Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Inconsistencies between Windows Updates and AU/SUS |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:50:33 -0400 |
Three problems have surfaced in relation to Windows Updates and Automatic Updates: 1. We have noticed several times in recent weeks that, while Windows Updates will tell us we do not need any patches, the AU client is simultaneously telling us that we have patches to install. AU is configured to download patches from a SUS server. However, to avoid installation errors on new systems, we usually go to WU and install a 1-4 patches at a time. Previously, I noticed that AU/SUS sometimes provided patches a day or two before they became available via Windows Updates, but these recent incidents involve patches that have been out for a while. They should have shown up on Windows Update. 2. Also, today, we were patching a Virtual Machine running Win2k Pro under VMWare, and the AU client notified us that we needed to install update 824145 for IE5.01, despite the fact that the host and VM had already been upgraded to IE6SP1. And yes, update 824145 applies to all versions of IE5.x/6.x, but the listing in the AU notification panel normally reflects the currently installed version, not an older version. 3. The AU notification applet on one machine has the checkboxes grayed-out - i.e., it will not allow a listed update to be de-selected. The machine in question has AU policies configured through GPEdit.msc. However, this behavior is not a related to any of the standard AU policies. Advice and suggestions are welcome. Money too. Joe Dance University of South Carolina --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] ----- NTBugtraq Editor's Note: Want to reply to the person who sent this message? This list is configured such that just hitting reply is going to result in the message coming to the list, not to the individual who sent the message. This was done to help reduce the number of Out of Office messages posters received. So if you want to send a reply just to the poster, you'll have to copy their email address out of the message and place it in your TO: field. -----
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | FW: 2003 Server NTP time issue, Jeff Berner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Changed Firewall Policy in XP SP2, Joe Dance |
| Previous by Thread: | FW: 2003 Server NTP time issue, Jeff Berner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Inconsistencies between Windows Updates and AU/SUS, Mark Boyum |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |