Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Windows Update
From: Über GuidoZ <uberguidoz () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:15:24 -0400
Be happy to discuss it Jason. =) FYI: Be sure to "reply all" when replying (or change the "to" address) so that your replies goto the list. I've quoted your original below... I'll respond to your question/comment in a few ways. (All that I'm about to mentioned is in regards to Windows boxes.) In my early days, I was a strong Norton Antivirus user. (In fact, syamntec in general.) Then, I got smarter. While it's a perfectly good AV for most home/corporate environments, I didn't like the footprint it left on systems. Too much memory use! I eventually changed to AVG Free Edition and loved it. Very small computer footprint, did all I needed it to do, and updated daily from the desktop. (With Norton you have to manually download the daily updates from their website if you're a home user.) With AVG, I just schedule it to ruin at like 4am and it was all good. I'm currently testing out NOD32 and like it quite a bit. It's a bit more "user friendly" than AVG, plus it has a number of more features. It's not free however, but not as expensive as Norton. So we'll talk about those three. Norton, AVG, NOD32. I agree with you on AVG - when you use the auto-update feature, it grabs program updates and definition updates. I wouldn't use, nor recommend, this in a corporate environment though. Norton, I'll argue against. It's entirely possible it's changed since I last used it frequently (2003), however at that time the automatic updates were virus definitions ONLY. (Proof: When there are program updates, it will flash the LiveUpdate icon in the Task Bar, alerting you that there were program updates that needed to be downloaded. Running LiveUpdate then downloads/installs them.) It will not download program updates since they all require a reboot of the PC to load. It waits for user intervention first. NOD32 seems to be the same way. I haven't done much testing with it, plus I'm away from a Windows box at the moment so I can't pop on and check. It may grab program updates automatically, however I haven't noticed this. But again, like AVG, I wouldn't recommend this program in a corporate environment. I'm rather fond of Norton AV Corporate in such a place, over many of the competitors. Maybe it goes back to my old Symantec roots (even beta testing). Maybe it's because I find it easy to use and support. (McAfee is a different story. Yikes. In my shop McAfee seems to be the culprit of a surprising amount of conflicts.) Of course there are others that deserve mention. Panda is another example of a good AV solution that could be used in the corporate world. I don't have a lot of expereince with it, so I won't argue either or. The actual solution you choose depends on the setup. I've administered networks that use client AV solutions only. I've been on networks where they use a mail-server solution only. And everything in between. I've always been under the impression (at least in my expereince) that when auto-updates are run, they only grab the virus definitions. I've always done program updates seperately, both through the LiveUpdate (or equivalent) aspect, or through manual downloads from the manufacturer website. This goes for both Home and Corporate users, although I think we all agree this is really only a big issue in a corporate environment. Thoughts are most welcome by anyone. Thanks for your insight Jason - looking forward to possibly learning something new. =) -- Peace. ~G On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 01:24:30 +0000 GMT, Jason Coombs PivX Solutions <jcoombs () pivx com> wrote:
I DID say I only allow virus definition files to auto-update, not program updates.Show me an anti-virus program that does auto-update of "virus definitions" and I will show you one that does program updates, too, under the false pretense of doing only virus definition updates. From what I have seen, you are mistaken in your belief that you are only getting data in your A/V updates. Tell me which product you are using and I will see if I can show you in detail what I mean. Most Secure Regards, Jason Coombs Jcoombs () PivX com -----Original Message----- From: Über GuidoZ <uberguidoz () gmail com> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:12:38 To:joe <mvp () joeware net> Cc:FD <full-disclosure () netsys com> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows Update A very valid point Joe, thanks for briging it up. I DID say I only allow virus definition files to auto-update, not program updates. Are the definition file updates the ones causing the problems you speak of, or the program updates to the scanning engine? Besides that, If you can't trust the definitions updates to go properly, then you seriously need to think about changing AV products. ;) Reading further down the conversation, I see discussion on the Auto-Update service. Some good points were mentioned here too. Just because it is enabled it doesn't mean you have to let them INSTALL. In fact, you can do an advanced install method to pick and choose which patches to install from the downloaded updates. A nice feature indeed - I hope this hasn't been altered in post SP2. (I never checked.) My point was to argue against the automated downloading and installing of updates, which I believe IS the default after SP2 is installed. ~G On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 09:01:54 -0400, joe <mvp () joeware net> wrote:If that is your stance, you should probably have it for AV updates as well. There have been various AV updates that have been known to break functionality and blue screen boxes. I recall one update for one of my customers that had blown up a good many web servers and local site file and print servers (hundreds of servers) and this is with an AV Update that was approved by and placed on the distribution server by central security. Anyway, versus completely shutting down WU, you can configure to automatic download without installation. All that being said, actively professionally maintained servers are in a different boat than most machines that will be running WU. In a large properly firewalled and protected corporate environment, I don't think the client support group would really depend on automatic updates from outside the company, they would use SUS or some other deployment mechanism. If using some other deployment mechanism, WU would be off. Either way, patches would be tested before being deployed, it wouldn't be automatic. That being said, once you get to x machines with x being a function of your resources available to do testing, the number of LOB apps you have running, and how bad the hole is being plugged you will run into occasion where you can not test everything and simply have to release. One would hope that this will be less frequent if you have XP SP2 deployed and have the firewall up and running without turning it into swiss cheese but until we see the next worm type attack and see if XP SP2 is safer we can't for sure say anything. If the biggest issues end up requiring some sort of people interaction, then that is quite a win in and of itself. joe -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of Über GuidoZ Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 7:56 PM To: FD Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windows Update Umm, hold on a sec here... (snip from "James Tucker"):There really should be no reason why you would want to disable the Automatic Updates service anyway, unless you are rolling out updates using a centralised distribution system, in which case you would not need it anyway.I believe you are missing one fundamental point: SPs and updates are notorious for breaking something else. (Especially from Microsoft.) Granted, if fixing a security weakness breaks something you're using, then that aspect could have been written better. However, that still doesn't fix it when an entire business network goes down and YOU are the one responsible. I do not allow ANY automatic updates (except for virus definitions) to run on ANY networks I am in charge of. I take the time (like every good sysadmin should) to look over each update before applying it so I know three things: 1. What it's fixing/patching 2. Why it's fixing/patching it 3. What will be the end result of the fix/patch If you would simply allow updates and SPs to have free reign over your system(s) without taking any time to look over those updates, you're going to be one busy and irritated sysadmin. That is, if you still have a job after a little bit. ~G P.S. Don't take my word for it. Look here: - http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/12/HNdisablesp2_1.html - http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1183008015;fp;2;fpid;1 - http://www.integratedmar.com/ecl-usa/story.cfm?item=18619 - http://www.vnunet.com/news/1157279 - Or, find the other 200+ articles by searching Google News for "disable automatic update sp2" =) On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:51:40 -0300, James Tucker <jftucker () gmail com> wrote:Here I found that I can have BITS and Automatic Updates in "manual", Windows Update works fine here. It may be a good idea to refresh the MMC console page, as you will probably find that at time the service had shut down if and when BITS was stopped prematurely (i.e. when it was in use). There really should be no reason why you would want to disable the Automatic Updates service anyway, unless you are rolling out updates using a centralised distribution system, in which case you would not need it anyway. If you are worried about system resources, you should look into how much the service really uses; the effect is negligable, in fact there is more impact if you select (scroll over) a large number of application shortcuts (due to the caching system) than if you leave Automatic Updates on. If you are worried about your privacy and you dont believe that the data sent back and forth has not been checked before, then you surely dont want to run Windows Updates ever. If you want to cull some real system resources and have not already done so, turn the Help and Support service to manual, that will save ~30mb on boot, up until the first use of XP help; this will stop help links from programs from forwarding to the correct page, until the service has loaded once. As for worry over using bandwidth on your internet service, again, you want to check this out as its a trickle service, not a flood. BITS does not stand for Bloody Idiots Trashing Service; it means what it says on the tin. On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:30:22 -0700, David Vincent <support () sleepdeprived ca> wrote:joe wrote:Yep, this is how it works now. You control whether Windows Update is updating or not via the security panel in the control panel applets (wscui.cpl).To eb complete, I should have mentioned I have Automatic Updates turned off in the control panel. I also had the service disabled before applying SP2 and venturing to Windows Update v5.Of course if you aren't using automatic update you could always disable the service and just reenable when you go to do the update, or don't use windows update at all and just pull the downloads separately. We are talking about a single command line to reenable that serviceYep.Is it a pain? Yes, for those who like to run minimal services. Is it a security issue or life threatening, probably not.Agreed. -d
-- Peace. ~G _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: Windows Update Todd Towles (Aug 21)
- Re: Windows Update Gregh (Aug 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Windows Update Todd Towles (Aug 23)
- RE: Windows Update Todd Towles (Aug 23)
- Re: Windows Update Über GuidoZ (Aug 24)