You seem to have missed the word "No" from the front of your title.
Do did read the article, rather than just the title, right? You do know that
the patch *fixes* the worm problem, rather than causes it, right?
There *is* a cock-up (I note you've posted this below, but without the
detail), but that has to do with deployment where (or so I read, a few days
ago) someone has (potentially quite sensibly) changed the access rights to a
directory or two.
--
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!
> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:wdydnUbSGK9VJcjeRVn-qg@adelphia.com...
>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11342
>
> You seem to have missed the word "No" from the front of your title.
I did not write the article. The "header" article from Security Focus has
the title "Worm fears over MS October patch batch". If you have a problem,
write the author....
> Do did read the article, rather than just the title, right? You do know
> that the patch *fixes* the worm problem, rather than causes it, right?
Yes I "do did" read the article...Although, I can't seem to get to it now at
the security focus web site.
"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h4CdneBNTPAHVMveRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> > "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:wdydnUbSGK9VJcjeRVn-qg@adelphia.com...
> >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11342
> >
> > You seem to have missed the word "No" from the front of your title.
>
> I did not write the article. The "header" article from Security Focus has
> the title "Worm fears over MS October patch batch". If you have a problem,
> write the author....
>
> > Do did read the article, rather than just the title, right? You do know
> > that the patch *fixes* the worm problem, rather than causes it, right?
>
> Yes I "do did" read the article...Although, I can't seem to get to it now
at
> the security focus web site.
/So/ sorry for the typo... so how about an apology for deliberately
misrepresenting the content so dramatically? ;o)
After all, you /did/ read the content...
Last I looked, it was still available on El Reg (where it originally came
from!)
> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:h4CdneBNTPAHVMveRVn-vg@adelphia.com...
>> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>>
>> > "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> > news:wdydnUbSGK9VJcjeRVn-qg@adelphia.com...
>> >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11342
>> >
>> > You seem to have missed the word "No" from the front of your title.
>>
>> I did not write the article. The "header" article from Security Focus has
>> the title "Worm fears over MS October patch batch". If you have a
>> problem, write the author....
>>
>> > Do did read the article, rather than just the title, right? You do know
>> > that the patch *fixes* the worm problem, rather than causes it, right?
>>
>> Yes I "do did" read the article...Although, I can't seem to get to it now
> at
>> the security focus web site.
>
> /So/ sorry for the typo... so how about an apology for deliberately
> misrepresenting the content so dramatically? ;o)
>
> After all, you /did/ read the content...
>
> Last I looked, it was still available on El Reg (where it originally came
> from!)
>
> H1K
/Deliberately/ misrepresenting the content??? Whatever. You know, I am
sitting here trying to think of one original post you have sent that was
informative. I find myself still sitting here after several minutes trying
desperately to remember one. Maybe you have and I just can not remember?
Whatever, you know what, you filter me out and I will filter you. Deal?
Search Advisory, Vulnerability, and Virus Database
Search: [Advanced Search] Windows xp Search
All Content 1 Secunia Advisories 2 Virus Information
View full vulnerability report for a specific product:
- Citrix MetaFrame XP for Windows
- GoodTech FTP Server for Windows NT/2000/XP 3.x
- GoodTech SMTP Server for Windows NT/2000/XP 5.x
- GoodTech Telnet Server for Windows NT/2000/XP 4.x
- GoodTech Telnet Server for Windows NT/2000/XP 5.x
- Microsoft Windows XP Embedded
- Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
- Microsoft Windows XP Professional
- NOD32 for Windows NT/2000/XP 2.x
- Novell Client for Windows NT/2000/XP
Title Date
Microsoft Windows FTP Client Filename Validation Vulnerability 2005-10-11
Microsoft Windows Client Service for NetWare Buffer Overflow 2005-10-11
Microsoft Windows MSDTC and COM+ Vulnerabilities 2005-10-11
Microsoft Windows Plug-and-Play Service Arbitrary Code Execution
2005-10-11
Microsoft Windows Shell and Web View Three Vulnerabilities 2005-10-11
Microsoft Windows XP Wireless Zero Configuration Wireless Profile
Disclosure 2005-10-06
WRQ Reflection for Secure IT Windows Server Multiple Security Issues
2005-09-02
Windows Registry Editor Utility String Concealment Weakness 2005-08-24
Microsoft Windows COM Object Instantiation Memory Corruption Vulnerability
2005-08-18
Microsoft Windows Two Kerberos Vulnerabilities 2005-08-09
Microsoft Windows Plug-and-Play Service Buffer Overflow 2005-08-09
Microsoft Windows Print Spooler Service Buffer Overflow Vulnerability
2005-08-09
Microsoft Windows Telephony Service Vulnerability 2005-08-09
Microsoft Windows Unspecified USB Device Driver Vulnerability 2005-07-27
Microsoft Windows Network Connections Service Denial of Service
2005-07-14
Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Denial of Service Vulnerability
2005-07-14
Microsoft Windows Color Management Module Buffer Overflow 2005-07-12
Microsoft Windows Step-by-Step Interactive Training Vulnerability
2005-06-14
Microsoft Windows HTML Help Input Validation Vulnerability 2005-06-14
Microsoft Windows Server Message Block Vulnerability 2005-06-14
Microsoft Windows Web Client Service Vulnerability 2005-06-14
Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Private Key Disclosure 2005-06-06
Microsoft Windows Image Rendering Denial of Service Vulnerability
2005-04-22
Microsoft Windows Explorer Web View Script Insertion Vulnerability
2005-04-20
Microsoft Windows Kernel Multiple Vulnerabilities 2005-04-12
Next 25 matches >>
Only 25 more pages to go. Let me know and I can also post /all/ the virus
info and after that and we can to the /Worms/, and after
that /spyware/....Now do /you/ have any questions?
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:01:43 GMT, McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in news:LN6dnaX1b4opcsveRVn-
>vg@adelphia.com:
>
>> Now do /you/ have any questions?
>
>Yes. What was the point of your original post?
I believe lmhotep posted a link to an article that discussed some
security patches.
Maybe that was the point?
At least that's how I perceived it.
And quite frankly, I'm glad he posted it.
Hmmm, that reminds me. Quite some time ago I signed up for SMS alerts
to critical security patches so that I was kept in the loop - I
haven't received an alert from M$ in at least 7 months.
Glad I don't just rely on them to keep me informed. :-|
> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in news:LN6dnaX1b4opcsveRVn-
> vg@adelphia.com:
>
>> Now do /you/ have any questions?
>
> Yes. What was the point of your original post?
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:01:43 GMT, McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in news:LN6dnaX1b4opcsveRVn-
>>vg@adelphia.com:
>>
>>> Now do /you/ have any questions?
>>
>>Yes. What was the point of your original post?
>
> I believe lmhotep posted a link to an article that discussed some
> security patches.
That was the point.
> Maybe that was the point?
It was.
> At least that's how I perceived it.
>
> And quite frankly, I'm glad he posted it.
>
> Hmmm, that reminds me. Quite some time ago I signed up for SMS alerts
> to critical security patches so that I was kept in the loop - I
> haven't received an alert from M$ in at least 7 months.
>
> Glad I don't just rely on them to keep me informed. :-|
>
> Dazz
The poster McSpead thought something else. However, any and all
information /should/ be posted. In this sense the application or OS is not
important. Yet sadly, there is the always one in very crowd that tries to
make it out to be this OS vs that OS. I will always admit that I am /not/
and MS fan. However, if I ignored posting the information I would *not* be
hurting MS but rather the people who use it.
> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:SfCdnV1ax4xcesveRVn-jQ@adelphia.com...
>> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> > After all, you /did/ read the content...
>
>> /Deliberately/ misrepresenting the content??? Whatever.
>
> Yup. Or you didn't read it all the way through. Whatever.
>
> H1K
Nope. Or you are just trying, yet again, to start a flame war. Frankly, I
have better things to do.
Dazz wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:01:43 GMT, McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hmmm, that reminds me. Quite some time ago I signed up for SMS alerts
> to critical security patches so that I was kept in the loop - I
> haven't received an alert from M$ in at least 7 months.
>
> Glad I don't just rely on them to keep me informed. :-|
>
> Dazz
>
You need to check your subscriptions. M$ went through some major changes
in the alert notification dept.
Their new services are good at not only alerting you to new security
issues remediation and patch issues as well as revisions on old patches.
I get 3 to 4 mails a week from M$ on their security notifications.
Their security notification service now is far better than it once was.
I am not a M$ fan but they have made major strides in their security
notifications. Their RSS feed is also very useful for linking to
current security issues for reference(I find this very interesting as
Firefox supports RSS natively and IE does not...go figure).
This does not mean you should not also watch the Secunia and SANS and
other RSS feeds as well.
I have to give M$ credit for making vast improvements in keeping me
informed of M$ acknowledged problems workarounds and patches.
Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in news:sIidneDk-LA_uMXeRVn- gw@adelphia.com:
> McSpreader wrote:
>
>> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in news:LN6dnaX1b4opcsveRVn-
>> vg@adelphia.com:
>>
>>> Now do /you/ have any questions?
>>
>> Yes. What was the point of your original post?
>
> Informative. What was the point of your reply?
Equally informative: to confirm my assumption that you were merely
providing that information for totally altruistic motives, as
demonstrated by:
- You had already reported on this MS security bulletin, on 11-Oct.
- You ended that report with the hilarious quip: "Have fun
WinAdmins!".
- The article you cited in your original post was a week old and
was attributed to The Register(!) - motto "Biting the hand that
feeds IT".
Dazz <cashdj@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8c1fl1p7llcgjkuij3djcncj4kebt7dd6j@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:01:43 GMT, McSpreader
> <invalid@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in news:LN6dnaX1b4opcsveRVn-
>>vg@adelphia.com:
>>
>>> Now do /you/ have any questions?
>>
>>Yes. What was the point of your original post?
>
> I believe lmhotep posted a link to an article that discussed
> some security patches.
>
> Maybe that was the point?
>
> At least that's how I perceived it.
>
> And quite frankly, I'm glad he posted it.
If you are happy to receive late information from an unreliable
source with an axe to grind (The Register) via a biased Usenet
source.
>
> Hmmm, that reminds me. Quite some time ago I signed up for SMS
> alerts to critical security patches so that I was kept in the
> loop - I haven't received an alert from M$ in at least 7 months.
Interesting:
- You can't be that bothered if you haven't followed it up after 7
months.
- I've received regular alerts from Microsoft by email, including
early information on the lastest bulletin a week *before* its
release.
> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in news:sIidneDk-LA_uMXeRVn-
> gw@adelphia.com:
>
>> McSpreader wrote:
>>
>>> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in news:LN6dnaX1b4opcsveRVn-
>>> vg@adelphia.com:
>>>
>>>> Now do /you/ have any questions?
>>>
>>> Yes. What was the point of your original post?
>>
>> Informative. What was the point of your reply?
>
> Equally informative: to confirm my assumption that you were merely
> providing that information for totally altruistic motives, as
> demonstrated by:
>
> - You had already reported on this MS security bulletin, on 11-Oct.
>
> - You ended that report with the hilarious quip: "Have fun
> WinAdmins!".
>
> - The article you cited in your original post was a week old and
> was attributed to The Register(!) - motto "Biting the hand that
> feeds IT".
>
> - Your past posts.
....and your reply was not a feeble flame attempt. Please.
"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:l_-dndRptffB_8XenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> McSpreader wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Warning Troll alert!
Tsk. So now *everyone* on Planet Earth that disagrees with you is a troll
trying to start a flame war?
Don't bother replying.. "I'm not trying to start a flame war" ;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!
> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:l_-dndRptffB_8XenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> McSpreader wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Warning Troll alert!
>
> Tsk. So now *everyone* on Planet Earth that disagrees with you is a troll
> trying to start a flame war?
>
> Don't bother replying.. "I'm not trying to start a flame war" ;o)
>
Since I have not set my filters (on Sunday's todo list) I will answer one
last question from you.
I posted an article for informational purposes. McSpree replied back with
some new Linux issues. I have no problem with him posting this info, he
should (with a new thread). However, he posted his linux info trying to
provoke some kind of flame war. As I said before, I give him credit for
posting the info, it was really helpful. However, his intent was lame.
So with that being said, I trust this thread is dead.
> Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in
> news:P8adnS1Pe8364sTenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@adelphia.com :
>
>> <snip>
>> I posted an article for informational purposes.
>> <snip>
>
> My intent was to confirm that you were providing information for
> totally altruistic motives, as demonstrated by:
>
> - You had already reported on this MS security bulletin, on 11-Oct.
>
> - You ended that report with the hilarious quip: "Have fun
> WinAdmins!"
>
> - The article you cited in your original post was a week old and
> was attributed to The Register(!) - motto "Biting the hand that
> feeds IT".
Seems like someone has issues with the Register. I do not see them being
anti or pro anything Linux, Apple or Win.
> - Your past impartial posts.
>
> Clearly I was unsuccessful in my endeavour.
> So with that being said, I trust this thread is dead.
That's a WinLie!!! You were trying to start a WinFlame War!
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 01:15:50 GMT, McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<snipped>
>Interesting:
>
>- You can't be that bothered if you haven't followed it up after 7
>months.
Actually, I receive a lot of notifications, not just the sms ones
which is why I wasn't that concerned..
However, I still don't see why they should just *stop* without any
warning.
>- I've received regular alerts from Microsoft by email, including
>early information on the lastest bulletin a week *before* its
>release.
So do I - it's just that this thread reminded me that I was no longer
getting SMS alerts (even though I have never unsubscribed to those
alerts).
Regardless, I *simply* do not trust M$ to provide me with the only
source of information.
There have been cases in the past where M$ haven't revealed all the
information that they should regarding patches/vulnerabilities, so
regardless of where the information comes from, if it's accurate, I
prefer to know.
If people only rely on one source of information regarding
vulnerabilities and patches etc, then they are doing themselves (and
perhaps the rest of the computing world) an injustice.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:41:38 -0500, Winged <Winged@nofollow.com>
wrote:
<snipped>
>You need to check your subscriptions. M$ went through some major changes
>in the alert notification dept.
>
>Their new services are good at not only alerting you to new security
>issues remediation and patch issues as well as revisions on old patches.
>
>I get 3 to 4 mails a week from M$ on their security notifications.
>Their security notification service now is far better than it once was.
>
>I am not a M$ fan but they have made major strides in their security
>notifications. Their RSS feed is also very useful for linking to
>current security issues for reference(I find this very interesting as
>Firefox supports RSS natively and IE does not...go figure).
>
>This does not mean you should not also watch the Secunia and SANS and
>other RSS feeds as well.
>
>I have to give M$ credit for making vast improvements in keeping me
>informed of M$ acknowledged problems workarounds and patches.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/security/default.mspx
>
>The following page for the various alert notifications and RSS feeds.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/security/msrc/default.mspx#EZD
Well, the interesting thing is that all the other M$ bulletins that I
have subscribed to, keep coming, but the SMS alerts for some reason
just stopped (quite a few months ago).
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:33:18 GMT, McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in news:48KdnU2ZFousEsTeRVn-
>3g@adelphia.com:
>
>> That's a WinLie!!! You were trying to start a WinFlame War!
>
>Nope.
>
>And your self-proclaimed impartiality is now in tatters.
I think you need to check your humour filters. :-)
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:35:13 GMT, McSpreader <invalid@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in
>news:P8adnS1Pe8364sTenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@adelphia.co m:
>
>> <snip>
>> I posted an article for informational purposes.
>> <snip>
>
>My intent was to confirm that you were providing information for
>totally altruistic motives, as demonstrated by:
>
>- You had already reported on this MS security bulletin, on 11-Oct.
>
>- You ended that report with the hilarious quip: "Have fun
>WinAdmins!"
>
>- The article you cited in your original post was a week old and
Aye, but your initial post in this thread also included a lot of older
linux related security issues, so that's a case of pot > kettle >
black.
I don't know how long you've been reading alt.computer.security, but
lmhotep frequently posts links to mostly on topic news that he thinks
people may be interested in, regardless of whether they are linux,
windows or whatever based security issues.
Regardless of his personal opinions (which I may or may not agree with
on all occasions), I find the links quite interesting.
If you don't, fair enough, you have the right to killfile or simply
ignore his posts.
"Steve Welsh" <nobody@linux.bogus> wrote in message
news:UIudnXZzZtZXHcTeRVnyjw@eclipse.net.uk...
> Imhotep wrote:
> > So with that being said, I trust this thread is dead.
>
> Im - I doubt it ;)
Same here. Haven't you noticed how 'tep has to have the last word on each
thread..?
Security fears over MS October patches... 
Linear Mode
