Two Fix Packs released for Vista

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Mickey Mouse, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. Mickey Mouse

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    Mickey Mouse, Aug 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mickey Mouse wrote:
    > Previously under secret beta release for the last few weeks (and slated
    > for SP1), these 2 Fix Packs have just been officially released before
    > "Patch Tuesday".
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938979
    > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938194




    I believe a safer way to receive these if i fact they are real is via
    you own "windows update"
    Clicking on links via postings to a public newsgroup may be hazardous to
    your health........

    --
    Cheers
    Southern Kiwi
    southern_kiwi@*spamsucks*hotmail.com
    Word of wisdom from high in the mountains....you know...like a
    Guru...but not as old....or mystic......or wise....or high... :)
     
    Southern Kiwi, Aug 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mickey Mouse

    Jerry Guest

    Southern Kiwi wrote:
    > Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >> Previously under secret beta release for the last few weeks (and
    >> slated for SP1), these 2 Fix Packs have just been officially released
    >> before "Patch Tuesday".
    >>
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938979
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938194

    >
    >
    >
    > I believe a safer way to receive these if i fact they are real is via
    > you own "windows update"
    > Clicking on links via postings to a public newsgroup may be hazardous to
    > your health........
    >

    How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    through Windows update?
     
    Jerry, Aug 8, 2007
    #3
  4. Mickey Mouse

    JohnO Guest

    On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    > Southern Kiwi wrote:
    > > Mickey Mouse wrote:
    > >> Previously under secret beta release for the last few weeks (and
    > >> slated for SP1), these 2 Fix Packs have just been officially released
    > >> before "Patch Tuesday".

    >
    > >>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938979
    > >>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938194

    >
    > > I believe a safer way to receive these if i fact they are real is via
    > > you own "windows update"
    > > Clicking on links via postings to a public newsgroup may be hazardous to
    > > your health........

    >
    > How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    > through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.
     
    JohnO, Aug 8, 2007
    #4
  5. JohnO wrote:
    > On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    >> Southern Kiwi wrote:
    >>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >>>> Previously under secret beta release for the last few weeks (and
    >>>> slated for SP1), these 2 Fix Packs have just been officially released
    >>>> before "Patch Tuesday".
    >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938979
    >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938194
    >>> I believe a safer way to receive these if i fact they are real is via
    >>> you own "windows update"
    >>> Clicking on links via postings to a public newsgroup may be hazardous to
    >>> your health........

    >> How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    >> through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    > refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.
    >

    my point.

    --
    Cheers
    Southern Kiwi
    southern_kiwi@*spamsucks*hotmail.com
    Word of wisdom from high in the mountains....you know...like a
    Guru...but not as old....or mystic......or wise....or high... :)
     
    Southern Kiwi, Aug 9, 2007
    #5
  6. Mickey Mouse

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:58:59 -0700, JohnO <>
    exclaimed:

    >On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    >> Southern Kiwi wrote:
    >> > Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >> >> Previously under secret beta release for the last few weeks (and
    >> >> slated for SP1), these 2 Fix Packs have just been officially released
    >> >> before "Patch Tuesday".

    >>
    >> >>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938979
    >> >>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938194

    >>
    >> > I believe a safer way to receive these if i fact they are real is via
    >> > you own "windows update"
    >> > Clicking on links via postings to a public newsgroup may be hazardous to
    >> > your health........

    >>
    >> How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    >> through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    >True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    >refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.


    Yes, but this is a plain text medium - there's no way to hide the
    actual URL.

    And anyway, with the exception of Shane and Lawrence, most people in
    nz.comp are quite smart and are not exactly going to fall for that
    sort of crap.
     
    Fred Dagg, Aug 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Mickey Mouse

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    "Southern Kiwi" <southern_kiwi@*spamsucks*hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:46ba59f8$...
    > JohnO wrote:
    >> On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    >>> through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >>>
    >>> - Show quoted text -

    >>
    >> True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    >> refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.
    >>

    > my point.


    Was it a text post, or an html post?

    You can't obfuscate a link in a text post, other than by using a url
    redirection service such as tinyurl, but in that case it would be obvious
    that the url was not a direct link to a Microsoft Knowledge Base article.
     
    Mickey Mouse, Aug 9, 2007
    #7
  8. In message <>, JohnO
    wrote:

    > On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    >> Southern Kiwi wrote:

    >
    >> > Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >> >> Previously under secret beta release for the last few weeks (and
    >> >> slated for SP1), these 2 Fix Packs have just been officially released
    >> >> before "Patch Tuesday".

    >>
    >> >>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938979
    >> >>http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938194

    >>
    >> > I believe a safer way to receive these if i fact they are real is via
    >> > you own "windows update"
    >> > Clicking on links via postings to a public newsgroup may be hazardous
    >> > to your health........

    >>
    >> How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    >> through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >>
    >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    > refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.


    Terrible, isn't it, when you don't feel you can trust a posting by a fellow
    Dimdows user.

    But then, why do you need to specifically go and download these "fix packs"?
    Why can't you just do a "yum check-update" (or whatever the Dimdows
    point-and-drool equivalent is) and just have your system pick them up?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 9, 2007
    #8
  9. Mickey Mouse

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    In a post drooling with sarcastic ignorance, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
    <_zealand> wrote;
    >
    > But then, why do you need to specifically go and download these "fix
    > packs"?
    > Why can't you just do a "yum check-update" (or whatever the Dimdows
    > point-and-drool equivalent is) and just have your system pick them up?


    Well, you will be able to collect these via Windows Update soon (whether
    manually or automatically - depending on the users set preferences), but
    some users may have been waiting for specific issues to be addressed and
    wish to be "early adopters".
     
    Mickey Mouse, Aug 9, 2007
    #9
  10. Mickey Mouse

    Jerry Guest

    Mickey Mouse wrote:
    > "Southern Kiwi" <southern_kiwi@*spamsucks*hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:46ba59f8$...
    >> JohnO wrote:
    >>> On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    >>>> through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >>>>
    >>>> - Show quoted text -
    >>>
    >>> True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    >>> refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.
    >>>

    >> my point.

    >
    > Was it a text post, or an html post?
    >
    > You can't obfuscate a link in a text post, other than by using a url
    > redirection service such as tinyurl, but in that case it would be
    > obvious that the url was not a direct link to a Microsoft Knowledge Base
    > article.


    my point :p
     
    Jerry, Aug 9, 2007
    #10
  11. Mickey Mouse

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    "Jerry" <> wrote in message
    news:46bac08d$...
    > Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >>
    >> You can't obfuscate a link in a text post, other than by using a url
    >> redirection service such as tinyurl, but in that case it would be obvious
    >> that the url was not a direct link to a Microsoft Knowledge Base article.

    >
    > my point :p


    Point awarded :)
     
    Mickey Mouse, Aug 9, 2007
    #11
  12. In message <f9e6n6$o1r$>, Mickey Mouse wrote:

    > In a post drooling with sarcastic ignorance, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
    > <_zealand> wrote;
    >>
    >> But then, why do you need to specifically go and download these "fix
    >> packs"? Why can't you just do a "yum check-update" (or whatever the
    >> Dimdows point-and-drool equivalent is) and just have your system pick
    >> them up?

    >
    > Well, you will be able to collect these via Windows Update soon (whether
    > manually or automatically - depending on the users set preferences), but
    > some users may have been waiting for specific issues to be addressed and
    > wish to be "early adopters".


    So, is this still beta software then, not ready for public release?
    Otherwise, why the distinction between manual
    go-to-website-download-and-install, versus automatic system update?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 9, 2007
    #12
  13. Mickey Mouse

    Shane Guest

    Jerry wrote:

    > Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >> "Southern Kiwi" <southern_kiwi@*spamsucks*hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:46ba59f8$...
    >>> JohnO wrote:
    >>>> On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    >>>>> through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >>>>>
    >>>>> - Show quoted text -
    >>>>
    >>>> True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    >>>> refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.
    >>>>
    >>> my point.

    >>
    >> Was it a text post, or an html post?
    >>
    >> You can't obfuscate a link in a text post, other than by using a url
    >> redirection service such as tinyurl, but in that case it would be
    >> obvious that the url was not a direct link to a Microsoft Knowledge Base
    >> article.

    >
    > my point :p


    Half point. XSS can turn an apparently innocent link into a nightmare.
    --
    Q: What's yellow, normed, and complete?
    A: A Bananach space.
     
    Shane, Aug 9, 2007
    #13
  14. In message <f9eirm$a1s$>, Shane wrote:

    > Jerry wrote:
    >
    >> Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >>> "Southern Kiwi" <southern_kiwi@*spamsucks*hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:46ba59f8$...
    >>>> JohnO wrote:
    >>>>> On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    >>>>>> through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
    >>>>>
    >>>>> True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    >>>>> refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.
    >>>>>
    >>>> my point.
    >>>
    >>> Was it a text post, or an html post?
    >>>
    >>> You can't obfuscate a link in a text post, other than by using a url
    >>> redirection service such as tinyurl, but in that case it would be
    >>> obvious that the url was not a direct link to a Microsoft Knowledge Base
    >>> article.

    >>
    >> my point :p

    >
    > Half point. XSS can turn an apparently innocent link into a nightmare.


    And what happens when you combine XSS with folks reading USENET postings
    through Websites like Google Groups?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 9, 2007
    #14
  15. Mickey Mouse

    Shane Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <f9eirm$a1s$>, Shane wrote:
    >
    >> Jerry wrote:
    >>
    >>> Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >>>> "Southern Kiwi" <southern_kiwi@*spamsucks*hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:46ba59f8$...
    >>>>> JohnO wrote:
    >>>>>> On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    >>>>>>> through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    >>>>>> refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> my point.
    >>>>
    >>>> Was it a text post, or an html post?
    >>>>
    >>>> You can't obfuscate a link in a text post, other than by using a url
    >>>> redirection service such as tinyurl, but in that case it would be
    >>>> obvious that the url was not a direct link to a Microsoft Knowledge
    >>>> Base article.
    >>>
    >>> my point :p

    >>
    >> Half point. XSS can turn an apparently innocent link into a nightmare.

    >
    > And what happens when you combine XSS with folks reading USENET postings
    > through Websites like Google Groups?


    A multi-platform nightmare

    --
    Q: What's yellow, normed, and complete?
    A: A Bananach space.
     
    Shane, Aug 9, 2007
    #15
  16. Mickey Mouse

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:f9eibk$alt$...
    > In message <f9e6n6$o1r$>, Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >
    >> In a post drooling with sarcastic ignorance, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
    >> <_zealand> wrote;
    >>>
    >>> But then, why do you need to specifically go and download these "fix
    >>> packs"? Why can't you just do a "yum check-update" (or whatever the
    >>> Dimdows point-and-drool equivalent is) and just have your system pick
    >>> them up?

    >>
    >> Well, you will be able to collect these via Windows Update soon (whether
    >> manually or automatically - depending on the users set preferences), but
    >> some users may have been waiting for specific issues to be addressed and
    >> wish to be "early adopters".

    >
    > So, is this still beta software then, not ready for public release?


    No Lawrence. The previous limited-release beta testing period has ended. It
    has now been officially released by Microsoft for immediate download for
    those so inclined.

    > Otherwise, why the distinction between manual
    > go-to-website-download-and-install, versus automatic system update?


    Those who receive automated or manual Windows Update downloads should find
    it is available in time for Microsoft's normal scheduled general
    distribution on Patch Tuesday (the second Tuesday in a month - which in this
    case will be the 14th of August).

    From a tech perspective, I can think of a good number of reasons why having
    an early and separate download option could be useful and of benefit.
     
    Mickey Mouse, Aug 9, 2007
    #16
  17. Mickey Mouse

    Mickey Mouse Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:f9ejjf$cp0$...
    >
    > And what happens when you combine XSS with folks reading USENET postings
    > through Websites like Google Groups?


    The question should really be; "Is Google Groups capable of posting HTML
    messages?".

    If it is, then I'm sure that David Murray would likely contend that in that
    case it could not be considered a real or proper newsreader, and therefore
    no self-respecting individual should be using it.

    But then there's always this tag to ease the minds of those with a bout of
    furtive paranoia: Content-Type: text/plain;
     
    Mickey Mouse, Aug 9, 2007
    #17
  18. Mickey Mouse

    Ralph Fox Guest

    On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:40:08 +1200, in message <46ba1c0b$>,
    Jerry wrote:

    > Southern Kiwi wrote:
    > > Mickey Mouse wrote:
    > >> Previously under secret beta release for the last few weeks (and
    > >> slated for SP1), these 2 Fix Packs have just been officially released
    > >> before "Patch Tuesday".
    > >>
    > >> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938979
    > >> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938194

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I believe a safer way to receive these if i fact they are real is via
    > > you own "windows update"
    > > Clicking on links via postings to a public newsgroup may be hazardous to
    > > your health........
    > >

    > How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    > through Windows update?



    Do a little thinking. These two links look exactly the same to you, Jerry,
    and to anyone else with a Unicode-compatible client. But the two links go
    to different sites.

    1. http://www.pаypal.com/
    2. http://www.paypal.com/

    Do a little thinking. Someone could do the same for microsoft.com.


    --
    Cheers,
    Ralph
     
    Ralph Fox, Aug 9, 2007
    #18
  19. Mickey Mouse

    Jerry Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > Jerry wrote:
    >
    >> Mickey Mouse wrote:
    >>> "Southern Kiwi" <southern_kiwi@*spamsucks*hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:46ba59f8$...
    >>>> JohnO wrote:
    >>>>> On Aug 9, 7:40 am, Jerry <> wrote:
    >>>>>> How is a link to microsoft.com going to be more dangerous than going
    >>>>>> through Windows update?- Hide quoted text -
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
    >>>>> True, but it could show a different URL to the actual URL the link
    >>>>> refers to. Naive users fall for that sort of thing every day.
    >>>>>
    >>>> my point.
    >>> Was it a text post, or an html post?
    >>>
    >>> You can't obfuscate a link in a text post, other than by using a url
    >>> redirection service such as tinyurl, but in that case it would be
    >>> obvious that the url was not a direct link to a Microsoft Knowledge Base
    >>> article.

    >> my point :p

    >
    > Half point. XSS can turn an apparently innocent link into a nightmare.


    in a text only news post? How does that happen?
     
    Jerry, Aug 9, 2007
    #19
  20. Mickey Mouse

    Ralph Fox Guest

    On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 00:42:36 +1200, in message <f9f104$sjn$>,
    Mickey Mouse wrote:

    > "Ralph Fox" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Do a little thinking. These two links look exactly the same to you,
    > > Jerry,
    > > and to anyone else with a Unicode-compatible client. But the two links go
    > > to different sites.
    > >
    > > 1. http://www.p?ypal.com/
    > > 2. http://www.paypal.com/
    > >
    > > Do a little thinking. Someone could do the same for microsoft.com.

    >
    > Yes, but when you hover over the first link it shows in the notification
    > area that the address does not match.



    Often true, but that depends on the browser's settings.
    If the browser is configured to show IDNs (International Domain Names),
    then you won't see that it doesn't match.


    --
    Cheers,
    Ralph
     
    Ralph Fox, Aug 9, 2007
    #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. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    537
    Doug MacLean
    Aug 5, 2003
  2. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    941
    Doug MacLean
    Aug 19, 2003
  3. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    551
    Stan Brown
    Nov 2, 2003
  4. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    568
    Doug MacLean
    Jul 30, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,009
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page