M$ Backs out of releasing a security patch...

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Imhotep, Sep 12, 2005.

  1. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    "Other than saying it planned to release a solitary fix in last week's
    advanced bulletin, Microsoft is yet to disclose any details of the security
    bug other than to describe it as "critical". "

    http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11310

    Could this be the patch for outlook and IE? If so, the World already knows
    about it. Reference the original article here.

    "The bug affects default installations of Outlook, Outlook Express and
    Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 and XP Service Pack 1. EEye said that
    additional versions of Windows may also be affected."

    http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2142042/unpatched-bugs-ms-outlook

    Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, Sep 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:55:40 -0400, Imhotep <>
    wrote:

    >"Other than saying it planned to release a solitary fix in last week's
    >advanced bulletin, Microsoft is yet to disclose any details of the security
    >bug other than to describe it as "critical". "
    >
    >http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11310
    >
    >Could this be the patch for outlook and IE? If so, the World already knows
    >about it. Reference the original article here.
    >
    >"The bug affects default installations of Outlook, Outlook Express and
    >Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 and XP Service Pack 1. EEye said that
    >additional versions of Windows may also be affected."
    >
    >http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2142042/unpatched-bugs-ms-outlook
    >


    What you mean is they have not tested it enough yet and when they
    have it will be released. But what do you care about MS as you say
    you don't use it.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Sep 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Imhotep

    Jason Guest

    * Jim Watt <_way>:
    >
    > What you mean is they have not tested it enough yet and when they
    > have it will be released. But what do you care about MS as you say
    > you don't use it.


    They actually test the patches? Sure could have fooled me.

    Jason
     
    Jason, Sep 13, 2005
    #3
  4. "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Other than saying it planned to release a solitary fix in last week's
    > advanced bulletin, Microsoft is yet to disclose any details of the

    security
    > bug other than to describe it as "critical". "
    >
    > http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11310
    >
    > Could this be the patch for outlook and IE? If so, the World already knows
    > about it. Reference the original article here.
    >
    > "The bug affects default installations of Outlook, Outlook Express and
    > Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 and XP Service Pack 1. EEye said that
    > additional versions of Windows may also be affected."
    >
    > http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2142042/unpatched-bugs-ms-outlook


    Ah. So "adequate testing" is a /bad/ thing?

    I assume an alpha tester threw it out as conflicting with what used to be
    called a "layered product" ;o)

    --

    Hairy One Kenobi

    Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
    reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
    in the first place. So there!
     
    Hairy One Kenobi, Sep 13, 2005
    #4
  5. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

    > "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "Other than saying it planned to release a solitary fix in last week's
    >> advanced bulletin, Microsoft is yet to disclose any details of the

    > security
    >> bug other than to describe it as "critical". "
    >>
    >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11310
    >>
    >> Could this be the patch for outlook and IE? If so, the World already
    >> knows about it. Reference the original article here.
    >>
    >> "The bug affects default installations of Outlook, Outlook Express and
    >> Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 and XP Service Pack 1. EEye said that
    >> additional versions of Windows may also be affected."
    >>
    >> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2142042/unpatched-bugs-ms-outlook

    >
    > Ah. So "adequate testing" is a /bad/ thing?


    Did anyone say it was?

    > I assume an alpha tester threw it out as conflicting with what used to be
    > called a "layered product" ;o)


    Did MS ever make a true "layer" product?
     
    Imhotep, Sep 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:55:40 -0400, Imhotep <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"Other than saying it planned to release a solitary fix in last week's
    >>advanced bulletin, Microsoft is yet to disclose any details of the
    >>security bug other than to describe it as "critical". "
    >>
    >>http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11310
    >>
    >>Could this be the patch for outlook and IE? If so, the World already knows
    >>about it. Reference the original article here.
    >>
    >>"The bug affects default installations of Outlook, Outlook Express and
    >>Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 and XP Service Pack 1. EEye said that
    >>additional versions of Windows may also be affected."
    >>
    >>http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2142042/unpatched-bugs-ms-outlook
    >>

    >
    > What you mean is they have not tested it enough yet and when they
    > have it will be released. But what do you care about MS as you say
    > you don't use it.


    Jim, unlike you I appreciate the information that is shared by the many
    people who visit and contribute to this news group. I also realize that
    some people use MS products. Because of this, I post information so these
    people can better protect themselves. So what is you excuse? Why does this
    offend you? Are you just being the troll that you are again?

    Im
     
    Imhotep, Sep 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Jason wrote:

    > * Jim Watt <_way>:
    >>
    >> What you mean is they have not tested it enough yet and when they
    >> have it will be released. But what do you care about MS as you say
    >> you don't use it.

    >
    > They actually test the patches? Sure could have fooled me.
    >
    > Jason


    LOL. No kidding....
     
    Imhotep, Sep 13, 2005
    #7
  8. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:08:56 -0400, Imhotep <>
    wrote:

    >Why does this offend you?


    Because its just part of your MS bashing campaign; they
    haven't 'backed out; of anything. thats a misstruth, a false
    statement manufactured to advance your flawed arguments.

    Its also not accurate to say 'some' people use Microsoft
    products. most of us do.

    And anyone who disagrees with your nonsense is
    labeled 'a troll'

    pathetic.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Sep 13, 2005
    #8
  9. "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
    >
    > > "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> "Other than saying it planned to release a solitary fix in last week's
    > >> advanced bulletin, Microsoft is yet to disclose any details of the

    > > security
    > >> bug other than to describe it as "critical". "
    > >>
    > >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11310
    > >>
    > >> Could this be the patch for outlook and IE? If so, the World already
    > >> knows about it. Reference the original article here.
    > >>
    > >> "The bug affects default installations of Outlook, Outlook Express and
    > >> Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 and XP Service Pack 1. EEye said that
    > >> additional versions of Windows may also be affected."
    > >>
    > >> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2142042/unpatched-bugs-ms-outlook

    > >
    > > Ah. So "adequate testing" is a /bad/ thing?

    >
    > Did anyone say it was?


    Erm.. you did, I think, when you had a go at 'em for not releasing something
    that (presumably) failed testing.

    > > I assume an alpha tester threw it out as conflicting with what used to

    be
    > > called a "layered product" ;o)

    >
    > Did MS ever make a true "layer" product?


    Huh?

    Thought you had a VMS background? Hence the smiley... it means "anything
    that runs on top of the OS". One example would be Microsoft Office (which,
    rumour has it, is run by several people, worldwide)

    H1K
     
    Hairy One Kenobi, Sep 13, 2005
    #9
  10. Imhotep

    Dazz Guest

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:12:58 +0200, Jim Watt <_way>
    wrote:

    <snipped>

    >What you mean is they have not tested it enough yet and when they
    >have it will be released. But what do you care about MS as you say
    >you don't use it.


    Shhh - I still remember the NT 4.0 Service Pack 6.0 fiasco. :-(

    Dazz
     
    Dazz, Sep 13, 2005
    #10
  11. Imhotep

    Dazz Guest

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:12:58 +0200, Jim Watt <_way>
    wrote:

    <snipped>

    >What you mean is they have not tested it enough yet and when they
    >have it will be released. But what do you care about MS as you say
    >you don't use it.


    The scary thing about vulnerabilities (be they M$, *nix or otherwise)
    is that they *can* and often *do* affect everyone - history has proven
    this only too well. :-(

    Dazz
     
    Dazz, Sep 13, 2005
    #11
  12. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

    > "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
    >>
    >> > "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >> "Other than saying it planned to release a solitary fix in last week's
    >> >> advanced bulletin, Microsoft is yet to disclose any details of the
    >> > security
    >> >> bug other than to describe it as "critical". "
    >> >>
    >> >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11310
    >> >>
    >> >> Could this be the patch for outlook and IE? If so, the World already
    >> >> knows about it. Reference the original article here.
    >> >>
    >> >> "The bug affects default installations of Outlook, Outlook Express and
    >> >> Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 and XP Service Pack 1. EEye said
    >> >> that additional versions of Windows may also be affected."
    >> >>
    >> >> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2142042/unpatched-bugs-ms-outlook
    >> >
    >> > Ah. So "adequate testing" is a /bad/ thing?

    >>
    >> Did anyone say it was?

    >
    > Erm.. you did, I think, when you had a go at 'em for not releasing
    > something that (presumably) failed testing.


    I think you assumed some things. You know what they say about assuming...In
    stead try read the post literally. It was meant to warm people about a
    security hole that MS people are STILL vulnerable for.

    >> > I assume an alpha tester threw it out as conflicting with what used to

    > be
    >> > called a "layered product" ;o)

    >>
    >> Did MS ever make a true "layer" product?

    >
    > Huh?
    >
    > Thought you had a VMS background? Hence the smiley... it means "anything
    > that runs on top of the OS". One example would be Microsoft Office (which,
    > rumour has it, is run by several people, worldwide)


    Although Windows NT was designed with VMS as its model. The two are very
    different. VMS was a stable reliable OS and, well, windows is just not and
    never has been....


    > H1K


    Im
     
    Imhotep, Sep 13, 2005
    #12
  13. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 02:08:56 -0400, Imhotep <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Why does this offend you?

    >
    > Because its just part of your MS bashing campaign;


    Whatever, fool. The post was to warm people running Windows that they are
    STILL vulnerable for a "critical", as said by Microsoft themselves,
    security hole.

    > they
    > haven't 'backed out; of anything. thats a misstruth, a false
    > statement manufactured to advance your flawed arguments.


    Humm did you even read the article? I quote:
    "...and therefore we feel it is in the best interest of our customers to not
    release this update until it undergoes further testing," a Microsoft
    spokesman explained."

    Jim that is a real live Microsoft spokesperson who said that. Let me
    paraphrase for you, those big words are probably messing with your (cough)
    mind. Microsoft has backed out of making the patch public because they ran
    into problems with the patch. Which is exactly what I said before.

    > Its also not accurate to say 'some' people use Microsoft
    > products. most of us do.


    Some/Most whatever....

    > And anyone who disagrees with your nonsense is
    > labeled 'a troll'


    No, just you. You obviously did not even read the article then you comment
    without any knowledge, hummm, yup you're a troll...

    > pathetic.


    Yes, you are...

    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Imhotep, Sep 13, 2005
    #13
  14. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:15:51 -0400, Imhotep <>
    wrote:

    <snip>

    You really are a sad little obsessive wanker.

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Sep 13, 2005
    #14
  15. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:04:18 -0400, Imhotep <>
    wrote:

    >Although Windows NT was designed with VMS as its model. The two are very
    >different. VMS was a stable reliable OS and, well, windows is just not and
    >never has been....


    so you say, rather too often.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Sep 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:04:18 -0400, Imhotep <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Although Windows NT was designed with VMS as its model. The two are very
    >>different. VMS was a stable reliable OS and, well, windows is just not and
    >>never has been....

    >
    > so you say, rather too often.
    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com


    So most people say, rather often....

    Im
     
    Imhotep, Sep 13, 2005
    #16
  17. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:15:51 -0400, Imhotep <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > You really are a sad little obsessive wanker.
    >
    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com


    ....and you a pathetic man who hides behind tough words and antagonist ways
    to hide the fact of your utter uselessness...

    Still waiting on you description of password hacking. Jim, face it, you're
    all talk...

    Later fool
     
    Imhotep, Sep 13, 2005
    #17
  18. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:43:55 -0400, Imhotep <>
    wrote:

    >Jim Watt wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:15:51 -0400, Imhotep <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> You really are a sad little obsessive wanker.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Jim Watt
    >> http://www.gibnet.com

    >
    >...and you a pathetic man who hides behind tough words and antagonist ways
    >to hide the fact of your utter uselessness...


    so you say.

    >Still waiting on you description of password hacking. Jim, face it, you're
    >all talk...


    I never said I was was going to post information on hacking and have
    no intention of doing so.

    But my main income has come from computers for some years and I've
    done most thjings wheras all you can do is make up a silly name and
    post links to other peoples stories.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Sep 14, 2005
    #18
  19. "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hairy One Kenobi wrote:


    <snip>

    > > Erm.. you did, I think, when you had a go at 'em for not releasing
    > > something that (presumably) failed testing.

    >
    > I think you assumed some things. You know what they say about

    assuming...In
    > stead try read the post literally. It was meant to warm people about a
    > security hole that MS people are STILL vulnerable for.


    Nope. There was some self-satisfied FUD in there. Please go back and reread
    your own posts...

    > > Thought you had a VMS background? Hence the smiley... it means "anything
    > > that runs on top of the OS". One example would be Microsoft Office

    (which,
    > > rumour has it, is run by several people, worldwide)

    >
    > Although Windows NT was designed with VMS as its model. The two are very
    > different.


    Oh yes. Strange that the designers happened to share the same names, though?
    All of 'em?

    H1K (Former user of Win NT 3.0, only *ever* released on DEC AXP. The horrid
    Gateway IBM-compatible thingummy was huge in comparison; I preferred my
    VT-320/340 for serious work)

    P.S. Given your wide knowledge of the subject, could you remind me who that
    Swedish company were? The ones that had queues, DCL, and EVE on an NT4 box?
    They were widely used by Ericsson, but I can't remember the name ('twas five
    or six years ago). Prolly cheaper to build a gash NT4 box than buy a VAX on
    eBay. Even if they work as wonderful space-heaters ;o)
     
    Hairy One Kenobi, Sep 14, 2005
    #19
  20. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

    > "Imhotep" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> > Erm.. you did, I think, when you had a go at 'em for not releasing
    >> > something that (presumably) failed testing.

    >>
    >> I think you assumed some things. You know what they say about

    > assuming...In
    >> stead try read the post literally. It was meant to warm people about a
    >> security hole that MS people are STILL vulnerable for.

    >
    > Nope. There was some self-satisfied FUD in there. Please go back and
    > reread your own posts...


    I think you are just wasting my time with your posts. I posted this news
    message to keep people up to date with security. And you are posting to
    just irritate. Maybe you would better off putting your time in posting new
    articles about computer security rather than getting waaaaay off topic?

    >> > Thought you had a VMS background? Hence the smiley... it means
    >> > "anything that runs on top of the OS". One example would be Microsoft
    >> > Office

    > (which,
    >> > rumour has it, is run by several people, worldwide)

    >>
    >> Although Windows NT was designed with VMS as its model. The two are very
    >> different.

    >
    > Oh yes. Strange that the designers happened to share the same names,
    > though? All of 'em?


    You are making a point about peoples names. I am making a point about the
    result of the end product. Which is more significant? :-o

    > H1K (Former user of Win NT 3.0, only *ever* released on DEC AXP. The
    > horrid Gateway IBM-compatible thingummy was huge in comparison; I
    > preferred my VT-320/340 for serious work)
    >
    > P.S. Given your wide knowledge of the subject, could you remind me who
    > that Swedish company were? The ones that had queues, DCL, and EVE on an
    > NT4 box? They were widely used by Ericsson, but I can't remember the name
    > ('twas five or six years ago). Prolly cheaper to build a gash NT4 box than
    > buy a VAX on eBay. Even if they work as wonderful space-heaters ;o)


    Honestly, the last time I worked on a VAX it was in my junior year in
    college working at a small company in Framingham, Massachusetts USA. Then I
    wrote code for the VMS TCP/IP stack. Since then, I have not been involved
    with VMS at all...

    Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, Sep 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?ZHdpZ2h0?=

    Releasing ip

    =?Utf-8?B?ZHdpZ2h0?=, Mar 22, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    557
    Chris Catt
    Mar 23, 2005
  2. why?
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    814
  3. Ima Goodlay
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    455
    Ima Goodlay
    Sep 23, 2003
  4. none
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    588
    Jim Watt
    Jan 9, 2006
  5. Charlie Russel - MVP

    Heads up! Out of Band Security Patch Now Available

    Charlie Russel - MVP, Apr 3, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    357
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FybG9z?=
    Apr 3, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page