More Microsoft updates!

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Zak, Aug 8, 2006.

  1. Zak

    Zak Guest

    There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!

    I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
    two but the activity seems to increase.

    The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.

    Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
    needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
    figure.
    Zak, Aug 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. From: "Zak" <>

    | There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
    |
    | I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
    | two but the activity seems to increase.
    |
    | The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
    |
    | Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
    | needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
    | figure.

    I expect WinXP SP3 to be ~.5GB !

    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
    David H. Lipman, Aug 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Zak

    Melissa Guest

    In comp.security.misc Zak <> wrote:
    > Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
    > needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
    > figure.


    Well, if you wanted to spend some time, you could get a rough estimate
    by using the security bulletin search:

    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.aspx

    You can search that based on product (eg XP) and service pack installed
    and it should return all security bulletins for that product that are
    not covered by the service pack. Then total all the download sizes, add
    in the size of the service pack and you have your rough estimate.
    Melissa, Aug 9, 2006
    #3
  4. Zak

    Admins Guest

    On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:31:47 +0100, Zak wrote:

    > There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
    >
    > I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
    > two but the activity seems to increase.
    >
    > The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
    >
    > Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
    > needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
    > figure.


    The new Mac's can run most of the windows programs now check it out, it
    might be the better way to go
    --
    Admin


    * www.privacyoffshore.net (No Logs Internet Surfing)
    * Anonymous Secure Offshore SSH-2 Surfing Tunnels
    Admins, Aug 9, 2006
    #4
  5. Zak wrote:
    > There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
    >
    > I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
    > two but the activity seems to increase.
    >
    > The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
    >
    > Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
    > needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch?


    Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
    that it's not that bad.

    A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas a
    restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 9, 2006
    #5
  6. Zak

    Ludovic Joly Guest

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    > Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
    > that it's not that bad.
    >
    > A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas a
    > restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.


    Two very good points. This reboot thing is immensely grotesque, and
    Linux is in no way better than Windows regarding the patches. Theo de
    Raadt (OpenBSD) pointed out that Linux and Windows have the same rapid
    development cycle, which leads to crap.

    http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html

    Kind regards
    Ludovic
    Ludovic Joly, Aug 9, 2006
    #6
  7. Zak

    Clive Guest

    "Zak" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9819DB035637D64A18E@127.0.0.1...
    > There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
    >
    > I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
    > two but the activity seems to increase.
    >
    > The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
    >
    > Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
    > needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
    > figure.


    Sick of them. I fully understand the need to improve on security. But the
    number of release/patches would indicate bad programming.

    Apart from that my system is slowing to a crawl in the last 6 months or so
    and it's clean, fully patched and run regular defrags/cleanups - I put it
    down to the patches/updates

    Clive
    Clive, Aug 9, 2006
    #7
  8. Zak

    Jon Guest

    Zak wrote:
    > There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
    >
    > I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
    > two but the activity seems to increase.
    >
    > The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
    >
    > Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
    > needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch? It must be some big
    > figure.


    I've accumulated 50 critical/important security patches for XP (93 mb)
    since SP2. May have missed one or two. It's a pain but at least they're
    doing something. You can't tell me the others don't have their share.


    Jon
    Jon, Aug 9, 2006
    #8
  9. Zak

    TwistyCreek Guest

    Ludovic Joly wrote:

    > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    > > Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
    > > that it's not that bad.
    > >
    > > A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas a
    > > restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.

    >
    > Two very good points.


    One totally retarded assumption that everything in a distro repository
    is part of the operating system, and one irrelevancy based on the fact
    that two completely different things need to be services differently.

    You're as clueless as Gobbleslop.....
    TwistyCreek, Aug 9, 2006
    #9
  10. Zak

    TwistyCreek Guest

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

    > Zak wrote:
    > > There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
    > >
    > > I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
    > > two but the activity seems to increase.
    > >
    > > The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
    > >
    > > Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
    > > needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch?

    >
    > Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
    > that it's not that bad.


    Utter clueless nonsense. Updates and patches for Windoze FAR outweigh
    patches for any *nix operating system. Even if you include a standard
    browser, email client, and a couple bells and whistles that make it
    surpass anything a Windoze install could ever even hope to offer.

    The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
    dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
    and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.
    TwistyCreek, Aug 9, 2006
    #10
  11. Zak

    Jon Guest

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    > Zak wrote:
    > > There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!
    > >
    > > I thought all the XP bug-fixes were going to settle down after a year of
    > > two but the activity seems to increase.
    > >
    > > The last lot were about 43 MB in my case as I have MS Office.
    > >
    > > Has anyone kept a running total of how many MB of download have been
    > > needed to keep patching XP ever since its launch?

    >
    > Ask the same question for typical Linux distros and you might get a clue
    > that it's not that bad.
    >
    > A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas a
    > restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.



    You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows200...#installing_sseveral_hhotfixes_ttogether_tehf
    Jon, Aug 9, 2006
    #11
  12. Jon wrote:

    >> A way bigger question is why it usually recommends a reboot whereas
    >> a restart of the service or driver is normally sufficient.

    >
    >
    > You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/servicepacks/
    > sp3/hfdeploy.htm#installing_sseveral_hhotfixes_ttogether_tehf


    Now this has been updated a long time ago. Since about '03 the Hotfix
    Chaining is not needed any more because it's safely implemented by the
    update.exe installer, and since '04 a problematic error in the installer
    has been fixed as well (so all updates since XP SP2 are safe, but old
    updates can be added the new installer as well).

    I was about telling that no reboot is needed at all.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 9, 2006
    #12
  13. TwistyCreek wrote:

    > The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
    > dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
    > and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.


    Windows also is a distro of a kernel, some core utilities, a default
    shell and many programs. So the comparison is valid to a certain point.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 9, 2006
    #13
  14. Jon wrote:

    > I've accumulated 50 critical/important security patches for XP (93 mb)
    > since SP2.


    I've got 90, and they're all together about 45 MB. :)

    > It's a pain but at least they're doing something.


    It might be good for you to not know what they're aware of but not
    doing. And no, I don't just mean the inherently insecure bullshit
    programs like MSIE, MSOE or Windows Messenger. Microsoft is deliberately
    ignoring problems where they even have a fully tested solution already
    implemented on later versions of Windows.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 9, 2006
    #14
  15. Zak

    Nomen Nescio Guest

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

    > TwistyCreek wrote:
    >
    > > The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
    > > dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
    > > and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.

    >
    > Windows also is a distro of a kernel, some core utilities, a default
    > shell and many programs. So the comparison is valid to a certain point.



    Yes nitwit, And up TO that point Windows has had considerably more
    patches/updates/problems than any Linux distribution. Your bumbling
    "not so bad" statement is patently FALSE when a level comparison is
    made.
    Nomen Nescio, Aug 9, 2006
    #15
  16. Zak

    Tx2 Guest

    "Jon" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.


    Did I miss something, or does that particular site refer to nothing but Win
    2000?
    The OP in this thread mentions XP alone, or are you suggesting that 'fix'
    will also work with XP?
    Tx2, Aug 9, 2006
    #16
  17. Nomen Nescio wrote:
    > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >
    >> TwistyCreek wrote:
    >>
    >>> The only way anyone would believe your rubbish is if they were so brain
    >>> dead they believed all the "third party" packages in a distribution
    >>> and/or repository were part of the "core" OS.

    >> Windows also is a distro of a kernel, some core utilities, a default
    >> shell and many programs. So the comparison is valid to a certain point.

    >
    >
    > Yes nitwit, And up TO that point Windows has had considerably more
    > patches/updates/problems than any Linux distribution.


    So far there've been only 3 updates to the kernel itself, and being
    delivered as big differences of binaries doesn't reflect much of the
    actual code change. May I remind you that Linux actually reached 2.6.18?
    These are 18 big updates since 2.6.0 with certainly a lot of bigger changes.

    And your claim is generally wrong: Current total updates for Windows XP
    are merely 150 MB, and about 1 GB in total over all time, whereas a
    decent RedHat 9.0 has about 300 MB in total and about 2 GB over time for
    Linux itself, core binaries, BinUtils, X.org and KDE only.
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Aug 9, 2006
    #17
  18. Zak

    Jon Guest

    Tx2 wrote:
    > "Jon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.

    >
    > Did I miss something, or does that particular site refer to nothing but Win
    > 2000?
    > The OP in this thread mentions XP alone, or are you suggesting that 'fix'
    > will also work with XP?


    Oops. Here's something more recent.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp1/hfdeploy.mspx
    Jon, Aug 9, 2006
    #18
  19. Zak

    Rick Merrill Guest

    Re: More Microsoft updates! - windows network analyzer

    Zak wrote:
    > There's a whole new slew of new MS windows updates. Jeeze!


    speaking of which, how do you run the new windows
    network analyzer???
    Rick Merrill, Aug 9, 2006
    #19
  20. Zak

    Tx2 Guest

    "Jon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Tx2 wrote:
    >> "Jon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >> > You can do an unatteded update and limit it to one reboot.

    >>
    >> Did I miss something, or does that particular site refer to nothing but
    >> Win
    >> 2000?
    >> The OP in this thread mentions XP alone, or are you suggesting that 'fix'
    >> will also work with XP?

    >
    > Oops. Here's something more recent.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp1/hfdeploy.mspx



    ah, my mind can rest easy now....... ;-)
    Tx2, Aug 10, 2006
    #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. Nomen Nescio

    Re: More Microsoft updates!

    Nomen Nescio, Aug 9, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    376
    Nomen Nescio
    Aug 9, 2006
  2. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    432
  3. =?Utf-8?B?d2xzNTA4?=

    checking "Show Updates" doesn't reveal any Windows XP updates

    =?Utf-8?B?d2xzNTA4?=, May 24, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    675
    Martin S.
    May 26, 2006
  4. none
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    357
  5. none
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    434
Loading...

Share This Page