 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Internet Explorer / IE 5.x / July 2005Removing MSIE, or using it as A stand alone browserrlike Firefox
My system- WinMe, with ie5.5Sp1, (i used to use Sp2 but didnt like the error reporting feature allied to thier implementation of object handling i web pages-- it caused too many crashes) i am not wanting IE6 removed outlook express,removed movie maker, removed Office2000 I dont use automatic updates-- i use the downloads page. I don't use Active Desktop I use quick launch, Sometimes use webview - when i want to view pictures as Slide folder IE accounts for at least 75% of windows platform vulnerabilties by the very fact that it has been (artificially) integrated with the windows Explorer shell. What i want to do is to to completely uninstall IE remove all references or perhaps live elements that might be needed by other programs like Norton systemworks-- As long as these files do not pose a security risk. If i understand it properly, It is The rendering Engine MShtl or something that most of the underlying risks stem from What other IE files present a lot of risk. I have heard about IEradicator and 98lite. The second part is that if i decide to reinstall IE iwant it install so that it is as a fully-fledged standalone browser like it used to be in win95. I have heard of he the method where you can have multiple and differnt versions of ie running side by side http://skyzyx.com/downloads/#standalone but it is mainly for web development and i dont think that those versions function 100% like a fully fledged browser. I dont buy the argument that IE can only operate as as part of the operating system ie remove it and windows will be broken IE has always been an add-on has been proven and demonstrated to be so;despite Microsofts elaborate methods of making difficult to remove or untangle. THe security benefits would be that IE would not have the high level privelleges that it has by it's nature of being integrated. It would not be allowed to have automatic acces to locally files or run dlls or exes outside of what it needs to run. Also thinking of running it in a sandbox- As a stand alone it would be much easier to control- yes? IT will be more stable- At the moment when IE crashes it often crashes the OS - So if you were surfing with a number of windows open. wach with a number of sites visited; you would loses the all site listings To explain - in Firefox the with the tabbed browser feature - the list of sites and the order in which it was visited is maintainded untill you physically delete it. So what it means is that you can close down FF ,reboot your computer etc and your list will still be there as before Does anyone know of a 3Rd party utillity for IE that does this. Also any utillities that could replace the "QUICK LAUNCH" feature and "WEB VIW -View as slide folder feature" IF i cannot do it using IE i will look into Deepnet or Maxthon browsers etc Any one who has had experience of doing this or has any ideas please let me know. Thanks Derrb Post your queries to this WinME-specific newsgroup to which I'm crossposting this reply: news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windowsme.general -- ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) MS MVP-Windows (IE/OE) & Security, AH-VSOP > My system- > WinMe, with ie5.5Sp1, (i used to use Sp2 but didnt like the error [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Thanks > Derrb Assuming you already have a working firewall as well as anti-spyware and anti-adware, all of which are up-to-date, install another browser of your choice, then remove use 98Lite to remove the IE components excepting the 2 html-engine files. If you remove those you will also be removing some useful features like QuickLaunch and FolderView, and your "My Documents" tree will fall over. Rick For myself I keep IE intact (5.5 is fine) but not allow it web access. > Post your queries to this WinME-specific newsgroup to which I'm > crossposting this reply: [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >> Thanks >> Derrb > Assuming you already have a working firewall as well as anti-spyware and > anti-adware, all of which are up-to-date, install another browser of > your choice, then remove use 98Lite to remove the IE components > excepting the 2 html-engine files >derbby wrote: > If i understand it properly, It is The rendering Engine MShtl or >>> something >>> that most of the underlying risks stem from > >> What other IE files present a lot of risk>. >>Wont the IE vulnerablities remain if i keep those 2 rendering files > 98Lite to remove the IE components >> excepting the 2 html-engine files Wouldnt that would mean i would still have MSIE vulnerabilities as Bhos, web drivebys could attack still and mshtl buffer flow exploits? or would i be safe from all of that If you remove those you will also be removing some useful features > like QuickLaunch and FolderView Aren't there any 3rd party utilities that would do the same thing I dont use web view that often most of the time i have it in classic view It is quick launch that i use a lot. > your "My Documents" tree will> > fall over. I dont use my documents folder but i have a feeling that you talking about something more than that. > Assuming you already have a working firewall as well as anti-spyware > and anti-adware, all of which are up-to-date, install another browser [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] >>> Thanks >>> Derrb >> If you remove those you will also be removing some useful features >> like QuickLaunch and FolderView, and your "My Documents" tree will > Aren't there any 3rd party utilities that would do the same thing> I dont use web view that often most of the time i have it in classic vi> ew It is quick launch that i use a > lot. I can use irfanview for viewing files as a slider -might be much easier than web view. What is the "folder view" function you are referring to Do you man that you would be able to change the view setings such as view as icons ,details etc or do you mean you would be able to viwe the folder as a webpage- If it isthe latter then i hardly use that feature. Dunno if there are 3rd party proggies that do the same thing; feeling would be no but I'm sure Google has plenty of options. Basically you'd be missing all the user-interface functionality improvements of WinME over 95 (because the difference is the html-engine). The only vulnerability you might be susceptible to is the recentish one where even if you have browser 'x' installed it hands something off to the html engine... which you would be susceptible to anyways. Rick >>>If you remove those you will also be removing some useful features >>>like QuickLaunch and FolderView, and your "My Documents" tree will [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > or do you mean you would be able to viwe the folder as a webpage- > If it isthe latter then i hardly use that feature. Rick, IERadicator (98litelite) also removes the catroot and sfp files that sfp references to know what to protect (and what version). The reason being, of course, that otherwise sfc would simply restore many of the deleted IE files. It requires a fair bit of sodding about to restore sfp afterwards and the scenario is that (iirc) either: 1). You recover the original database - but it no longer protects files that have been updated since 8th June 2000 - eg, inc. Explorer.exe, or 2). You also re-install all the updates to replace their security catalogs, or 3). You back the catroot and sfp folders up before removing IE (and replace them while statemgr is not running, eg from DOS). Shane  Signature¼á > Dunno if there are 3rd party proggies that do the same thing; feeling > would be no but I'm sure Google has plenty of options. Basically you'd be [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> as a webpage- >> If it isthe latter then i hardly use that feature. > Rick, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Shane I've tried a couple of the 98lite scenarios with WinME; it's mildly useful if you go in for that sort of thing but leaves loose ends (as you've mentioned). Rick Signature¼á >> Rick, >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > if you go in for that sort of thing but leaves loose ends (as you've > mentioned). Matter of opinion I guess, but more-or-less killing SFP seems to me more serious than that. Whether you like System Restore or not - and I don't think the Win ME implementation is that much to shout about (mainly because there's a very good chance you'll have to go around renaming icons and shortcuts back to lowercase after using it!) - I reckon SFP is the main advantage of Win ME over Win 98se. If anyone were to ask (yet again!) why choose Win ME over Win 98se, that's my answer - SFP. Shane <stuff that didn't make it past his sig> SR is pretty cool too. Rick SignatureH<@ > <stuff that didn't make it past his sig> > > SR is pretty cool too. Talk about cool. Sunday afternoon I got on the bike to go to Cheltenham to see my father. I turned into Cheltenham Road and slowly accelerated and saw, coming directly towards me, barely above the treetops and following the road into Cirencester, a single engine prop aircraft. What with the bombings, it had slipped my mind that a Spitfire was supposed to be performing at the local Country Show - but what I could see coming towards me now looked very much like head-on shots I've seen in movies such as The Battle Of Britain. So I pulled over, stopped and looked up as it went overhead. Bloody fabulous! I turned round and followed it, saw it do a few swooping circuits of Cirencester Park, then lost it behind the trees. Shane > Thanks for your reply shane I dont use system Restore - It is a bit of a resource hog, prone to misbehave - There are better programs than that eg GoBAck etc I have norton Ghost the Dos version. I would like to keep SFP though, > ). You also re-install all the updates to replace their security >>> catalogs, or I assume you mean after you used the sleek/chubby option=== Will you still be able to install the updates after you,ve removed most of iy (Saved to drive first of course) MSHTML.dll -- Thats the main rending engine right? or, this the executable that is most exploited for its vulnerabilities ??. How is it tied to Windows Explorer; does windows explorer call it on bootup or something. Is it true that as long asit is on your system malicious programs can call it even if the most of ie is removed > You back the catroot and sfp folders up before removing IE (and >>> replace them while statemgr is not running, eg from DOS). I have disabled *statemgr in msconfig Quoting from here http://www.litepc.com/release_notes/ieradicator.txt ""You can reinstall Internet Explorer as a stand alone Browser (just like Netscape) and keep a substantial performance improvement"" Is this correct - In what way would this be a stand alone browser Specific questions concerning results of a "Litening" would be better served by querying them directly, (re)reading the documentation or going to a forum dealing in that. While it's occasionally recommended here (m.p.windowsme.) to use IEradiactor as an extreme troubleshooting step, the only person who has used it to any great depth hasn't been on in a while. Rick > While it's occasionally recommended here (m.p.windowsme.) to use > IEradiactor as an extreme troubleshooting step, the only person who has > used it to any great depth hasn't been on in a while. I've used it and noted every file and registry entry it removes (using both 98's SFC and Inctrl5). I also did the research to learn how to re-enable and recover SFP (although it was Mike who told me that the original System.cat is recovered by renaming Catalog.cab, unnecessary if you backed the updated files up for later restoration). If you mean Art, I was instrumental in his stopping using it in Win ME by informing him of how it 'broke' SFP - and sending him, at his request, the list of what IEradicator removes (I have absolute faith that he'd have figured it out for himself eventually, but he'd only just moved to ME, from 98). Shane >>While it's occasionally recommended here (m.p.windowsme.) to use >>IEradiactor as an extreme troubleshooting step, the only person who has [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > figured it out for himself eventually, but he'd only just moved to ME, from > 98). So word is then that it's useless ? I found the 95 browser substitution to be blazing fast but couldn't live without the stuff which the html engine enabled. Rick (the things you people get up to when I'm on vacation... ;) >>>While it's occasionally recommended here (m.p.windowsme.) to use >>>IEradiactor as an extreme troubleshooting step, the only person who has [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to be blazing fast but couldn't live without the stuff which the html > engine enabled. Well, Art still recommends it for Win 98 (or did last time I checked. Incidentally he appears to be using Win 2k these days). I think it's all relative - that you don't need to do it for security purposes if you practice Safe Hex, and as far as speed goes, if it bothers me that much I'll look at faster hardware as a solution. Even with today's blistering performance folk'll be wanting to speed the system up by hacking the OS, though once upon a time a system fifty times slower was good enough for them. I can understand people wanting to optimise the system they already have, I just think that going as far as ripping out IE to do so is a little obsessive. If they care *that* much, they should get a faster machine, they'll be glad they did. If they're *not* total geeks but rather simply can't find the money for new hardware, maybe they shouldn't be risking having to pay someone to fix their systems for them. In Win ME IE is too deeply-embedded. IEradicator is certainly good for removing IE6.0 prior to a repair re-installation of Win ME, or rectifying the situation such causes if IE6.0 isn't removed first. I think it's an excellent tool for this. In that situation one is likely re-installing all updates (it's certainly advisable, and not much pain if the Security Update cd is available) so the sfp issue shouldn't arise. I too want the html engine bells and whistles. I even have IE 4.0 sp2 still in case I reload NT4.0. Shane > Well, Art still recommends it for Win 98 (or did last time I checked. > Incidentally he appears to be using Win 2k these days). me2, coincidence though, I'm just too lazy to reinstall WinME. > I think it's all relative - that you don't need to do it for security > purposes if you practice Safe Hex, and as far as speed goes, if it bothers > me that much I'll look at faster hardware as a solution. Even with today's > blistering performance folk'll be wanting to speed the system up by hacking > the OS, though once upon a time a system fifty times slower was good enough > for them. the OS was 50x faster. > I can understand people wanting to optimise the system they already have, I > just think that going as far as ripping out IE to do so is a little > obsessive. If they care *that* much, they should get a faster machine, > they'll be glad they did. If they're *not* total geeks but rather simply > can't find the money for new hardware, maybe they shouldn't be risking > having to pay someone to fix their systems for them. I don't think of myself as a *total* geek, but my machine does stuff I don't need it to and can live without and I have no problems with removing stuff that is taking up my machine's (and my) time. The speed difference between 95/ME Windows Explorers (I think I brain-typoed it as "browsers" in my previous post) is seriously jaw-dropping. IE6 caused mundo problemos with my system (which is pretty stock OS-wise); I think it was the Via drivers but not enough of a sampling of people had the same problems to be able to say for sure. 5.5 (from the original OS install) worked fine. Rick > > Well, Art still recommends it for Win 98 (or did last time I checked. > > Incidentally he appears to be using Win 2k these days). [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > the OS was 50x faster. Doesn't affect my point. > > I can understand people wanting to optimise the system they already have, I > > just think that going as far as ripping out IE to do so is a little [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't need it to and can live without and I have no problems with > removing stuff that is taking up my machine's (and my) time. You sound like a guy who always carries a stopwatch <vbg> > The speed difference between 95/ME Windows Explorers (I think I > brain-typoed it as "browsers" in my previous post) is seriously > jaw-dropping. So what are you gonna do. The quality difference between 95 and ME is also serious. I mean, apart from issues that are almost certainly 3rd-party software incompatibility related, the only person who would choose Win 95 - or for that matter 98 - over ME is someone who reached the apex of their appreciation of the experience while using that OS and just can't get on with any subsequent deviation from it. I mean, there are still people who consider Windows a leap backwards from DOS. > IE6 caused mundo problemos with my system (which is pretty stock > OS-wise); I think it was the Via drivers but not enough of a sampling > of people had the same problems to be able to say for sure. 5.5 (from > the original OS install) worked fine. Using Via 4-in-1's here with no probs (that's up to and including the latest Hyperion, on Win ME and XP and, until a couple of days ago, on 98se and NT4.0 too, IE6.0sp1 all round except XP of course). What sort of problems (was reading it as 'Emm undo' problems - and wondering what the hell they were! Too mundo too list?). Shane >>>Well, Art still recommends it for Win 98 (or did last time I checked. >>>Incidentally he appears to be using Win 2k these days). [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > (was reading it as 'Emm undo' problems - and wondering what the hell they > were! Too mundo too list?). not really: WE consistently hangs during multiple file deletions and moves(anything over say 10 files), and behaviour that I can best described as "totally warped (lack of) threading", ie: mouse/keyboard hangs during disk operations; my contention was(/is) that IE6 was writ for NTx which has a threading model, and ignores 9x which doesn't. Hard to say that considering it wasn't a widespread problem, though. Rick Hmm, I *was* using several FAT-16 partitions at the time (as well as FAT-32's), maybe IE6 couldn't be arsed to handle those properly... "oopsy we forgot to put that stuff in for this rev, guess you'll have to upgrade; so sorry..." >> Using Via 4-in-1's here with no probs (that's up to and including the >> latest [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ignores 9x which doesn't. Hard to say that considering it wasn't a > widespread problem, though. Oh, right. I remember you mentioning the threading thing though I forget what prompted it. > Rick > > Hmm, I *was* using several FAT-16 partitions at the time (as well as > FAT-32's), maybe IE6 couldn't be arsed to handle those properly... "oopsy > we forgot to put that stuff in for this rev, guess you'll have to upgrade; > so sorry..." As you say 'hmm'. The NT4.0 was on FAT16 (of course - had to use the Sys-internals FAT32 driver to read the other partitions), as was Win 98se when booting both from the same. Not that I had Win 98 booting from FAT16 for long, but didn't experience problems in that time. Shane > Oh, right. I remember you mentioning the threading thing though I forget > what prompted it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > when booting both from the same. Not that I had Win 98 booting from FAT16 > for long, but didn't experience problems in that time. dang, almost got to solve the problem and blame Microsoft. hmm (again) maybe updated FAT16 was writ for NTx (as I postied) and translating back into 9x not too good... not too good, doesn't explain 98 working. <shrug> Rick > I think it's all relative - that you don't need to do it for security > purposes if you practice Safe Hex, and as far as speed goes, if it > bothers me that much I'll look at faster hardware as a solution. Even > with today's blistering performance folk'll be wanting to speed the > system up by hacking the OS, though once upon a time a system fifty > times slower was good enough for them Untill another exploit is found that only requires you to go to a website to be surrepticiously injected with bad code. >> I think it's all relative - that you don't need to do it for security >> purposes if you practice Safe Hex, and as far as speed goes, if it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Untill another exploit is found that only requires you to go to a > website to be surrepticiously injected with bad code. Disable Scripting and Install On Demand for the Internet Zone, smartarse. And btw you have to do much the same in Firefox. Shane > Disable Scripting and Install On Demand for the Internet Zone, smartarse. > And btw you have to do much the same in Firefox. IN Internet options/internet zone/Security All active X disabled Java disabled Acess data sources across domains disabled installation if desktop items disabled launching programs and files in an Iframe disabled Navigate subframes across domains -disabled Software channel permissions disabled userdata persistence disabled All scripts disabled Java applets -disabled IN Internet options/ Advanced enable install on demand disabled I have also tightened up the all other zones including unhiding the LocalComputer Zone and hardening it. even with these options there are many exploits that will by pass these security measures. >> Disable Scripting and Install On Demand for the Internet Zone, >> smartarse. And btw you have to do much the same in Firefox. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > even with these options there are many exploits that will by pass > these security measures. And in Firefox. Meanwhile, IE is too deeply embedded in Win ME to remove and make sense continuing to use Win ME, rather than continuing to use Win ME and using an alternative browser without ripping out IE. Otherwise - IMO - most who worry to this degree are obsessing. I don't know of anyone who practises Safe Hex who has ever fallen prey to any exploit, other than, perhaps, those who didn't always think before clicking. Anyway, just how many unpatched exploits remain in IE? Shane > Disable Scripting and Install On Demand for the Internet Zone, smartarse. > And btw you have to do much the same in Firefox. IN Internet options/internet zone/Security All active X disabled Java disabled Acess data sources across domains disabled installation if desktop items disabled launching programs and files in an Iframe disabled Navigate subframes across domains -disabled Software channel permissions disabled userdata persistence disabled All scripts disabled Java applets -disabled IN Internet options/ Advanced enable install on demand disabled I have also tightened up the all other zones including unhiding the LocalComputer Zone and hardening it. even with these options there are many exploits that will by pass these security measures. SR is NOT a resource hog - it uses considerably less resources than GoBack! (although it doesn't cover the same breadth of files that GoBack does). It also uses a lot less disk space than GoBack does, since GoBack is effectively a keylogger which records everything that the machine ever does. Depending on how you disabled SR, you may discovered that you've already disabled SFP - ensure that the *Statemgr entry in the Startup list in MSCONFIG is still checked. SignatureNoel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows) Nil Carborundum Illegitemi http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm http://tinyurl.com/6oztj Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's >> Thanks for your reply shane > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I would like to keep SFP though, > If you remove those you will also be removing some useful features >> like QuickLaunch and FolderView Can replace QuickLaunch with fastLauncher OR Freelaunch Bar Irfan View to replace Folder View -- Also has view as slide folder What other feature/functionality will i loose if i completely remove ie I am now also considering Lite Step or Aston Shell as a replacement for the explorer shell. Is there 98 lite or ieradicator forum. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.