| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Confirms Bug in SSL Patch | |
|
||
| Time: 09:35 EST/14:35 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. has confirmed in a knowledge base article that its patch for a critical bug can cause some Windows 2000 systems to lock up and fail at boot time. The patch is for a particularly critical vulnerability of which experts have begun to see exploits in the last few days.The knowledge base article goes by the unusually long name: "Your computer stops responding, you cannot log on to Windows, or your CPU usage for the System process approaches 100 percent after you install the security update that is described in Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-011." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 157 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:44:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.217.76.227) at 4/29/2004 11:24:53 AM |
|
Your primary web server BSOD'ed after applying a patch and you though no more about it given that it hasn't happened since?
"Microsoft acknowledges that the problem is a bug in the patch and that the company is investigating solutions." Where's Parkker to tell us how OSS sometimes release multiple patches which Microsoft doesn't have to do due to their extensive "testing"? |
| #2 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/29/2004 8:59:37 PM |
|
#3 Excuses, excuses, excuses, the only proven myth is that Microsoft disclose all the bugs that they fix. All that money and they still can release patches any faster or even more reliable patches than all those Russian and Chinese agencies and terrorists that you keep reminding us about. You keep spreading that FUD!
#4 That was my point. Did you do any more testing (i.e. in your test environment) installing and uninstalling the patch to see if you can get the BSOD to re-occur etc? I'm assuming that your test environment (or UAT environment) is as close to identical to your production environment as possible and your testing, unlike Parkker's doesn't involve loading the patch on your laptop, assuming things are fine and then applying said patch to your production systems. I'm guessing that seeing a BSOD after installing a patch triggered a "I wonder what went wrong" thought and hence you would have done everything you could to try and resolve it rather than shrugging it as just one of those things that happens now and then. Then agin with Microsoft software, I wouldn't blame you! #5 Think different timezones! Unlike parkker, I do go to sleep. This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Thursday, April 29, 2004 at 21:01. |
| #3 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 4/29/2004 10:15:34 PM |
|
"And since we haven't had a problem with Microsoft's patches for years, I load 'em up on my XP PC, reboot. If I don't have a problem, I load 'em up on a test server. If that goes ok, I do the ok on SUS."
Yeah that was a good idea parkker.. no problems with Microsoft patches in years eh? Your one hell of a sysadmin. I'd hire you ANYDAY on the spot to have my company rely on your skillz. |
| #4 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/29/2004 11:28:25 PM |
|
#7 Just look at yourself. How scared are you of Linux? That's amazing! The amount of effort you go to just to include Linux into every conversation, to try and discredit it. What are you so afraid of?
"I'll let Green Hills comment" You mean Dan O'Dowd, Green Hills is a company. What would you like me to say to the CEO of Green Hills? That I'm shocked to hear that he would be promoting his own company's software? That I'm suprised that he says that Linux has only been certified to EAL2 when I'm fairly certain I provided a link to SUSE receiving an EAL3 certification? That he regards the EAL certifications in higher light than they otherwise should? i.e. an EAL4 tells you "that Microsoft spent millions of dollars producing documentation that shows that Windows 2000 meets an inadequate set of requirements, and that you can have reasonably strong confidence that this is the case." (http://eros.cs.jhu.edu/~shap/NT-EAL4.html). And let's not quote him out of context shall we.... "Compared to INTEGRITY, Linux is huge, slow, and has a higher total cost of ownership." He is in no way saying that you should be using Windows! "Windows has more holes than a sieve." - Andrew Briney http://infosecuritymag.techtarget.com/ss/0,295796,sid6_iss366_art695,00.html Microsoft don't even need foreign agencies to plant malicious code, their own staff can do it: "Microsoft Corp. engineers included a secret password in Internet software that could be used to gain illegal access to hundreds of thousands of Web sites. The rogue computer code was discovered in a three-year-old piece of software by two security experts. Contained within the code is a derisive comment aimed at a Microsoft rival: `Netscape engineers are weenies!`''. Later, there were clarifications issued that it was a cypher key, not a password, and they admitted to a bug, not a back door, which didn't make everyone feel better. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/netsec/2001-05/msg00020.html So we can discuss this until we're both blue in the face, the fact of the matter is that Dan O'Dowd is worried about his bottom line. Having said that, he's right to an extent, if you're going to use an OS in a military environment then you should be checking every single part of it regardless of what OS it is. You shouldn't just pick an OS becuase you like it or because it's free or because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. This goes for INTEGRITY, Linux, Windows, BSD, Solaris and any other OS that needs to be used in such an environment. |
| #5 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/30/2004 12:06:55 AM |
| #11 No you posted #3, and OSS does not equate to Linux FUD boy! See that's why Microsoft software is better, Microsoft don't have to rely on foreign agencies to plant code, they can pay their own engineers to do it. |
| #6 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 4/30/2004 4:07:31 AM |
|
#13 Sorry FUD boy! No can do! It's not my problem that you think that OSS automatically means Linux. I wasn't talking about any OSS in particular, I was just saying it generically, as I am sure that there have been several different Open Source applications that have needed fixes to patches at some point in their lives. It's the FUD spreading people like you that automatically try and tell deceive everyone by telling them that OSS = Linux = GPL = communism & evil & unamerican & whatever other crap you can think up on the day.
Here is one definition of OSS: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Here is another (including other information): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software And finally here is a list of OSS licenses (just so you open your eyes to the fact there's more to OSS than the GPL!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license So as you can see, Microsoft has been using OSS for many many years! Finally, come back when you've learnt something FUD boy! |
| #7 By 12071 (203.217.76.227) at 4/30/2004 10:42:23 AM |
| #16 I just asked if you went through any testing procedures, I know that our sysadmin guys would have gone through a thorough test to try and get to the bottom of "just one BSOD", therefore I assume that any capable sysadmin would do the same. After all "just one BSOD" could mean a one of glitch, and it could also mean a problem that occured under special circumstances - special circumstances that you don't want to have occuring during your peak usage period for instance. By doing thourough tests you can either work out which of those two cases is true or at least get a sense of the level of risk you are under as a result. |
| #8 By 7797 (63.76.44.81) at 4/30/2004 11:42:29 AM |
|
"Let one BSOD get my panties in a wad or leave my prrimmary Web server unprotected?!"
If you had a multilayered security policy in place you would not have to worry about leaving your primary webserver unprotected until you tested any patch or until MS issues a patch that works! |
| #9 By 7797 (63.76.44.81) at 4/30/2004 2:17:49 PM |
| LOL @ Parkker.... you should go back to school before posting here! |
| #10 By 7797 (63.76.44.81) at 4/30/2004 6:41:16 PM |
| I'm not here to teach you how to think outside the box parkker! Its something you simply refuse to learn. |
| #11 By 12071 (203.217.76.227) at 5/1/2004 12:48:00 AM |
|
#19 Sorry FUD boy, you're wrong, and too stubborn to admit it.
#21 "Anyone vociferously backing Microsoft is immediately labelled an "idiot" or a "shill" or an "astroturfer" or whatever the l33t ABM'er derisive term" Until you joined in, no-one had mentioned any such terms, it even took parker a few messages before calling people "total morons"! Unless of course you take offense with 'FUD', in which case sorry but I call it as I see it. |
| #12 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 5/1/2004 12:47:47 PM |
|
"As usual, when asked a technical question, an OSS fanboy runs away."
Think what you want. But try thinking outside the box for a while. Its a real eye opener. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 157 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:44:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
