Full Disclosure mailing list archives
RE: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1
From: Tobias Oetiker <oetiker () ee ethz ch>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:12:53 +0200 (MEST)
Yesterday Schmehl, Paul L wrote:
Because the local techs have no clue, it will take the affected companies ages to get back on the net.Which is perfect actually as it points out all the stupid admins who get paid a lot of cash but really sit around all day with their finger up their noses.I just curious how you geniuses would solve this problem. You have a multi-six figure scientific instrument, which is only manufactured by one vendor in the entire world. Your research department depends upon that instrument to do research for which they are being funded handsomely by grants and expected to produce results. There's only one problem. The instrument requires that you run Windows 2000 Server with IIS, and the vendor requires that you not apply *any* patches post SP2. The government certifies the equipment at a certain patch level, and if the equipment is patched then the certification no longer applies, the research is no longer funded and you are now staring a six figure boat anchor. Given that scenario, please apply your scintillating logic to the problem of patching this machine to protect it against threats that were discovered *after* SP2.
In the paragraph before you say, that there are not to be applied *any* patches ... so how comes now you want to patch it ? * If no patches are to be applied then all is well, you don't care about windowsupdate working or not. * If patches are to be applied, I assume the vendor would certify the one which makes patching possible as well. cheers tobi -- ______ __ _ /_ __/_ / / (_) Oetiker @ ISG.EE, ETZ J97, ETH, CH-8092 Zurich / // _ \/ _ \/ / System Manager, Time Lord, Coder, Designer, Coach /_/ \.__/_.__/_/ http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker +41(0)1-632-5286 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Schmehl, Paul L (Aug 14)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Blue Boar (Aug 15)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Barry Irwin (Aug 15)
- RE: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Steve Wray (Aug 15)
- RE: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Tobias Oetiker (Aug 15)
- RE: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Jason Coombs (Aug 15)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Barry Irwin (Aug 15)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Michael Renzmann (Aug 15)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 vb (Aug 15)
- RE: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Jeroen Massar (Aug 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Schmehl, Paul L (Aug 15)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 David Hane (Aug 15)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 vb (Aug 15)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Paul Schmehl (Aug 15)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 David Hane (Aug 15)
- RE: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Richard Stevens (Aug 15)
(Thread continues...)
- Re: MS should point windowsupdate.com to 127.0.0.1 Blue Boar (Aug 15)