016 one), needed Active X Controls for the "print" functionality on the report itself, even though exporting to PDF and then printing was super easy, users couldn't seem to understand why there's no print button and kept complaining about it.

Silverlight was a thing. MS tried replacing Flash, failed, and now it's not a thing anymore, yet every company had a slick snake-oil salesmen telling them how amazeballs it is, and it went from manager to manager till employees were forced in it (or worse, an employee came up with the idea to use it because they were blinded by the sales pitch of what it could deliver)

Support, before jQuery/React/AngularJS etc, for multiple browsers were an issue, not that it couldn't be done, but the programmers at said companies usually lacked the skill (or will to live) to bother with cross-browser compatibility, so stuck with one everyone were already using in the corporate world.

Sharepoint. Should I go into details?

And finally, legacy, most corporates don't push for new technology/innovation every year and fall behind. I've worked with multi-billion rand (turnover) companies that are still running parts of their systems on VB6 (back in 2018 they were starting the process of moving to .net, but not even something like .net core / mvc / bootstrap, just .net 3.5, minimum effort). Another company running a system that was last updated in 2005, running vanilla ES0.012 beta Javascript (I dunno, ES3? whatever one is **** old)

All comes down to "lets spend as little as possible on I.T, even though they're THE most important department where we need to focus on constantly, but throw to the wayside until something breaks and/or **** hits the fan and Microsoft drops support for Windows XP/7 etc, and only notice AFTER **** stopped working
 
Doesn't boggle the mind. It's simple. SSRS (at least till the 2008 version, unsure of the newer 2016 one), needed Active X Controls for the "print" functionality on the report itself, even though exporting to PDF and then printing was super easy, users couldn't seem to understand why there's no print button and kept complaining about it.

Silverlight was a thing. MS tried replacing Flash, failed, and now it's not a thing anymore, yet every company had a slick snake-oil salesmen telling them how amazeballs it is, and it went from manager to manager till employees were forced in it (or worse, an employee came up with the idea to use it because they were blinded by the sales pitch of what it could deliver)

Support, before jQuery/React/AngularJS etc, for multiple browsers were an issue, not that it couldn't be done, but the programmers at said companies usually lacked the skill (or will to live) to bother with cross-browser compatibility, so stuck with one everyone were already using in the corporate world.

Sharepoint. Should I go into details?

And finally, legacy, most corporates don't push for new technology/innovation every year and fall behind. I've worked with multi-billion rand (turnover) companies that are still running parts of their systems on VB6 (back in 2018 they were starting the process of moving to .net, but not even something like .net core / mvc / bootstrap, just .net 3.5, minimum effort). Another company running a system that was last updated in 2005, running vanilla ES0.012 beta Javascript (I dunno, ES3? whatever one is **** old)

All comes down to "lets spend as little as possible on I.T, even though they're THE most important department where we need to focus on constantly, but throw to the wayside until something breaks and/or **** hits the fan and Microsoft drops support for Windows XP/7 etc, and only notice AFTER **** stopped working

There is also that mantra of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"... the actual definition of 'not broke' meaning it can still kinda almost work most of the time
 
There is also that mantra of "if it ain't broke don't fix it"... the actual definition of 'not broke' meaning it can still kinda almost work most of the time

Well, it makes sense.
New one will cost R10 mil?
Current one works, and can by updated for R2mil?

Until you can convince business that it will be cheaper over 5 years to start from scratch, they don't care how badly the devs want to play with .net core.

Then you should also consider that they last time they replaced an aging system with a brand new one, there were (probably) problems for months on end, whereas the one it replaced was 100% stable, even if it did look ugly and only worked in IE6.
They are definitely not falling for that trick again.
 
Well, it makes sense.
New one will cost R10 mil?
Current one works, and can by updated for R2mil?

Until you can convince business that it will be cheaper over 5 years to start from scratch, they don't care how badly the devs want to play with .net core.

Then you should also consider that they last time they replaced an aging system with a brand new one, there were (probably) problems for months on end, whereas the one it replaced was 100% stable, even if it did look ugly and only worked in IE6.
They are definitely not falling for that trick again.

So true hey - we STILL get references to the previous Point of Sale that seemed to do all this fancy stuff that the current one doesn't do :ROFL: The old one was removed due to EoSL mind you (Windows XP) and now the current one has to be upgraded this year due to Win7 EoSL...
 
Well, it makes sense.
New one will cost R10 mil?
Current one works, and can by updated for R2mil?

Until you can convince business that it will be cheaper over 5 years to start from scratch, they don't care how badly the devs want to play with .net core.

Then you should also consider that they last time they replaced an aging system with a brand new one, there were (probably) problems for months on end, whereas the one it replaced was 100% stable, even if it did look ugly and only worked in IE6.
They are definitely not falling for that trick again.
That is the exact fallacy they (and you) seem to live under. You don't have to start from scratch if you're approaching this from a constant improvement mindset instead. I always ask "where would you want to be with this 5 years from now" to get an idea where anyone is trying to move to and what the goal is.

People also don't take into account the amount of time needed support and/or bug fix or "just make the current stuff work" takes and how much work-hours is ploughed into technical debt incurred by previous designs.

I currently have a client that is like this. They want "quick fixes" because they don't want it to cost too much, but if you sum up the amount charged in "quick fixes" you can quickly see that it could have been put towards improving their system instead of constantly patching. But they don't see it like that because they're convinced, just like you, that it's going to cost a fortune and "start from scratch".....

Do you not replace your tires/oil/exhaust/spark plugs in your car because it's going to be too expensive to buy a new car and "start from scratch"? Or do you just replace them (even if its 2 tires at a time) over time and keep up with maintenance so that you don't fall into the trap of being broken down in the middle of nowhere all of a sudden?

Hell, some people even put in "performance" spark plugs, exhausts, sound systems, NOS or superchargers, and they drive crappy little VW's with "jou ma" bumper stickers.

Did *they* start from scratch? Or did they use what they have and, slowly overtime, improved on it so that it doesn't get outrun by the latest Audi and considered "slow"?

Anyway, bit of a sore topic. You don't have to start from scratch or replace or incur huge amount of cost when keeping software up to date. That's why software gets updated in the first place, do you think they just add features and call it a day? Never rework the background inner-workings a little? Then you don't know how versions or rolling updates work.
 
That is the exact fallacy they (and you) seem to live under. You don't have to start from scratch if you're approaching this from a constant improvement mindset instead. I always ask "where would you want to be with this 5 years from now" to get an idea where anyone is trying to move to and what the goal is.

People also don't take into account the amount of time needed support and/or bug fix or "just make the current stuff work" takes and how much work-hours is ploughed into technical debt incurred by previous designs.

I currently have a client that is like this. They want "quick fixes" because they don't want it to cost too much, but if you sum up the amount charged in "quick fixes" you can quickly see that it could have been put towards improving their system instead of constantly patching. But they don't see it like that because they're convinced, just like you, that it's going to cost a fortune and "start from scratch".....

Do you not replace your tires/oil/exhaust/spark plugs in your car because it's going to be too expensive to buy a new car and "start from scratch"? Or do you just replace them (even if its 2 tires at a time) over time and keep up with maintenance so that you don't fall into the trap of being broken down in the middle of nowhere all of a sudden?

Hell, some people even put in "performance" spark plugs, exhausts, sound systems, NOS or superchargers, and they drive crappy little VW's with "jou ma" bumper stickers.

Did *they* start from scratch? Or did they use what they have and, slowly overtime, improved on it so that it doesn't get outrun by the latest Audi and considered "slow"?

Anyway, bit of a sore topic. You don't have to start from scratch or replace or incur huge amount of cost when keeping software up to date. That's why software gets updated in the first place, do you think they just add features and call it a day? Never rework the background inner-workings a little? Then you don't know how versions or rolling updates work.

I think you read my stance on the whole thing wrong.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X