Re: Will 839645 disable this?
From: George Hester (hesterloli_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/03/04
- Next message: John S: "Loading Windows"
- Previous message: !SpamMe: "Re: Where can I found the documentation of command for Win2000"
- In reply to: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: Will 839645 disable this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 14:14:32 -0400
Now that's a funny one. Risk Analysis an arcane art. OK! I don't think Wall Street holds that opinion or the major Insurance Cos in the USA or NASA or...me.
http://www.actuarialcareers.com/main-page.asp?whatpage=showjobs&jobtype=pi
Check out the salary for Risk Analysis professionals.
-- George Hester __________________________________ "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com> wrote in message news:eFvkMHXqEHA.3324@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > George Hester wrote: > > Lanwench I appreciate your feedback. One thing you may not know. > > Although articles are relevant to Windows NT 4 and Windows 95 the > > technology that is in those systems, still apply to Windows 2000. > > Well, not Win9x. > > > Windows 2000 is after all Windows NT 5. > > Yep. > > > No it is not in my benefit > > to install a security update in the offchance and likely remote > > chance that I will be effected by it. > > I don't agree, but your server isn't my server. :-) > > > > Let me explain by an example. Many security updates are NOT remote > > exploits. Exploits that are there by a user who logs on locally to > > the system and not as anonymous. Since that never happens on my > > servers those exploits I am pretty much immune to. And the risk of > > installing the security fix is more than the risk of someone with > > sufficient credentials is going to log on locally to my servers. > > Might happen yes but not likely. > > Really depends on the patch. And for a lot of patches that protect against > exploits, if you don't keep *all* your machines on the network patched, one > unprotected workstation can take down your network. It's your call. I prefer > to be fairly zealous about patching. If you have the luxury of a lab > environment, test things out there first...that's always a good idea. > > > > We need to consider our security fixes as what is called Risk > > Assessment. There is a whole school of thought devoted to that. > > It's a science in its own right. > > I'd argue that it's more of an arcane art. ;-) > > > My application of it is probably > > not as it should be done but I am not going to ignore it. Again > > thanks for your feedback. > > No problem - hope it was helpful. > > > >> George Hester wrote: > >>> Here is KB839645: > >>> > >>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;839645 > >>> > >>> This fixes a security issue with the Windows Shell. There is no > >>> workaround for it and so that means if I remove this security > >>> vulnerablity it is permanent. I don't really like doing that unless > >>> I know the reprocussions. > >>> > >>> On this page: > >>> > >>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms04-024.mspx > >>> > >>> we are directed to 839645 for a discussion of the known issues that > >>> can result from installing this security fix. All the issues seem > >>> to be specific to Windows XP and 2003. That's good for Windows > >>> 2000. But let's investigate further. > >>> > >>> Since 839645 says the it applies to Windows 2000 and there is no > >>> mention of Windows 2000 in the body of the article, we again are > >>> left in a quandry as to exactly how this fix can effect Windows > >>> 2000. To that end we must return to ms04-024.mspx link above and > >>> check out: > >> Affected software: > >> > >> ... > >> > >> Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 2, Microsoft Windows 2000 > >> Service Pack 3, Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4" > >> > >> and.... > >> > >> Known issues > >> 871242 After you install security update 839645, you may again > >> experience symptoms that were fixed by hotfix 830411 for Windows XP > >> Service Pack 1 > >> > >> 871262 Shortcuts on the desktop do not work after you install > >> security update 839645 in Windows NT 4.0 > >> > >> So they don't mention any *known* issues installing this on W2k. > >>> > >>> FAQ for Windows Shell Vulnerability. In this it says: > >>> > >>> What does the update do? > >>> The update removes the ability to use a CLSID as a file type within > >>> Windows Shell > >>> > >>> So I am assuming this is what this update does to Windows 2000. > >> > >> Yes, it's what it does for all the OSes you install it on. > >> > >>> That's all well and good but exactly what does that mean? Well > >>> googling we find this: > >>> > >>> http://www.microsoft.com/msj/archive/S332.aspx > >> > >> What did you google for? That's an old article about WinNT4 and > >> Win95. Dated from 1996. How is it relevant? Are you using NT4, and > >> if so, did you make the listed registry & .ini changes in it? > >> > >> > >>> an old article. I am assuming that if we install this Shell > >>> security fix then that article becomes null and void. In other > >>> words the Shell security fix will result in that article no longer > >>> working. > >> > >> Sometimes it takes a while for MS to update KBs - and sometimes they > >> seem to forget to. And this wasn't a KB article....but again, is it > >> even relevant to your server(s)? > >> > >>> And if so that seems not such a bright idea. > >>> The fact that this is a remote exploit makes this issue more > >>> disturbing but again I need to consider the likelihood of running > >>> into such a remote exploit versus the implications of installing the > >>> security update. > >>> > >>> What's the opinion of the experts here? Thanks. > >> > >> Install it. Take backups first. You need to keep on top of your > >> updates. > >
- Next message: John S: "Loading Windows"
- Previous message: !SpamMe: "Re: Where can I found the documentation of command for Win2000"
- In reply to: Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]: "Re: Will 839645 disable this?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
