full-disclosure - Automating patch deployment

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <871080DEC5874D41B4E3AFC5C400611E03F60701@UTDEVS02.campus.ad.utdallas.edu>
From: pauls at utdallas.edu (Schmehl, Paul L)
Subject: Automating patch deployment

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassett, Mark [mailto:mbassett@...ha.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 9:21 AM
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Automating patch deployment
> 
> 
> The good thing about SUS is that you can set it up to not 
> push out the packages until you approve them.  The SUS box 
> downloads all the critical updates and then they sit in queue 
> until you tell them it's ok to push them out.  I think that's 
> the best way to handle the situation.  Sure it creates a 
> little admin work, but I think the advantage is clear.  

The bad thing about SUS is that it uses Windows Update technology which
means it can be incorrect when determining if a box needs a patch.  This
means you can *look* like you're patched when you're not.

To me, that is unacceptable behavior.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/