Now Available: IEAK8 can create custom Internet Explorer 8 packages in 19 additional languages


We are pleased to announce that the Internet Explorer Administration Kit (IEAK) 8 now supports creating custom Internet Explorer 8 packages in a total of 43 languages. IEAK8 can be downloaded from http://ieak.microsoft.com.

Custom Internet Explorer 8 packages can be created in the following platform and language combinations:

Windows XP SP2 or SP3 x86:

  • Total languages:
    • Arabic, Bengali, Bulgarian, Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hong Kong Chinese, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Kannada, Korean, Lithuanian, Latvian, Malayalam, Norwegian Bokmal, Polish, Portuguese (Brazil), Portuguese (Portugal), Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian
  • New languages:
    • Bengali, Bulgarian, Croatian, Estonian, Hindi, Hong Kong Chinese, Indonesian, Kannada, Lithuanian, Latvian, Malayalam, Punjabi, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Telugu, Thai, Ukrainian

Windows XP SP2 x64 and Windows Server 2003 SP2 x64:

  • Total languages:
    • Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), German, English, Spanish, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese (Brazil), Russian

Windows Server 2003 SP2 x86:

  • Total languages:
    • Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Czech, German, English, Spanish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese (Brazil), Portuguese (Portugal), Russian, Swedish, Turkish

Windows Vista x86, Windows Vista SP1 x86 , Windows Server 2008 x86, and Windows 7 x86:

  • Total languages:
    • Arabic, Bengali, Bulgarian, Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hong Kong Chinese, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Kannada, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malayalam, Norwegian Bokmal, Polish, Portuguese (Brazil), Portuguese (Portugal), Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Telugu, Turkish, Thai, Ukrainian
  • New languages:
    • Bengali, Bulgarian, Croatian, Estonian, Hindi, Hong Kong Chinese, Indonesian, Kannada, Latvian, Lithuanian, Malayalam, Punjabi, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Telugu, Thai, Ukrainian

Windows Vista x64, Windows Vista SP1 x64, Windows Server 2008 x64, and Windows 7 x86:

  • Total languages:
    • Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian Bokmal, Polish, Portuguese (Brazil), Portuguese (Portugal), Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Hong Kong Chinese
  • New languages:
    • Bulgarian, Croatian, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Thai, Ukrainian, Hong Kong Chinese

To create custom packages in these new languages, you’ll need to install the latest version of IEAK8.

Thanks,
Jatinder Mann
Internet Explorer Program Manager

Comments (41)

  1. Anonymous says:

    This can become handy for the future!

    Thanks

  2. joe shmoe says:

    ok but seriously – who still does this? or better yet – who still uses a browser that is altered and ruined by someone else?

    Is there a link to un-install the additions that someone or some IT dept. thinks are "cool"?

  3. Mitch 74 says:

    …ok. Great.

    What are the plans for IE 9?

  4. OnTopic Much? says:

    Mitch, I’m betting that when they’re ready to talk about IE9, they’ll do a post titled something like "IE9" and not something like "IEAK8".

    Just a guess.

  5. ombzzz says:

    Any news about IE plans to implement the following HTML specifications:

    SVG (*)

    CANVAS (*)

    ?

    (*) already partially or totally supported by Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Opera

    Thank you

  6. carlos says:

    Do you plan to fix IE bugs so it pass ACID 3 [0] test?

    My last test gave me 20- points for IE8.

    The other browsers (Safari, Chrome, Firefox, Opera ) are 90+.

    [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Browsers_which_pass

  7. SquareWheel says:

    Hold on now Carlos.  Just because something doesn’t pass Acid3 doesn’t mean it has "bugs".  That said, web standards are a must, and even Microsoft should follow them.  I’d like to see some basic HTML5 support especially.

  8. Matthew says:

    Developers who have been paying attention know that IE8 already supports various the more stable parts of HTML5, including DOM Storage, postMessage, onhashchange, connectivity events, etc.

  9. carlos says:

    @SquareWheel

    "Hold on now Carlos.  Just because something doesn’t pass Acid3 doesn’t mean it has "bugs".  "

    agree , i take standards seriously … i was rude with this word.

    "That said, web standards are a must, and even Microsoft should follow them.  "

    agree

    Terminology apart, i would like to see an offical and not-so-vague-as-usual response from the IE team about this important things: HTML 5, ACID 3, SVG, CANVAS, VIDEO TAG, etc.

    Don’t fear standards !!! Consumers/users/content producers need them.

  10. jacob says:

    I’ve been using Google Wave now for a few weeks and I love it.

    This week I was not at my computer and had to use a friends and he only had IE installed.

    I was surprised to see that I needed to install a plugin in IE8 to make Google Wave even work.

    This sounds to me like IE8 is still behind in terms of Web Standards if Google Wave works fine in Firefox and Safari without any plugins.

    Does Microsoft have any plans to patch IE8 to be up to par with the other browsers or should we just wait until IE9?

  11. Matthew says:

    Jacob: Google won’t admit to their own shenanigans. Google makes a browser. Google makes "Google Wave".

    Google deliberately designed Google Wave to require a plugin in IE. This will help them drive more people to use the Google browser.

    Incidentally, the "plugin" you installed is called ChromeFrame, and it has significant (and well known) security, privacy, and reliability problems. I would recommend that you uninstall it.

  12. whey says:

    Does anyone else feel kind of dirty after using IE?  Like you just exposed your name, password and everything to the entire world?  Or is that just an Australian thing?

  13. orlando says:

    @mathew, you said

    "Google deliberately designed Google Wave to require a plugin in IE. This will help them drive more people to use the Google browser."

    You are wrong.

    I use google wave with Firefox on a Linux PC with Ubuntu ( not windows ) and i don’t need any plugin. You are misinformed.

    The plugin in IE doesn’t have anything to do with Google Wave. The plugin is necesary because IE lack proper support of state of the art HTML technologies. One example has been referenced in a prior post:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Browsers_which_pass

    There is no need to bring conspiracy theories to  defend the indefensible.

  14. Matthew says:

    @orlando, you need to work on your logic.

    The fact that you run Linux is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with how Google decided to build Wave.

    If you don’t think Google has an "agenda" then you’re not paying attention.

  15. Roland (IE fan) says:

    Mozilla has just released Firefox 3.6 Beta 1.

    In the future, Microsoft must release new IE versions more often to keep pace. For example, a JavaScript JIT in IE 8.1 would make IE on a par again with the other browsers. (Even the Office 2010 web apps, SharePoint 2010, etc. would benefit a lot from it.)

    IE8 was really great at the time of its release, but is has fallen behind again recently.

  16. orlando says:

    @Matthew, you said

    "Google deliberately designed Google Wave to require a plugin in IE.

    This will help them drive more people to use the Google browser."

    I said:

    "I use google wave with Firefox on a Linux PC with Ubuntu"

    Firefox != Google browser, so the phrase "This will help them drive more people to use the Google browser" don’t hold.

    By the way, the plugin in IE does the contrary of what you said. The plugin ( if you are refering to this[0] ) permit people *keep* IE and enjoy modern browsers (Opera,Firefox,Chrome,Safari ) capabilities.

    So, again, "This will help them drive more people to use the Google browser" should be "This will help people enjoy open, public, widely implemented and documented internet technologies without bothering to change browsers"

    I would suggest you some reading about HTML ( [1][2][3][4] ).

    "If you don’t think Google has an "agenda" then you’re not paying attention."

    I did’t say Google don’t have an "agenda". Where did you read it?

    [0] http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5

    [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics

    [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_(HTML_element)

    [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3

  17. carlton says:

    @Matthew – woah dude! get off the MSFT high horse there for a second and try listening and reading without bias.

    The Chrome Frame enables IE to support HTML5 and CSS standards that IE will likely never support properly by itself.

    To suggest that it is a high security risk and should be uninstalled is an absolutely ridiculous accusation and truly shows you have no idea how software security and sandboxing works.

    In order to have a security issue in IE because of Google Chrome Frame you actually have to have a combination of security holes in both Chrome Frame *AND* IE *AND* IE’s plugin architecture.

    That’s 3 separate security holes in 2 vendors applications that can ALL be triggered TOGETHER in order to break out of the browser and cause damage to the Operating System.

    Consider that versus what you would need to do to take advantage of a security hole in IE alone.  All you need pwn IE is find 1 hole in IE.  Why would you even dream of trying to find 2 additional holes to try and cause trouble for IE users?  If you have found a hole in IE – your done, that’s it!

    I would not only NOT worry about the Google Chrome Frame Plugin – but I would actually HIGHLY endorse it – since any site that uses it actually places TWO new barriers for hackers to try and break through even before they have to try and break through IE’s security.

    Back on topic though – Google Wave is amazing and it is really sad that IE can’t support it natively.  The reality is that IE hasn’t even been in the running for top browser since IE6 was released… and we all know how horrible IE6 is now.

  18. Mike says:

    If google wave catches on, which I think is a good possibility. The average users will either install another browser or chrome frame.

    This will be a great day for developers!

    Or alternatively the IE team are developing IE9 to support html5 etc. (not holding my breath on this one though)

  19. aysensaylar'hotmail.com says:

    size guveniyoruz ve izliyoruz son surumunuzu

  20. aysensaylar'hotmail.com says:

    size guveniyoruz ve izliyoruz son surumunuzu

  21. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @carlton: Your basic assumptions about software security are incorrect.

    You can peruse the Google ChromeFrame bug database for discussion of the security and privacy holes that it introduces in IE.

    http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=23006

    http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=22846

    Until these issues are resolved, I recommend that users try these addons only in isolated test environments.

  22. orlando says:

    @EricLaw

    Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 has 2 (two) unpatched vulnerabilities [0]

    Firefox 3.5 has 0 ( cero ) [1].

    So, you should say:

    "Until these Internet Explorer issues are resolved, I recommend that users try IE in isolated test environments or instead use Firefox".

    Are you agree with me?

    Regarding Google Chrome Frame, i would suggest users and consumers to listen neutral "suggestions" about its security and not listening Google or Microsof teams ( they are probably biased toward his "babies" ).

            orlando

    P.S: btw, @EricLaw, your first link is broken

    [0] http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/?task=advisories

    [1] http://secunia.com/advisories/product/25800/?task=advisories

  23. orlando says:

    In the post below, please read

    "Microsoft Internet Explorer 9"

    as

    "Microsoft Internet Explorer 8"

  24. brandon says:

    alright this is getting very confusing… does Google Chrome Frame not run inside IE?

    If IE has a security hole in its extension model then that is IE’s issue it has nothing to do with whether or not Chrome Frame exposes it or not.

    As for: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=22846 this doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.  There are many well known history bugs with IE because it is tied to the OS.  I can download audio/video in Firefox, Safari or Chrome in Windows but if I view it in Windows Media Player (inside or outside of the browser) then IE will maintain a history of this. bug: http://bit.ly/u0RSJ

    You can complain all you want about Google Chrome Frame making IE a much better browser and not liking that fact but the reality is there are many much better browsers out there – only now they can run inside IE.

    I repeat – since the IE Browser has security holes in its extension model – lets not complain about which addons expose it – just patch them already.

  25. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    Orlando: I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood Secunia’s site. As noted, they list only the advisories that Secunia has issued; it is not a catalog of all vulnerabilities.

    As for the IE-related issues listed by Secunia:

    36334 – the original report that Secunia cites indicates that Firefox 3.5 is also affected. That’s somewhat moot, however, as the "proof of concept" described in the original posting does not reproduce the behavior described, and even if it did, it would not represent a security vulnerability. The "attack" allows the attacker to "spoof" a displayed filename, but only on a server for which the "attacker" has unrestricted write access. By definition, this is not a vulnerability, since the "attacker" could simply create the "spoofed" file in question. Furthermore, with permission to write to the server, the attacker could simply steal cookies or perform a DOM manipulation and achieve the same purpose; such functionality is by-design and a basic functionality of HTML+JavaScript.

    24314, in contrast, is more legitimate, however to exploit it, the victim website must have a script injection vulnerability AND fail to specify a character set on a HTML response. Input sanitization and character set specification are both best practices that are followed by major websites.

    @brandon: If an end-user deliberately installs a browser extension which does not respect their privacy and security preferences, that does not represent a "hole" in the extension model. Ultimately, the user is in control, and may elect to disable security or privacy features as they see fit.

  26. Hd Camcorder says:

    I guess they still working on IE – and to be honest, after Win7 i’m looking forward to see the outcome of this work.

  27. Mitch 74 says:

    On topic? Well, this blog’s topic is IE. I’ll cite a March 20th, 2009 blog post:

    "What happens now?  All Postponed bugs are now active for consideration in the next version of Internet Explorer.  We resolved and closed all other bugs submitted since IE8 Beta 1. The Internet Explorer 8 Feedback website on Microsoft Connect will remain open and we will not delete any of your previously submitted bugs.  Right now we are looking for new IE8 bugs and bugs that have regressed (meaning the bug was previously fixed and now occurs in IE8 RTW).

    In the next couple of months, we will introduce a new type of feedback form designed specifically to handle improvements for the next version of Internet Explorer. Please stay tuned for more information."

    Still tuned. 6 months after RTW and this, we know the following about IE’s next version:

    it might be named IE 9.

    The questions that were asked several times even before IE 8’s RTW were about:

    SVG support?

    CSS 2 improvements?

    -ms- prefixed CSS 3 prototype properties?

    DOM 2 support?

    XHTML support?

    HTML 5 support?

    speed? (IE 8 might be faster than 7, but its UI still feels sluggish if you don’t have a dual core at more than 2 GHz and more than 2 Gb of RAM, even without addons – ain’t that a bit overkill?)

    Looking at the competition, most (if not all) publish data about their next browser version as soon as a new one is released (Mozilla is even ‘worse’ there, as they maintain a current branch: 3.5, a ‘next’ branch: 3.6 "Namoroka", and even a development branch: 3.7 "Minefield" that not only has development notes and planned features, but also daily test builds that actually work).

    I don’t say that MS should follow its competitors. But, we were promised times and again that the IE team wouldn’t shut up about future IE developments like they did after IE 6 and IE 7, and 6 months after IE 8, we have… More languages for IE 8, IEAK, and ‘careful about that IE 8 bug that we thought was corrected but isn’t really, and we now have to keep it in’. Anything about IE next? Nope.

  28. Aaron p says:

    Quote: ‘If an end-user deliberately installs a browser extension which does not respect their privacy and security preferences, that does not represent a "hole" in the extension model. Ultimately, the user is in control, and may elect to disable security or privacy features as they see fit.’

    Alright – so lets get this straight.  IE8 is the browser (with the inPrivate settting).  If the user turns this feature on, then their history tracks are removed when they close up IE. (except for the known bugs with WMP of course)

    How does this become an issue with Google Frame?  If IE passes the URI’s on to Google Frame to handle that’s all fine.  Likewise if Google Frame passes URI’l back up to IE to load thats fine too.

    If IE somewhere in this process is keeping track of URI’s and NOT clearing them at the shutdown of IE, then this is STILL an IE bug and has nothing to do with Google Frame!

    +————————————–+

    | Internet Explorer                    |

    |                                      |

    |        +————————-+   |

    |        |  Google Frame           |   |

    |        |                         |   |

    |        +————————-+   |

    |                                      |

    +————————————–+

    If IE is allowing ANY extension to break functionality built into the IE application, then I’m sorry – lets stop blaming Google – this is a major flaw in the IE architecture… one that should be patched by Microsoft.

  29. Will says:

    @AaronP: You don’t understand much about software, do you? Do you just install any random junk you find on the Internet under the theory that such code will magically find its bugs fixed and its security holes patched up just by virtue of running on your computer?

    As for your "known bugs" FUD, as has been pointed out here MANY times, this is a setting in WMP, and again, has nothing to do with IE.

    You should simply be more careful when downloading your porn, or your mom is gonna catch you!

  30. orlando says:

    @ericlaw

    "24314, in contrast, is more legitimate, however to exploit it, the victim website must have…"

    the same logic applies to the "security holes" you   named in Google Chrome Frame: "however , to exploit it, the victim must have physical acces to the PC, etc. etc"

    The point is: *all* software in the world has security vulnerabilities, less or more critical.

    Let people choose the browser they want, without spreading fear and doubt about competing products ( sorry , this is my opinion, i could be wrong and Google Chrome Frame could be the worst and more dangerous software in the world ).

             orlando

  31. Ian says:

    Orlando, when your opinion isn’t informed, why bother sharing it?

    Malware sites can exploit ChromeFrame without any special access to your computer. As shown in the Google DB, ChromeFrame does not have phishing protection that IE8 users otherwise benefit from.

  32. Aaron p says:

    @Will – what are you talking about? I don’t install random applications from anywhere without thinking about it.  I installed Google Frame because it fixed IE’s lack of standards support that Safari and Firefox had no issues with.

    Am I worried? not in the slightest – and if there is a security issue that IE needs to plug because of their weak plugin architecture then I certainly hope it gets plugged.

    As for the non-FUD about the WMP/IE privacy issue – this isn’t FUD – in fact it is well documented – as is the information that setting the history option in WMP has *NO* effect whatsoever on IE maintaining its own history due to OS integration that should never have happened in the first place.

    As for me I’m not watching pr0n nor am I worried about my Mom since I’m 45 and quite capable of making my own life decisions thanks.

    Its a matter of principal – If I request that my personal info and history in application (A) be kept private, there is no reason why application (B) should have access to it. Thats the root of the WMP privacy issues.  If I don’t even open IE8 – why on earth is it registering history about other windows applications that have nothing to do with it (or even the Web).

    As for the supposed Chrome Frame security issues… if Eric Law, Chris Wilson or similar would care to draw up a diagram pointing out how Google Frame causes security holes in IE that are not MSFT’s bug to fix, then by all means please post that article here on the blog as we would all like to read it.  Until then – the rest of the technical community is sticking by the statement.  If a plugin causes a security hole, then your plugin architecture has a security hole – plain and simple.

  33. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @Aaron: Chris Wilson left the IE team some time ago.

    The security and privacy bugs introduced by ChromeFrame are filed in the Google’s bug database, where they belong. I’m not sure what sort of diagram would be helpful here. I suppose I could draw something like:

    IE = NotVulnerable

    IE+ChromeFrame = Vulnerable

    …and turn it into a little algebra problem? The simple fact is that the Google ChromeFrame add-on does not respect the user’s privacy settings and circumvents the browser’s SmartScreen feature. If you don’t install the addon, you are not vulnerable to this problem. Only Google can fix the problem in their add-on.

    (Incidentally, the “technical community” does not speak with one voice.)

  34. orlando says:

    @ian, you said:

    "As shown in the Google DB, ChromeFrame does not have phishing protection that IE8 users otherwise benefit from"

    Do you have a link or reference to support this affirmation ( lack of phishing protection en ChromeFrame )?

    Issue 22846 [0] doesn’t have to do with fishing, but browser history.

    [0] http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=22846&q=label:Security&colspec=ID%20Stars%20Pri%20Area%20Type%20Status%20Summary%20Modified%20Owner%20Mstone%20OS

  35. Ian says:

    Orlando, bug 23006 is marked private, but Skyline leaks what it’s about in comment #5 of the other bug: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=22846#c5

  36. enough is enough says:

    Can someone point to public bug tracking tickets that indicate exactly what these bug(s) are all about?

    Many are yelling "security hole" and Eric Law is talking about minor privacy breach… which one is it?

    I’m also not sure what Google’s Frame Chrome thing has to do with IE exposing Windows Media Player since that happens even if the Google’s Frame Chrome isn’t even installed.

    All of this sounds like a lot of FUD because MSFT is scared that Google Wave will show IE to be an inferior browser.  Hate to reveal "the crying game movie spoiler" but IE’s inability to keep up with standards is hardly news.

  37. Markus says:

    "minor privacy breach"???

    I say "Don’t keep my history" and ChromeFrame still keeps history. That’s not "minor" in my book.

    The bug links are listed in the comments above. If they’re not "public", well, that’s up to Google, now isn’t it?

    Not that any of this nonsense has anything to do with the IEAK8…

  38. enough says:

    privacy vs. security is a huge, huge difference.

    If my wife can see that I’ve checked my Google Wave inbox is hardly a major issue… its very minor.  However if IE allows a site to access files on my hard drive then yeah that is a major security hole.

    Which all comes back to the statements that Google improving IE’s standards compliance is much more important that a minor privacy issue.

    To be honest, if I want really secure private browsing I wouldn’t do it in IE (the usability just isn’t there yet)

  39. orlando says:

    "Orlando, bug 23006 is marked private, but Skyline leaks what it’s about in comment #5 of the other bug"

    mmmm… then i will wait to have at hand a more detailed technical description of this "bug" prior to conclude that Google introduce "security holes" as Microsoft EricLaw said.

  40. 127 says:

    Hmm,

    still no working IE8 MUI Pack update for WSUS deploy

    :(