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: | Re: Surprise! Windows Updates |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 18 May 2005 13:51:21 -0700 |
I found a way to turn off the AU "restart later" annoyance: Start -> Run -> gpedit.msc -> Local Computer Policy -> Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Windows Components -> Windows Update -> Re-Prompt for restart... The intuitive fix would be to set it to "Disabled" but that will default the Re-Prompt interval to 10 minutes! So instead I have to Enable it and then specify a longer interval such as 500+ minutes. On 5/18/05, Frank Bernard <cfrankb@gmail.com> wrote:
I received the same AU notification for Installer 3.1 on both Windows 2000 Server & XP Pro (I assume due to new v2; why they don't call it 3.11 or 3.2 is beyond me). I don't see a .NET update 867460. WU doesn't list it as available or in the installation history. This maybe because I installed all post-SP2 updates on the new XP box two days ago, which according to the history included .NET KB886903 (MS05-004). BTW, the Installer patch on the XP box incessently asked if I wanted to restart. I'm I supposed to know an obscure reg hack to tell AU that "Later" means "I will restart later, so stop asking me" ?
-- 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: Bug in server 2003 DNS policy setting, Jeremy Brooks |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [VulnWatch] Security issue in Microsoft Outlook, Bakchodiya |
| Previous by Thread: | Surprise! Windows Updates, Angus Scott-Fleming |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Surprise! Windows Updates, Russ |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |