Microsoft to force Windows updates?

Exactly.

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"JohnDoe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:59:33 -0700, "EGMcCann"
wrote:


Ummm... they don't. Why did they give them money before (and get non
voting
stock?) PR. One time. Over five years ago. And in the overall scheme of
things - it *wasn't* that much. The original iMac really turned things
around for them.

go to any software store, look how much is available for PC type
machines and then compare that to what is available for Apples, there
is no comparison.
Then if you get into serious applications there is no contest, most of
the programs on the market is written for pc based machines.

If you only do word processing, spread sheets, play game, do email or
go onto the web an apple could be all you need but if you need to do
serious work on a machine the PC based machines are the ONLY way to
go.

In article , Steve wrote:

Is the Mac OS really that much more secure than Windows? Or does its
apparent security have more to do with hackers spending their time
attacking the dominant OS?

i use both Win2000 & Mac OS X. i think OS X is more secure. for example, even
my account has admin privlieges, for dangerous operations, it would ask the
password for "root" & it would only apply it to for that specific operation.


I also like the installation on OS X a lot better. no stupid registry nor
those VB script.

regards,

pam @ home ¤p¬}

Pam's Ode to Spammers & Telemarketers

May all spammers & telemarketers die an agonizing death; have no
burial places; their souls be chased by demons in Gehenna from one
room to another for 1000 years.

That's why even MS uses Akamai Linux servers to protect their web site
from DoS attacks! LOL!

----------------------------
This is a common bit of misinformation from people who don't
understand MS's content distribution infrastructure.

Akamai is one of several companies who provide content distribution
network (CDN) services to MS - nothing to do with security at all.
MS's front facing servers all run Windows Server 2003.

For example, when you go to MS and use any of their online tools to
determine what updates for a product are needed/available, that
determination is made by negotiation between the client OS (you) and
one of hundreds of MS Windows 2003 servers on the Redmond campus.

Once the files needed are identified, the information is passed on to
to the CDN (if server load is high), which transparently serves up the
actual files for download.

That's how it actually works. Clearly, you're not an IT pro.


(Remove mypants to reply by email)

In article in
misc.consumers, Steve wrote:
Even if Microsoft's motives were as pure as the driven snow, one price
that would be paid comes from the tendency of Windows updates to break
things. Windows is simply not a robust platform, and it has the added
vulnerability of being used in a multitude of diverse environments
filled with ill-behaved applications and devices.

There's a much bigger worry. Even if Microsoft delivered good code
(hah!), whatever back door Microsoft creates in its operating system
would quickly by exploited by writers of malware.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Fortunately, I live in the United States of America, where we are
gradually coming to understand that nothing we do is ever our
fault, especially if it is really stupid. --Dave Barry

wrote:

That's why even MS uses Akamai Linux servers to protect their web
site from DoS attacks! LOL!

----------------------------
This is a common bit of misinformation from people who don't
understand MS's content distribution infrastructure.

Akamai is one of several companies who provide content distribution
network (CDN) services to MS - nothing to do with security at all.
MS's front facing servers all run Windows Server 2003.

For example, when you go to MS and use any of their online tools to
determine what updates for a product are needed/available, that
determination is made by negotiation between the client OS (you) and
one of hundreds of MS Windows 2003 servers on the Redmond campus.

Once the files needed are identified, the information is passed on to
to the CDN (if server load is high), which transparently serves up the
actual files for download.

That's how it actually works. Clearly, you're not an IT pro.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...ft&sa=N&tab=wn

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Will Denny wrote:

Hi

Whether I'm an IT Pro or not, I've heard my mother-in-law... Oh, yes
you were talking about an IT Pro - apart from the many MS Certs - I
have MSc and BSc(Hons) degrees - both in Computing/IT Business.

You know the Redmond Campus...

BTW, Linux sux.

Said the MicroBrainDead!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Yes, but the default is not to automatically install the
updates. I actually was working with a support guy at work today
cleaning the Blaster worm off of a couple of public machines in
a room we have with TV, kitchen, etc. In one case, the fix for
Blaster had been downloaded by the Automatic Updates, but never
got installed because no one clicked on the "install now" icon.
As a result of this, both machines were infected, and the LAN
connection to that room had been disabled. I changed both of
these machines to automatically install critical updates at 3am
and I hope that they will have far less problems now (and yes,
they already had Norton Antivirus installed with automatic
updates on that).

Bill

BananaPannaPoe wrote:

They already have an autoupdate program that keeps you updated.
WAKE UP!

"Steve" wrote in message
...

Excerpts from Ed Foster's Gripelog -

===================

It's a depressing irony, but the creep who wrote the Blaster worm may
very well have done Microsoft a tremendous favor. After all, what
better argument could the folks in Redmond have been handed to do what
they've always wanted to do - namely, force users to accept automatic
Windows updates.

"Torgeir Bakken (MVP)" wrote in
:

Shaun Marolf wrote:

"Testy" wrote in news:OJt6jAMaDHA.2344
@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:

A properly firewalled computer in combination with a good ant-virus
and a lot of common sense, is not in dire need of updates.


Absolutely correct and the real issue of the blaster worm was simply
that. Port 135 (RPC) certainly isn't needed nor desired for use in a
corporate environment anyway so why did so many IT managers leave it
open?

Hi

Because without port 135 you e.g. can't map network drives, nor will you
be able to log on to a NT4/AD domain. Corporate IT managers leave it
open to avoid angry users that can't get their jobs done. In a corporate
environment, the only option is to install 823980 (the RPC security
update) on all computers.


--
torgeir
Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of the 1328 page
Scripting Guide: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter




No that's a load because I block port 135 and I can get my network drives
mapped just fine and I logon just as well Port 135 is for RPC ports 137 138
and 139 are used for networking better get it right before you try tell me
such BS. I've been setting up networks since MS-DOS days in the Navy and
now it I do it real world and I have never used port 135.

--Shaun

But understand, the registry allows power users to do advanced
customizations.

--
Check out http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com for amazing tweaks and fixes

Member of "Newsgroups are for everyone" (Perdita X. Twitt is a
self-appointed, self-righteous, ruthless, bitchy net-cop too!)

Email address is fake to prevent SPAM.
Real email address is pcyr2000 AT hotmail DOT com
Change the obvious to the obvious.
------------------
"Dr. Gee" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve
wrote:

Is the Mac OS really that much more secure than Windows? Or does its
apparent security have more to do with hackers spending their time
attacking the dominant OS?

i use both Win2000 & Mac OS X. i think OS X is more secure. for example,
even
my account has admin privlieges, for dangerous operations, it would ask
the
password for "root" & it would only apply it to for that specific
operation.


I also like the installation on OS X a lot better. no stupid registry nor
those VB script.

regards,

pam @ home ¤p¬}

Pam's Ode to Spammers & Telemarketers

May all spammers & telemarketers die an agonizing death; have no
burial places; their souls be chased by demons in Gehenna from one
room to another for 1000 years.

Shaun Marolf wrote:

"Torgeir Bakken (MVP)" wrote in
:

Shaun Marolf wrote:


Absolutely correct and the real issue of the blaster worm was simply
that. Port 135 (RPC) certainly isn't needed nor desired for use in a
corporate environment anyway so why did so many IT managers leave it
open?


Because without port 135 you e.g. can't map network drives, nor will you
be able to log on to a NT4/AD domain. Corporate IT managers leave it
open to avoid angry users that can't get their jobs done. In a corporate
environment, the only option is to install 823980 (the RPC security
update) on all computers.


No that's a load because I block port 135 and I can get my network drives
mapped just fine and I logon just as well Port 135 is for RPC ports 137 138
and 139 are used for networking better get it right before you try tell me
such BS. I've been setting up networks since MS-DOS days in the Navy and
now it I do it real world and I have never used port 135.

Hi

Our experience when blocking port 135 on some routers/switches was that AD
logons wasn't working as they should (and as far as I know it was only port 135
that was blocked).


--
torgeir
Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of the 1328 page
Scripting Guide: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter