Re: Which security patch NOT to install
From: Steve Nielsen (steve_nielsen_at__blahX3_lincoln.k12.or.us)
Date: 03/24/04
- Next message: Dany Marois: "Win2k post SP4"
- Previous message: Marc Reynolds [MSFT]: "Re: Adminpak"
- In reply to: Alias: "Re: Which security patch NOT to install"
- Next in thread: Enkidu: "Re: Which security patch NOT to install"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:30:15 -0800
Alias wrote:
> None of the critical updates are unnecessary. None.
Searching MS site for 824141 (one that she listed and MS does list as a
"critical update") has a link to:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms03-045.mspx
Where it is stated under Technical Details:
"Microsoft re-issued this bulletin on Janurary 13, 2004 to advise on the
availability of an updated Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and Server patch
for the Arabic, Hebrew, and Thai languages.
This revised patch corrects an installation issue that some customers
experienced with the original patch. This problem is unrelated to the
security vulnerability discussed in this bulletin, however the problem
has caused some customers difficulty installing the patch. If you have
previously applied this security patch, this update does not need to be
installed. This issue only affects the language versions of the patch
listed (Arabric, Hebrew, and Thai) and only those versions of the patch
are being re-released. Other language versions of this patch are not
affected and are not being re-released."
Even though the first paragraph states "Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and
Server" the update is still listed as a critical update for Windows
2000, Server 2003 and XP.
Unless she has the previous patch for those languages installed why
would she need it, and even if she did have the previous patch for those
languages installed why would she need a patch to fix a problem with
installing the patch if the patch is already installed?
> If you turn off your AV
> scanner, you should have no problem.
I follow this practice myself when installing software and updates,
however on our staff machines we have had to setup automatic updates for
both Windows and a/v because our staff will never manually update
anything, and so far have had no problems. We're running CSAV 4.90
(Command Software A/V) with active protection enabled. We also have a
Win2K server (that I did not install or configure) with Symantec A/V
Corporate Edition that was setup to do auto updates of the OS and A/V
and it's been running fine for months. Perhaps it depends which a/v
product is being used?
In my mind this also begs another question - if there is a common
problem installing MS updates when a/v active protection is enabled why
doesn't MS issue instructions on how to install updates succesfully? Not
all MS's customers are computer literate enough to know best practice is
to turn off a/v protection before installing any software. Every piece
of professionaly written software I've installed has instructions that
clearly state to turn off all a/v first. Why doesn't MS?
Steve
- Next message: Dany Marois: "Win2k post SP4"
- Previous message: Marc Reynolds [MSFT]: "Re: Adminpak"
- In reply to: Alias: "Re: Which security patch NOT to install"
- Next in thread: Enkidu: "Re: Which security patch NOT to install"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
