Re: Microsoft trying to put F.U.D. on Guilfanov 'temporary' p atch

[Barrie Dempster <barrie () reboot-robot net>]

On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 21:47 +0000, Fergie wrote:
> It just sounded very negative.
>
> Understandable, I suppose.
>
> Having said that, I certainly wouldn't wait for another 7 days
> to at least put into place a temporary patch, but that's just
> me.  :-)

Neither would I. Although, as much as I trust the fix I doubt most
administrators could get away with that on their networks as it's
hopefully within their policies that any fixes are both vendor and
in-house tested before widespread installation. Similarly if you
suddenly had problems with an ISVs software after installing a 3rd party
patch to Windows, I doubt they'd be willing to support you with it.

On my own machine I might apply a 3rd party patch, providing I have the
source code of course. On a large production network I'd need vendor
approval and support before I'd go near it.


-- 
With Regards..
Barrie Dempster (zeedo) - Fortiter et Strenue

"He who hingeth aboot, geteth hee-haw" Victor - Still Game

blog:  http://reboot-robot.net
sites: http://www.bsrf.org.uk - http://www.security-forums.com
ca:    https://www.cacert.org/index.php?id=3

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description:

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.