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: | Surprise! Windows Updates |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 18 May 2005 11:39:40 -0700 |
Early this morning I was logged on remotely to a Windows 2000 Server that I manage and a Windows XP box on the same network checking their Windows Update status, and when I did a manual WU scan, both of them needed a "critical" update to Windows Installer 3.1 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/893803 (Last Review: May 13, 2005). My own XP box needed that AND an update to Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1 Service Pack 1, http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=867460 (Last Review: May 12, 2005). Both of these post-date the May Windows Update release (last Tuesday, May 10), which all machines had already had installed. Neither of these shows up on the MS Security Bulletin page or on the Security Advisories page. Anyone else come across these? I have my systems set to download updates automatically but not to install them, and just as I was typing this message the Windows Installer 3.1 update appeared in the automatic-updates-are-ready- to-install icon on my XP box. However, the update to .NET did NOT appear in the automatic update while it DID appear when I did a manual WU run. Anyone else seen this or have more info? Angus -- NTBugtraq Editor's Note: Most viruses these days use spoofed email addresses. As such, using an Anti-Virus product which automatically notifies the perceived sender of a message it believes is infected may well cause more harm than good. Someone who did not actually send you a virus may receive the notification and scramble their support staff to find an infection which never existed in the first place. Suggest such notifications be disabled by whomever is responsible for your AV, or at least that the idea is considered. --
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: MS Updates SP1 for Windows Server 2003, John Gray |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Recovery Console Post SP1, Simon Jeary |
| Previous by Thread: | SRP for Windows 2000 SP4 - When ?, Suk |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Surprise! Windows Updates, Frank Bernard |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |