Oh ! No ! Yet Another Microbloat Critical Update !

[mikeymike]

ya know some good has actually come out of all these viruses. The windows engineers have finaly been given something to do , a reason to look into actually attempt at fixing windows

Nope, they just fix the vulnerabilities when they present themselves.

Presumably when you say 'engineers' you mean people working on the OS development rather than sysadmins?

[mikeymike]

btw how big is windows now ? , it must be twice the size of what it was on its first release

Using the liberal estimate of an early version of Windows' footprint, the current version (XP) is over 30 times larger :-)

[mikeymike]

@ DonnyEMU

I think most people here realise that not everything is great about Windows, nor is everything about it bad.  There is no need for the endless advocacy.

[mikeymike]

@ levelLORD

There is no "exe file for Windows Update", it's all done through ActiveX controls for IE.

Your only choice is to go to the MS security site, and download updates relevant to your OS and MS software that you run.

MS service packs are available at the subsites per MS OS, for example, http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/ has Win2k service packs.  From that site I think there are links to other MS OSs.

[mikeymike]

@ levelLORD

OK, Is that patch included with SP4 (I'm running Win2K) or not?

Nope.  Some anti-DCOM stuff (such as allowing the user to properly disable DCOM see here (my site), which will now guard better against new DCOM vulns, has been included in SP4 however.

I'm running SP4, was running SP2, not noticed any problems.

[mikeymike]

Here goes: my 1000th post :-)

@ Quixote

As MikeyMike mentioned, the update is all done remotely, by Microsoft.

No, I would say the work is about half and half between client and server.  When an IE user first goes to the WU site, they get prompted to install ActiveX controls for WU.  These do the detection work (registry hits to determine patched status, as well as OS identification).  This data gets sent back to the server and a page displayed showing what updates the user can/should install.  The local ActiveX control then handles the download/install process.

This, then, is the reason that hackers can gain complete control of your machine remotely: Windows is designed to be controlled remotely.

No, really, it isn't the reason :-)  and "those damn hackers" haven't managed to compromise the ActiveX controls used for Windows Update.  Yet.  Unless there is an extremely easy way to invoke them (which there isn't), a hacker would have to compromise a number of sections (including SSL certificate handling/storage) of the OS, and to do so would require elevation of privs to admin status.  Then why would they bother trying to compromise an ActiveX control if they already have full privs.  The WU controls provide no "remote control" capability.

Windows is not designed to be controlled remotely.  UNIX and its derivatives are operating systems designed to be controlled properly.  Windows has a number of bad implementations for remote control.

An OS that supports locking out the fellow in front of it has merit in an office environment where the company handles sensitive data and theft is a real concern. However, the ability to lock out the end user is inappropriate in an operating system used in the home.

I'm not sure how to reply to this, because I don't get where you're coming from with this comment.

[mikeymike]

Unix developed in an enviroment where you tried to minimize the amount of RAM as much as possible and so on. Windows grew in a much more spacious in enviroment, who the H*** could ever need 640KB of RAM? I say its bloat is due to a bad enviroment.

Hmm, I'd amend that slightly, to add that Windows did not start off in a "spacious environment", it made it spacious through its popularity and progressive bloatedness.  Windows is primarily responsible for the high spec machines available today.

[mikeymike]

There's a patch that is capable of totally trashing your system and you forget what its name was?

[mikeymike]

You'd think things would get smaller in a more technically advanced world. But no.... they bloat to humungus proportions.

:-)

Actually, if you twist it a bit, it makes perfect sense.  The hardware gets smaller, yes, the software becomes bigger/more capable, of course!