Message-ID: <acdc033d050817092832e08a25@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed Aug 17 17:29:02 2005
From: michealespinola at gmail.com (Micheal Espinola Jr)
Subject: Disney Down?

Thanks for correcting my spelling error.

You mention that this issue "will have little or no presence on
consumer systems", but you do realize that you are writing for the
"Enterprise News & Reviews" magazine, eWeek - right?  You also realize
that MS05-039 effects the current "consumer" version of Microsoft
Windows (aka Windows XP) - right?

You also say, "If it had been International Paper or some company like
that rather than media outlets I suspect it wouldn't be getting all
this attention".  While this is likely true, this exemplifies the need
to take security matters more seriously.  MS05-039 was issued on
August 9, 2005, and major companies were still exploited 6 days later.
 Your own story emphasizes the lack of consideration that is still
being given to security vulnerabilities, even though Microsoft is
continuously scrutinized at a product level for what is increasingly
related to poor administrative and security practices.

Applying this particular patch takes mere moments to download (a
500-600k file depending on your OS), moments to install, and a
recommended reboot (although only 3% of the systems I personally
patched technically required it).

The entire procedure for patching a single system would require less
than 5 minutes to perform (omitting the time of the reboot). 
Distribution of this patch on scale is also relatively trivial for
someone whose position it is to do it.

Trivializing this (or any) security patch is quite a gamble.  As
Security Center Editor for eWeek, it surprises me that you would take
such a position.  Any vulnerability that would allow for remote code
execution and elevation of privilege should be treated as a top
priority, from both internal and external attack vectors.  An issue
such as this should not be treated as a likelihood; it should be
treated as a possibility.  When you think in this manner, your
priorities change.

I'm not trying to badger you, but in light of the Disney, CNN, ABC,
and The New York Times mishaps (amongst others), I must admit that I'm
glad I don't follow your column or style of advise.



On 8/17/05, Larry Seltzer <larry@...ryseltzer.com> wrote:
> >>"So patch your systems, but don't miss your kid's play in order to do it.
> We've seen a lot worse than this in the past."
> >>Brilliant advise[sic]!
> 
> Yeah, clearly I timed the column badly, but I still think there's more smoke
> than fire on this outbreak. If it had been International Paper or some
> company like that rather than media outlets I suspect it wouldn't be getting
> all this attention. I also think it's fair to say that when it dies down,
> relatively soon, it won't achieve the endemic status of Blaster and Sasser
> because it will have little or no presence on consumer systems.
> 
> Larry Seltzer
> eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
> http://security.eweek.com/
> http://blog.ziffdavis.com/seltzer
> Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
> larryseltzer@...fdavis.com
> 
> 
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists