LibraPremium
join:2003-08-06
USA
kudos:1 | reply to redxii
Re: Windows MetaFiles still vulnerable said by redxii:Again, it only runs with the same privileges as the user.
REDxII1234, If you don't unregister shimgvw.dll, but are running in a limited user account, will you be okay? Also, should I unregister shimgvw.dll in Windows 98se? Thank you. Sincerely, Libra |
|
 redxiiPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI
 ·Clear Wireless
 ·Suddenlink
·Sprint Mobile Br..
Host:
Broadband Tweaks
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
AOL Broadband
1 edit | said by Libra:REDxII1234, If you don't unregister shimgvw.dll, but are running in a limited user account, will you be okay? Also, should I unregister shimgvw.dll in Windows 98se? Thank you. Sincerely, Libra You should be fine, but explorer will keep crashing and you wouldn't want to risk accidently running it in the admin account. unregister it anyway until it is fixed
The reason I mentioned that is because Security Focus claims that it will run with SYSTEM privileges, regardless of the logged on user's privileges. However, I am unable to find such behavior. It always runs with the user's privs.
Can't comment on 98SE. I don't have a virtual machine for that even though I have the install CD.
Windows 2000 SP4 didn't seem to have any WMF/EMF associations or the picture viewer that XP/2003 has.. so it is safe from automagic execution in explorer or on the web. |
|
LibraPremium
join:2003-08-06
USA
kudos:1 | REDXII1234,
Thank you very much. I unregistered shimgvw.dll in the XP computer.
I checked file types in 98se and I didn't see any WMF or EMF types. I also searched for the shimgvw.dll and nothing came up.
I imagine when MS makes a fix we should first register the file and then get the update - does it matter?
I appreciate your help.
Sincerely, Libra |
|
