Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Jon-Alfred Smi » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00



(Im cross-posting this to an OS/2 group, because there are people
dual-booting, and Im very interested to hear what they think.)

Shortly after the release of the gold code of Windows 95 Netscape bugs
were reported. Those messages have become quite numerous. I have
myself experienced three of them. They are easily reproducible, and
they occur on both my desktop machine and portable:

1) When you launch Netscape, it is a small Window; you cant maximise
it without being on-line.
2) Netscape hangs if I start Netscape and dont chose Auto dial.
3) File transfers stop at about 500 KB.

Now, Im obviously not alone to observe these bugs. They dont seem to
have anything to do with my Internet provider. The 16-bit version of
1.2N works equally well with W4W 3.11 and Win-OS/2. So do MS Internet
Explorer and IBMs Web Explorer (OS/2) on their respective platforms.

I have used Netscape since December last year, starting with beta
0.94. Since then I have used every 16-bit beta and final version on a
day by day basis. Ive come to regard Netscape as an extremely good
product on every level of development. With all the betas they always
stated bugs fixed, bugs unfixed.

The 16-bit version of 1.2N went through six beta cycles. Of course
there was no Auto dial, but no problems with file transfers or a
Window you couldnt maximise.

All of this makes me wonder who the villain is, Netscape or Windows.
Because I find it very strange that all these bugs exist in a final
product, especially Netscape. I have not been through the beta cycle
of Windows 95, but waited for the final product.

My first question: Was Netscape that buggy under Windows 95
pre-builds?

My second question: Is it possible that Microsoft (MS) has studied the

calls Netscape makes and deliberately made the app appear buggy.

Im very sorry to say so, but Ive been in this business since the
arrival of one the first PC/XTs in Norway (1984). And through the
years - quite evidently so about one or two years before the final
split between IBM and MS - Ive seen some of the practice described
here. Please note, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a crusade
against a company or any OS.

Could a possible outline be as the following?
The idea to establish a MS Network is quite old. MS was waiting until
the arrival of fast and cheap modems. The popularity of the Web took
MS by surprise. Gates openly admits this. MS had hastily to licence a
code base from Spry Glass. They made the interface compliant with that
of Win 95 and churned it through a 32-bit compiler. Thats it. It is
not so very compliant with the Web. It neither supports HTML 3.0 nor
Netscape extensions.

Gates is known to say when he sees a new product with potential: "Good

idea, but not fancy or hot enough." Needles to say, the Internet
Explorer would not have survived his judgement if MS had not run out
off time.So, what do they do? First make life hard for Netscape, give
away their own inferior product for free until it is good enough, so
they can charge for it.

Then they call up the usual editors of various computer mags and
provide this information: Netscape is buggy, we give away our own for
free (btw Netscapes security broken in Europe and the US, Netscapes
stock are going down, Netscape's good reputation shaken  etc.).
Everything you might need for a good cover story.

Does all this sound weird or wired?

----------------------------------------
?Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows? (L. Cohen).


Powered by OS/2 since 1989

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Steve Sheld » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Quote:>My first question: Was Netscape that buggy under Windows 95
>pre-builds?

 Netscape is that buggy on other platforms, so I don't know why you'd find
this all that surprising.

Quote:>My second question: Is it possible that Microsoft (MS) has studied the
>calls Netscape makes and deliberately made the app appear buggy.

 Why?  How would this benefit Microsoft?

Quote:>Im very sorry to say so, but Ive been in this business since the
>arrival of one the first PC/XTs in Norway (1984). And through the
>years - quite evidently so about one or two years before the final
>split between IBM and MS - Ive seen some of the practice described
>here. Please note, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a crusade
>against a company or any OS.

 I have to agree that Microsoft has involved itself in some pretty unfair
trade practices in order to discredit DR-DOS, and other products.  But
having worked with Netscape on other platforms, I wouldn't be surprised if
you found bugs.

--
Steve Sheldon           [These are my own opinions]    '94 Acura Integra LS
Iowa State University   ICSS Resource Facility by day  '85 Honda Spree

   BEEF! -- Cause the west wasn't won on salad.

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Paul E. Kilme » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00



>Shortly after the release of the gold code of Windows 95 Netscape bugs
>were reported.

No news here.  _Everything_ in this newsgroup has to do with
problems.  The better sell job you do, the more users exist who
have problems.

Quote:>Those messages have become quite numerous. I have
>myself experienced three of them. They are easily reproducible, and
>they occur on both my desktop machine and portable:

>1) When you launch Netscape, it is a small Window; you cant maximise
>... etc...

>My second question: Is it possible that Microsoft (MS) has studied the

>calls Netscape makes and deliberately made the app appear buggy.

I'm using Win95 gold edition & Netscape, too.  Virtually no
problems.  I've transferred files up to 3MB with no problems at
all.  Sorry, just cuz MS piles up the sales a * is not a
natural conclusion.
If it were that simple, then the test would be true in _all_ cases,
not just on your PC.

-------------------------
Paul Kilmer

-------------------------

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by rj friedm » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00



writes:
:>Then they [MS] call up the usual editors of various computer mags and
:>provide this information: Netscape is buggy, we give away our own for
:>free (btw Netscapes security broken in Europe and the US, Netscapes
:>stock are going down, Netscape's good reputation shaken  etc.).
:>Everything you might need for a good cover story.

:>Does all this sound weird or wired?


This may sound callous, but I don't have a shred of sympathy for anyone who
puts themselves in the position of being dependent on MS. Sooner or later
they will all get it in the end (literally as well as figuratively). With all
the evidence of MS' sleaziness down over the years, anyone who willingly gets
into bed with them deserves to wake up with a PITA.

<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
[RJ]
rj friedman

<<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Ed Tiley -- ClubW » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00



>My second question: Is it possible that Microsoft (MS) has studied the
>calls Netscape makes and deliberately made the app appear buggy.

Wierd or Wired? Definately wierd, dude.

If MS were to include code to bomb any program on purpose, and
good C programmer could walk the heap and disassemble the
routines, and MS would have a public relations nightmare, not to
mention the US government on their ass in a minute.

In short, no way.

Ed Tiley
ClubWin

http://www.supernet.net/~edtiley/win95

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Gerry Hech » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00




> >My second question: Is it possible that Microsoft (MS) has studied the
> >calls Netscape makes and deliberately made the app appear buggy.

> Wierd or Wired? Definately wierd, dude.

> If MS were to include code to bomb any program on purpose, and
> good C programmer could walk the heap and disassemble the
> routines, and MS would have a public relations nightmare, not to
> mention the US government on their ass in a minute.

> In short, no way

Hmmmmm!!!  Let's see publick relations nightmare, US government on their
ass... Yes you have described Microshit perfectly!!!
In Short, that is exactly what M$ does.

Gerry

Quote:

> Ed Tiley
> ClubWin

> http://www.supernet.net/~edtiley/win95

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Dave Ho » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00




>writes:
>:>Then they [MS] call up the usual editors of various computer mags and
>:>provide this information: Netscape is buggy, we give away our own for
>:>free (btw Netscapes security broken in Europe and the US, Netscapes
>:>stock are going down, Netscape's good reputation shaken  etc.).
>:>Everything you might need for a good cover story.
>:>Does all this sound weird or wired?

>This may sound callous, but I don't have a shred of sympathy for anyone who
>puts themselves in the position of being dependent on MS. Sooner or later
>they will all get it in the end (literally as well as figuratively). With all
>the evidence of MS' sleaziness down over the years, anyone who willingly gets
>into bed with them deserves to wake up with a PITA.
><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>
>[RJ]
>rj friedman

><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>><<*>>

Netscape not work with Win95?Would Microsoft deliberately setup Win 95
to not work without proprietary MS networking apps? Nah,no way!
 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Wayne Hixs » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00





>>My second question: Is it possible that Microsoft (MS) has studied the
>>calls Netscape makes and deliberately made the app appear buggy.

>Wierd or Wired? Definately wierd, dude.

>If MS were to include code to bomb any program on purpose, and
>good C programmer could walk the heap and disassemble the
>routines, and MS would have a public relations nightmare, not to
>mention the US government on their ass in a minute.

>In short, no way.

>Ed Tiley
>ClubWin

>http://www.supernet.net/~edtiley/win95

Netscape works wonderfully for me in Win 95; it is my browser of
choice, although I also have Mosaic and MS browser.
Wayne Hixson

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Ron Jone » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00


I don't know what your problem is but I am using Netscape
1.2N-32bit via WIN95 Dial-up Networking with no problems
and all. I have downloaded file in excess of 3megs.

--
MZ?

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Ron Jon » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Reads like some more OS/2 jealousy.

--

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Braden McDani » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00




[another hare-brained * theory]

C'mon...

Netscape is a very good application. But it ain't perfect, and its programmers
aren't gods. There will be bugs. There are bugs in Windows 95, and there are
bugs in Netscape 1.2.

You are making a pretty serious accusation with no evidence whatsoever. Get a
grip.

Braden

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Tom Brinkma » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00



>1) When you launch Netscape, it is a small Window; you can=92t maximise
>it without being on-line.
>2) Netscape hangs if I start Netscape and don=92t chose Auto dial.
>3) File transfers stop at about 500 KB.

>Does all this sound weird or wired?

    1)  start NS and maximize,  Rclick on a 'blank' part of the
        task bar, choose either 'tile' option.  from then on when
        you start NS it will be full screen.
  2),3) haven't had either of these problems.   There are a few
        bugs which NS has acknowledged:  one is 'hanging' on
        certain URL's,  the other is 'illegal operation' msg.'s
        (and having to restart NS).  NS says both problems are
        fixed in NS 2.0 / Gold.   A workaround that usually works
        on 'hanged' URL's is to hit 'reload' and then 'stop'.
--
-+++++++++++++++++++++++++  Tom Brinkman  +++++++++++++++++++++++-


-++++++++++++++++  Lander of Lears on the Nimitz  +++++++++++++++-
 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Lou Nig » Thu, 28 Sep 1995 04:00:00




Quote:>(Im cross-posting this to an OS/2 group, because there are people
>dual-booting, and Im very interested to hear what they think.)

>Shortly after the release of the gold code of Windows 95 Netscape bugs
>were reported. Those messages have become quite numerous. I have
>myself experienced three of them. They are easily reproducible, and
>they occur on both my desktop machine and portable:

>1) When you launch Netscape, it is a small Window; you cant maximise
>it without being on-line.
>2) Netscape hangs if I start Netscape and dont chose Auto dial.
>3) File transfers stop at about 500 KB.

Wrong on #1, all you have to do is go to the Netscape shortcut, right
click on it, bring up Properties, and set the window to maximized.
Not a bug in either 95 or Netscape.

Never had problem #2, been running 95 since Build 347, sounds like you
have something set up wrong.

#2 - Again, you have something set up wrong.  Get consistent speeds of
3k plus, check out your setup.

Sorry, but you can't blame either Netscape or 95 for these "bugs".
User error.

Lou

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Rich Grav » Thu, 28 Sep 1995 04:00:00


A dim flame for Lou, and information for jas.

In article <44cbjn$...@news.azstarnet.com>, bus...@azstarnet.com

(Lou Nigro) wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 1995 07:28:47 GMT, j...@oslonett.no (Jon-Alfred Smith)
> wrote:

> >(Im cross-posting this to an OS/2 group, because there are people
> >dual-booting, and Im very interested to hear what they think.)

> >Shortly after the release of the gold code of Windows 95 Netscape bugs
> >were reported. Those messages have become quite numerous. I have
> >myself experienced three of them. They are easily reproducible, and
> >they occur on both my desktop machine and portable:

> >1) When you launch Netscape, it is a small Window; you cant maximise
> >it without being on-line.

> Wrong on #1, all you have to do is go to the Netscape shortcut, right
> click on it, bring up Properties, and set the window to maximized.
> Not a bug in either 95 or Netscape.

Have you actually tried it? It doesn't work, and Netscape knows it. The
Netscape FAQ says you need to select one of the tile options in the
toolbar, and then the window position will be saved. There has been much
discussion of this and other minor cosmetic bugs in
secnews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.navigator. This will be fixed in
2.0, and maybe in the 1.2.1 bug fix.

> >2) Netscape hangs if I start Netscape and don't chose Auto dial.

> Never had problem #2, been running 95 since Build 347, sounds like you
> have something set up wrong.

Yes, he has turned off autodial, like he said. But it still shouldn't
hang. That is a bug.

> >3) File transfers stop at about 500 KB.

> #2 - Again, you have something set up wrong.  Get consistent speeds of
> 3k plus, check out your setup.

Thank you *so much* for your intelligent suggestions. *Helpful* FAQ
excerpts below. In summary, turn off compression and error checking for
better performance. You may also need to unset MTU discovery because of
Win95's bugs^H^H^H^H nonstandard TCP/IP implementation.

> Sorry, but you can't blame either Netscape or 95 for these "bugs".
> User error.

That's what your parents said.

-rich
 moderator of the win95netbugs list
 http://www-dccs.stanford.edu/NetConsult/Win95Net/faq.html

C.2. Netscape Packet Storm Bugs.

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 95 21:17:12 -0800
From: Rich Graves <llu...@networking.stanford.edu>
Content-Description: Netscape Packet Storm Bugs.

This appears to be a bug specific to Netscape, but it's worth mentioning
here because so many people use it.
Netscape 1.2N, 32-bit version, does not back off from TCP RESETs and ICMP
unreachable messages;
instead, it retransmits forever, with no timeout. On a dialup connection
this will only cause some annoying
"hangs," inducing the user to hit the "Stop" and "Reload" buttons a lot,
but it can cause destructive packet
storms on Ethernet and other high-bandwidth links.

Please see the initial post about this set of bugs at
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/win95netbugs/Readme-Netscape_N....
That tells where to
get relevant packet traces.

Two URLs you can try to confirm these bugs are http://ftp.netscape.com
(responds with a TCP RESET)
and http://36.36.0.10 (nonexistent network, responds with an ICMP unreachable).

Microsoft has acknowledged the problem, and blames Netscape. The Netscape
product manager posted a
message claiming the problem was irreproducible, to which I posted a
response. Anyway, you can
reproduce the problem yourself with the URLs above. You probably need some
technical knowledge of the
Internet Protocols TCP to understand the problem.

C.3. Web browser/TCP connection "hanging" bug.

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 22:30:47 -0800
From: Rich Graves <llu...@networking.stanford.edu>
Content-Description: Web browser/TCP connection "hanging" bug.

I suspect that this is a separate bug from the Netscape bug above.
Netscape, the Microsoft Internet
Explorer, and other multithreaded Internet apps seem to lose track of
multiple TCP connections. The usual
symptom is a page that stops loading halfway, but works fine if you hit
Stop or Reload. Setting
MaxConnections=1 will usually fix this problem.

C.10. Why can't I send mail/news or upload with FTP (MTU path
discovery problem)?

Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 15:23:18 -0700
From: Rich Graves <llu...@networking.stanford.edu>
Content-Description: Why can't I send mail/news or upload with FTP (MTU
path discovery problem)?

Message-Id: <199509242223.PAA04...@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Eudora problem with 95 (path MTU discovery?)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,
            comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.os.ms-windows.win95.misc,
            comp.os.ms-windows.apps.winsock.mail,
            comp.os.ms-windows.apps.winsock.news,
            comp.os.ms-windows.apps.winsock.misc

Yes, you have accurately diagnosed the problem win Win95 uploads, commonly
seen in mail and news programs.

To fix this, open the Registry and set one or both of these:

 Hkey_Local_Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\VxD\MSTCP

 PMTUBlackHoleDetect = 0 or 1

 Specifies whether the stack will attempt to detect Maximum Transmission
 Unit (MTU) routers that do not send back ICMP fragmentation-needed
 messages. Setting this parameter when it is not needed can cause
 performance degradation. The default is 0.

 PMTUDiscovery = 0 or 1

 Specifies whether Microsoft TCP/IP will attempt to do path MTU discovery
 as specified in RFC 1191. The default is 1.

It would be *nice* if there were a Knowledge Base article on this, or if
the people answering the $1.95 per minute network support lines had *just
one* clue (at least seven people with problems connecting to an ISP have
been told "just use the Microsoft Network; it's easier").

Setting MTU to some ridiculously low value will also work, but it hurts
performance.

The TGV and what's-his-name replacement TCP/IP stacks for Win95 will
fragment properly according to existing Internet standards.

Posted widely, followups restricted.

- Show quoted text -

> From: pir...@vm1.ulg.ac.be (Andri Pirard)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.win95.setup
> Subject: Re: Eudora problem with 95 (path MTU discovery?)
> Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 12:40:58 GMT
> Organization: SEGI, Universiti de Lihge, Belgique
> Message-ID: <443n5c$...@aix1.segi.ulg.ac.be>
> References: <42uv3o$...@tattoo.sccsi.com>

> mh...@sccsi.com (Max K. Huff) wrote:

>>Eudora appears to limited to outgoing message length of about 10 lines.  
>>Anything in excess of 10 lines hangs during the "send" operation.  It sends a
>>"time-out" message after a while.  The results are the same with Eudora 2.0.3
>>and the new 2.1.0 versions. Also is the same with another machine running 95
>>with Eudora.  Is Eudora not compatible with 95, or is there a parameter I
>>missed?
>>Thanks
>>Max

> Microsoft TCP/IP for Win 3, and presumably Win 4, implements recent
> "Path MTU discovery" technique. This implies setting the "Don't
> fragment" bit in outgoing IP packets. You may get in trouble with IP
> routers that would have to fragment the packets, are told not to do
> so, and discard them without replying with the now necessary ICMP
> control message (and M$ TCP/IP copes badly with this situation).

> If that's your problem (which you can make almost sure by testing that
> an FTP upload blocks also), your solution is to either disable path
> MTU discovery or to set your line interface's MTU to 576 (hoping that
> the router transmits at least that without the need to fragment, it
> should).
> In Win 3, SYSTEM.INI contains a pathmtudisc=1 (or like) to be set to
> 0. MTU and Win 4: dunno, sorry, look around.

> Andri PIRARD         SEGI, Universiti de Lihge  | 139.165.0.0 IP (ULg)
> B26 - Sart Tilman    B-4000 Lihge 1 (Belgium)   | Integrator and Adm.
> pir...@vm1.ulg.ac.be aka PIR...@BLIULG11.BITNET   +32 (41) 664932

D.1. Nonstandard PPP implementation causes problems with
BSDI and other servers.

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 22:30:47 -0800
From: Rich Graves <llu...@networking.stanford.edu>
Content-Description: Nonstandard PPP implementation causes problems with
BSDI and other servers.

Thanks to Richard Ryan <rr...@bhost.blackhills.com> for calling this
problem to our attention. For more
information on this problem, see the searchable bsdi-users archive at
http://www.nexial.nl/cgi-bin/bsdi.

Microsoft's RFC for their "extensions" to PPP, which were rejected by the
Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), is at ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/rfc/ipcpexts.txt.

There has been some discussion of this on the comp.protocols.ppp newsgroup.

Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 11:46:58 -0500
Message-Id: <199508261646.LAA05...@krystal.com>
To: Jim Flowers <jflow...@raptor.eznets.canton.oh.us>,
bsdi-us...@BSDI.COM,
        Small Internet Access Providers <I...@VMA.CC.ND.EDU>
From: Paul Borman <p...@BSDI.COM>
Subject: Re: Pesky IPCP Messages

> Now that Windows 95 is beginning to appear, I am beginning to get more  
> of these messages with the BSDI 2.0 ppp implementation.  No real  
> problems but a real drag on the messages log.

> ppp3: unknown IPCP option received (129)
> ppp3: unknown IPCP option received (130)
> ppp3: unknown IPCP option received (131)
> ppp3: unknown IPCP option received (132)

Microsoft proposed some extensions to IPCP to negotiate the DNS server
and the NetBUI server.  The IETF rejected them as this was the wrong
level to do this.  Microsoft decided to ignore the IETF and implement
them anyhow.  Microsoft should provide a way to not use them (since
they are totally non-standard and are only supported by Microsoft
clients).  Users of Microsoft networking products would need to
contact Microsoft to determine how to do this.

This note is meant to be an explanation of what is happening and should
not be interpreted in any way as an offical statement by BSDI on The
Microsoft IPCP Options.

                                -Paul Borman
                                 p...@bsdi.com

D.2. Degraded SLIP/PPP ...

read more »

 
 
 

Netscape bugs or deliberate Windows "bugs"?

Post by Lou Nig » Mon, 02 Oct 1995 04:00:00




>A dim flame for Lou, and information for jas.





>> >1) When you launch Netscape, it is a small Window; you cant maximise
>> >it without being on-line.

>> Wrong on #1, all you have to do is go to the Netscape shortcut, right
>> click on it, bring up Properties, and set the window to maximized.
>> Not a bug in either 95 or Netscape.

>Have you actually tried it? It doesn't work, and Netscape knows it. The
>Netscape FAQ says you need to select one of the tile options in the
>toolbar, and then the window position will be saved. There has been much
>discussion of this and other minor cosmetic bugs in

>2.0, and maybe in the 1.2.1 bug fix.

I have actually tried it, have been using it with no problem.
Netscape comes up full screen every time it starts.  I t works fine
here, maybe you have another problem Rich, like you think you are an
expert????

It may work for me and not for you and God knows why.  95 is a very
complex system and every installation is a little different from every
other one.

Don't go trashing suggestions just because you are the "moderator of
the win95netbugs list".

In that position you SHOULD know that what works for me may not work
for you.  Sounds like you are too deep in the forest to see the trees.

BTW, you accuse me of not giving answers, the FAQ entries you included
seem to have lots of questions and "suggestions" for only some of the
problems.  Take a look in the mirror.

Lou

 
 
 

1. Netscape "Bug" Found Related to Recent MS-Explorer 3.x "Bug"?

"Comments" (and "Verifications") are welcome regarding
a possible Netscape (v3.01Gold) Browser "Bug" which
may be somewhat related to the "Internet Explorer Bug"
recently found for the MS Explorer (v3.x) Browser.
(http://www.cybersnot.com/iebug.html)

PROBLEM:
1. Having a Calculator "shortcut" icon (with a
"CALCUL`1.LNK" MS-DOS name in "Properties") on the
Windows95 (Win95) DeskTop, and
2. Using the Netscape v3.01Gold Browser, and
3. Clicking one of the "DEMO" Links
(http://www.cybersnot.com/calculator.lnk) on the
WebPage of the Cybersnot-WebSite
(http://www.cybersnot.com/iebug.html) apparently
causes MY entire "calc.exe" (~59kb) file to be
"DownLoaded" (actually "moved", not "copied") from
the usual Windows Directory to some other location
on MY PC-Hard Drive.  The exact location can be
specified.  (This "transfer" is mediated via my Norton
AntiVirus95 v2.0 program which typically checks all
"DownLoads" for possible viruses.)  If the transfer is
"cancelled", the "calc.exe" file seems to actually
"disappear" altogether since there is no "calc.exe"
found after searching the entire PC-Hard Drive using
the Win95 "Find..." applet.  
If, on the other hand, the "calc.exe" file is "moved"
elsewhere (to a directory other than "c:\windows"), the
DeskTop "Calulator" icon is replaced automatically with
the "Resources Meter" program ("c:\windows\rsrcmtr.exe"
file) and related "Resources Meter" icon (a "Resources
Meter" icon is automatically placed in the Win95 TaskBar,
bottom-right, as well).
Finally, if the "calc.exe" file is "moved" back to the
Windows directory, then all is apparently OK.

QUESTIONS:
1.  Do these observations suggest a
    Netscape Browser "Bug"?
2.  Do these observations suggest a
    MicroSoft Windows 95 "Bug"?
3.  Can this observed "ability" actually
    "breach security" of the Netscape
    Browser in some way?
4.  Can this observed "ability" pose any
    serious problems on the Internet including
    those related to "Security" issues?
5.  Is further study of this observed "ability"
    indicated?

If possible, I would welcome any "Comments"
(and "Verifications") regarding the above
observations.

Dr. Dennis Bogdan

Pittsburgh, PA

PS. I should note that the MS Explorer
v3.01 Browser Program resides on my
PC-Hard Drive although this program was
NOT launched or used at all during the
above studies.

--
| Dr. Dennis Bogdan * Computer DataPro Consulting

| Internet: http://www.concentric.net/~drbogdan

2. Slipknot Upgrade Problems

3. Possible bug in src/common/fileconf.cpp: "__VMS__" vs "__VMS"

4. Upgrading from Home to Pro

5. Netscape 2.0b4 Mail "Attachment" Bug?

6. Missing NTLDR, please help !.

7. Win-95 , Netscape and deliberate bug

8. Maintaining resized windows.

9. Bad windows update "bug"

10. Windows CE "Bug" on NEC Mobilepro

11. Pointer to "Final" Windows 95 Networking (Bugs) FAQ

12. Windows CE "Bug" on Nec Mobilepro

13. |||||"""" How do I lock a CDROM """"|||||