Security fears over MS October patches...

Security fears over MS October patches...

Secure Home | Search | About
 Computer Software Security    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Security fears over MS October patches... Imhotep 10-18-2005
Posted by Imhotep on October 18, 2005, 11:08 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11342

Imhotep


Posted by Hairy One Kenobi on October 19, 2005, 7:25 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11342

You seem to have missed the word "No" from the front of your title.

Do did read the article, rather than just the title, right? You do know that
the patch *fixes* the worm problem, rather than causes it, right?

There *is* a cock-up (I note you've posted this below, but without the
detail), but that has to do with deployment where (or so I read, a few days
ago) someone has (potentially quite sensibly) changed the access rights to a
directory or two.

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!




Posted by Imhotep on October 19, 2005, 6:32 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

>> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11342
>
> You seem to have missed the word "No" from the front of your title.

I did not write the article. The "header" article from Security Focus has
the title "Worm fears over MS October patch batch". If you have a problem,
write the author....

> Do did read the article, rather than just the title, right? You do know
> that the patch *fixes* the worm problem, rather than causes it, right?

Yes I "do did" read the article...Although, I can't seem to get to it now at
the security focus web site.

<snip>

Imhotep


Posted by Hairy One Kenobi on October 20, 2005, 12:10 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11342
> >
> > You seem to have missed the word "No" from the front of your title.
>
> I did not write the article. The "header" article from Security Focus has
> the title "Worm fears over MS October patch batch". If you have a problem,
> write the author....
>
> > Do did read the article, rather than just the title, right? You do know
> > that the patch *fixes* the worm problem, rather than causes it, right?
>
> Yes I "do did" read the article...Although, I can't seem to get to it now
at
> the security focus web site.

/So/ sorry for the typo... so how about an apology for deliberately
misrepresenting the content so dramatically? ;o)

After all, you /did/ read the content...

Last I looked, it was still available on El Reg (where it originally came
from!)

H1K




Posted by Imhotep on October 19, 2005, 8:41 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

>> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>>
>> >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11342
>> >
>> > You seem to have missed the word "No" from the front of your title.
>>
>> I did not write the article. The "header" article from Security Focus has
>> the title "Worm fears over MS October patch batch". If you have a
>> problem, write the author....
>>
>> > Do did read the article, rather than just the title, right? You do know
>> > that the patch *fixes* the worm problem, rather than causes it, right?
>>
>> Yes I "do did" read the article...Although, I can't seem to get to it now
> at
>> the security focus web site.
>
> /So/ sorry for the typo... so how about an apology for deliberately
> misrepresenting the content so dramatically? ;o)
>
> After all, you /did/ read the content...
>
> Last I looked, it was still available on El Reg (where it originally came
> from!)
>
> H1K

/Deliberately/ misrepresenting the content??? Whatever. You know, I am
sitting here trying to think of one original post you have sent that was
informative. I find myself still sitting here after several minutes trying
desperately to remember one. Maybe you have and I just can not remember?

Whatever, you know what, you filter me out and I will filter you. Deal?

Imhotep




Similar ThreadsPosted
Hacker fears 'UFO cover-up' May 6, 2006, 12:17 pm
Fears raised over digital rights... January 17, 2006, 1:47 am
SANE 2006 refereed paper submission deadline is October 24, 2005 September 22, 2005, 9:14 pm
Patches and attacks October 6, 2005, 2:33 pm
More IE flaws...patches issued... August 10, 2005, 2:28 am
Re: Patches released for zero-day IE threat... March 29, 2006, 8:58 am
Realplayer patches linux flaw October 5, 2005, 12:50 am
Re: Microsoft criticized for silent patches April 21, 2006, 9:18 am
Microsoft patches Windows, Exchange flaws... May 11, 2006, 8:19 pm
Security Breaches Pandemic - Deloitte Touche 2006 Global Security Survey June 26, 2006, 11:15 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy