Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > ms critical security pathes released

Reply
Thread Tools

ms critical security pathes released

 
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2004
time to windows update ppl

regards

Thing

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-13-2004
In article <JCWIc.8096$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
> time to windows update ppl


http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/v....aspx?id=28724
Microsoft Windows Task Scheduler buffer overflow vulnerability

Date Discovered: July 13, 2004
Date Published: July 13, 2004
Last Updated: July 13, 2004

http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/v....aspx?id=28669
Microsoft Windows Shell API CLSID vulnerability

Date Discovered: July 2, 2004
Date Published: July 13, 2004
Last Updated: July 13, 2004
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Collector
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2004
thing said the following on 14/07/2004 07:23:
> time to windows update ppl
>
> regards
>
> Thing
>

Windows Update is not so much a patch as a replace, I have downloaded
patches for Win2K that amount to 5 times the original size of the
install files on the rom (excluding the non core items on that rom).

Getting a bit pathetic when you go to Update see the patch size
described as 820k and a couple of minutes download, then the stub (that
800k bit) sits there and downloads another 30megs.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2004
Collector wrote:
> Getting a bit pathetic when you go to Update see the patch size
> described as 820k and a couple of minutes download, then the stub (that
> 800k bit) sits there and downloads another 30megs.


more than willing to be corrected here, but isnt that usually only for
big updates, like IE versions or SPs?

maybe one DX update was like that.

Still, I'd rather download a stub that checks what else is needed than
pulling down the whole lot when it may not be needed.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Collector_NZ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2004
Dave - Dave.net.nz said the following on 14/07/2004 12:55:

> Collector wrote:
>
>> Getting a bit pathetic when you go to Update see the patch size
>> described as 820k and a couple of minutes download, then the stub
>> (that 800k bit) sits there and downloads another 30megs.

>
>
> more than willing to be corrected here, but isnt that usually only for
> big updates, like IE versions or SPs?
>
> maybe one DX update was like that.
>
> Still, I'd rather download a stub that checks what else is needed than
> pulling down the whole lot when it may not be needed.


In general MS updates are LARGE what ****es me is they dont indicate the
full potential size just the stub size.

True only about 4 or 5 of the dozens have been in the 30meg range but
heaps are in the 5 - 10meg range.

--
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being
governed by those who are dumber.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-14-2004
Collector_NZ wrote:
>> Still, I'd rather download a stub that checks what else is needed than
>> pulling down the whole lot when it may not be needed.


> In general MS updates are LARGE what ****es me is they dont indicate the
> full potential size just the stub size.


heh, click on the "click here for more information"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-17-2004
Collector_NZ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...

> >> Getting a bit pathetic when you go to Update see the patch size
> >> described as 820k and a couple of minutes download, then the stub
> >> (that 800k bit) sits there and downloads another 30megs.

> >
> >
> > more than willing to be corrected here, but isnt that usually only for
> > big updates, like IE versions or SPs?
> >
> > maybe one DX update was like that.
> >
> > Still, I'd rather download a stub that checks what else is needed than
> > pulling down the whole lot when it may not be needed.

>
> In general MS updates are LARGE what ****es me is they dont indicate the
> full potential size just the stub size.


Click the button next to the download for more information about the
potential size

To give you an idea of the differences in file sizes between full
downloads (ala network install versions) vs patches (that only contain
the binary differences) with XPSP2 a full network install is 272Mb, vs
a express install from Windows Update (upgrading from SP1) makes it
only 100Mb

Cheers
Nathan
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >, (E-Mail Removed) (Nathan Mercer) was seen to type:
>Collector_NZ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
>
>> >> Getting a bit pathetic when you go to Update see the patch size
>> >> described as 820k and a couple of minutes download, then the stub
>> >> (that 800k bit) sits there and downloads another 30megs.
>> >
>> >
>> > more than willing to be corrected here, but isnt that usually only for
>> > big updates, like IE versions or SPs?
>> >
>> > maybe one DX update was like that.
>> >
>> > Still, I'd rather download a stub that checks what else is needed than
>> > pulling down the whole lot when it may not be needed.

>>
>> In general MS updates are LARGE what ****es me is they dont indicate the
>> full potential size just the stub size.

>
>Click the button next to the download for more information about the
>potential size
>
>To give you an idea of the differences in file sizes between full
>downloads (ala network install versions) vs patches (that only contain
>the binary differences) with XPSP2 a full network install is 272Mb, vs
>a express install from Windows Update (upgrading from SP1) makes it
>only 100Mb


... did you really just type ... "only 100Mb" ?


Bruce

========================
In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave
is olds.
Lord Vetinari, ¨The Truth¨ Terry Pratchet

 
Reply With Quote
 
Nathan Mercer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2004
(E-Mail Removed)z (Bruce Sinclair) wrote in message news:<TUDKc.9049$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> >> In general MS updates are LARGE what ****es me is they dont indicate the
> >> full potential size just the stub size.

> >
> >Click the button next to the download for more information about the
> >potential size
> >
> >To give you an idea of the differences in file sizes between full
> >downloads (ala network install versions) vs patches (that only contain
> >the binary differences) with XPSP2 a full network install is 272Mb, vs
> >a express install from Windows Update (upgrading from SP1) makes it
> >only 100Mb

>
> .. did you really just type ... "only 100Mb" ?


In comparison to ~272Mb, 100Mb is heaps better.

Still difficult for users on narrowband, but it will trickle down
(HTTP resumeable restart type functionality with BITS/Background
Intelligent Transfer Service) to PCs

And besides XPSP2 will be available far and wide on CD

Cheers
Nathan
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-19-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >, (E-Mail Removed) (Nathan Mercer) was seen to type:
>(E-Mail Removed) (Bruce Sinclair) wrote in message
> news:<TUDKc.9049$(E-Mail Removed)>...
>> >> In general MS updates are LARGE what ****es me is they dont indicate the
>> >> full potential size just the stub size.
>> >
>> >Click the button next to the download for more information about the
>> >potential size
>> >
>> >To give you an idea of the differences in file sizes between full
>> >downloads (ala network install versions) vs patches (that only contain
>> >the binary differences) with XPSP2 a full network install is 272Mb, vs
>> >a express install from Windows Update (upgrading from SP1) makes it
>> >only 100Mb

>>
>> .. did you really just type ... "only 100Mb" ?

>
>In comparison to ~272Mb, 100Mb is heaps better.


Better ... but not well
I guess it just leapt out at me when I was reading .. and being an old
fellow, I guess I was drifting back to the days of huge 1 meg
downloads and enormous 64 k RAM

>Still difficult for users on narrowband, but it will trickle down
>(HTTP resumeable restart type functionality with BITS/Background
>Intelligent Transfer Service) to PCs
>And besides XPSP2 will be available far and wide on CD


As always, this is the good news.


Bruce

================================================== =
In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave
is olds.
Lord Vetinari, ¨The Truth¨ Terry Pratchet

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microsoft MS08-067 KB958644 Security: Critical Patch/Update Released! 1PW Computer Support 0 10-24-2008 08:13 AM
Using template in safety-critical system (flight critical system) aeromarine C++ 15 02-18-2008 09:09 AM
special Array method about Unix pathes Une Bévue Ruby 13 09-20-2007 05:40 AM
Oct 12: Three new critical IE security holes found Bruce the Shark Computer Support 13 10-14-2004 04:01 PM
I have got the following message : "IMPORTANT!! Critical security hole in Windows!" Alex Vinokur Computer Support 23 07-15-2003 05:57 AM



Advertisments