From: uberguidoz at gmail.com (Über GuidoZ)
Subject: 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@...ware.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@...ts.netsys.com
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of ?ber 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@...il.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@...epdeprived.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 service
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Yep.
> > >
> > > >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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >
> 
> --
> Peace. ~G
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> 
> 


-- 
Peace. ~G

Powered by blists - more mailing lists