First SP2 HotFiix Available
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: First SP2 HotFiix Available

  1. #1
    AO French Antique News Whore
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    2,126

    First SP2 HotFiix Available

    SYMPTOMS:
    On a computer that is running Microsoft Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2), programs that connect to IP addresses that are in the loopback address range may not work as you expect. For example, you may receive an error message that says that you cannot establish a connection.

    CAUSE:
    This problem occurs if the program connects to a loopback address other than 127.0.0.1. Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) prevents connections to all IP addresses that are in the loopback address range except for 127.0.0.1.
    Source : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=884020
    Download Link : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en

    P.S. First Download Link I see with the Genuine Microsoft Software that we talk about on this thread
    -Simon \"SDK\"

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    195
    Here it starts ,
    forever saga of patches,hotfixes and then SPs. Why they don't do a thing that they must have done in first place , get a thing right and working? Don't they have all the money and test facilities to check a software?
    I admit that nothing is perfect ever and a software once developed is not perfect for ever But atleast it must work for some time before being taken care of.
    Even my bike is more reliable than that despite being engine made up of 50 year old design.
    (now, let me check if Internet explorer is there in program files :-) it is only way to access windowsupdate)
    It\'s all about sense of power.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    1,675
    SDK,

    Thanks for the info on both of your threads.

    cheers


    Rider,

    Being the king, the various masses will make significant attempts to conquer or at least hammer away at the king’s software (find bugs, vulnerabilities, etc.). And the king will get the feedback he needs to make the changes (patches, etc.). Although his court most likely completes rigorous testing of the software releases, in reality, they won’t find/fix all the bugs in the castle for a multitude of reasons. However frustrating as it may be to us, their logical is not only remarkable, but also very cost effective. We will finish the testing for free (find the bugs, exploits, etc.) and report back (complain, publish). He provides the fixes at his convenience and doesn’t have pay for additional testing.

    Regardless of how it comes about, we do end up with a better product.



    edit: Rider, point well taken, but it doesn't mean I approve of his methods though!
    Connection refused, try again later.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    195
    The king offers a kingdom with a price and then make them firmly beleives that it is secure for them. masses beleive and come to his kingdom overall making his kingdom strong. But if king wants to have largest kingdom in world he needs to face enemies, which he do but only after he has suffered several casualties of his masses and he secures his kingdom and this continues. now king get good kingdom to run with thing he must do ultimately done by masses and he also gets gudwill for doing his own job and for which he was paid taxes(price of product). hmmmm..
    sorry relyt this is way i see things but i think everyone has a right to havea viewpoint. so i did like your point though
    It\'s all about sense of power.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    31
    We end up with a better product at what expense? A novice user that tries to tackle a problem that should have been fixed at programming time instead of when they try and do something only to find that it doesn't work (again!) I guess when you are "King of the Hill" you can do whatever; to me it doesn't matter. I get all fixes etc. from HFNetChkPro usually before they are released on Windows Update.
    There wasn\'t any paper used here, but millions of electrons were terribly inconvenienced

  6. #6
    ********** |ceWriterguy
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,608
    Hi Rider - to answer your research issue -

    Please understand that no system is ever completely secure. No electrical path is 100 percent efficient, no plumbing is completely leak proof, and no software is 100 percent bug free. As much as we the users hate to see it, software companies consistently ship their software in an incomplete state, knowing what flaws already exist, and shortly thereafter release a patch or two to fix them. In the case of Windows, because it's of such a large magnitude, huge holes tend to exist. Others get found on down the line and are fixed as they're discoverd by the users. Hence we get SP1, SP2, and now the hotfix. The reason the companies do this is because they understand that the cannot make money fixing all their holes before a software is shipped out. Either they'll wind up blowing too much money into r&d to fix them, or, more commonly, their software will be out of date when it hits the market. There you have it. I hope this explains a bit more thoroughly for you. As to why softwares ship so late (the next question begged by this), I can only guess that perhaps the larger companies are learning that users won't tolerate constant updates, so they tried to find a happy medium for them - that being later shipping software with less holes.

    Just my 2 cents, I could be wrong.
    Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

    Which coder said that nobody could outcode Microsoft in their own OS? Write a bit and make a fortune!

  7. #7
    oldie ric-o's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    487
    From Microsoft KB article
    This problem occurs if the program connects to a loopback address other than 127.0.0.1. Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) prevents connections to all IP addresses that are in the loopback address range except for 127.0.0.1.
    I wonder why they didn't include the whole loopback address range or if this was simply an oversight. Or is this another example of Microsoft not following standards (**Please no flame war here...just a question/observation**).

    I guess the other question is what program doesn't use 127.0.0.1 for local loopback address?! Why would they use anything else?

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,130
    i see this as a good point, instead as bad news. It proves that MS is moving on trying to fix bugs quicker. Sounds good to me.
    As a large service pack (SP2 looks more as a XP 2) it seems to be expected new bugs. Its the way of life.
    Meu sítio

    FORMAT C: Yes ...Yes??? ...Nooooo!!! ^C ^C ^C ^C ^C
    If I die before I sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to encrypt.
    If I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to brake.

  9. #9
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    I support MS in them trying to make better products through patches, hotfixes, what have you. What I do not support is when they sacrifice performance, efficiency, and possibly break other programs when they A: bring a hurried patch to the table to B: fix a problem that could've and should've been fixed prior to the release of said program and C: starts an endless saga of hotfixes and patches, which when presented in this same manner, they're in the hole for life, never able to get out from the ridicule of the media over said problems.

    It's like the announcement about Longhorn and how they're scrapping features so they can make a deadline of release in 2006 (need to find that statement somewhere, I could be totally wrong). Why make that statement when you can just SIT DOWN AND GET IT RIGHT. They've GOT the money, they've GOT the time, they've GOT the desktop market cornered, they've GOT the ability to hire the best so with all that, it's simply dropping the ball if, with all that, they still do things the way they've done them before and that just leads to "too many fingers in the dike" problems.

    It's like a Blizzard game...I'll GLADLY WAIT till it's DONE. Sure, it takes longer..sure, they still get patched, but guess what? The patches WORK and they don't break my ability to play D2 when I'm patching WC3 or whatever...
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.

  10. #10
    rider_royal :

    Here it starts ,
    forever saga of patches,hotfixes and then SPs. Why they don't do a thing that they must have done in first place , get a thing right and working? Don't they have all the money and test facilities to check a software?
    Right. Because every other OS is completely secure and perfect, and thus none of them have ever needed upgrades or security improvements.....

    Come on now, anyone who knows anything about programming knows that no matter how many men and money you throw at a programming problem, there will still end up being glitches and bugs. This is because the human mind is not perfect, nor are our actions. People who program understand that there are multiple ways to solve the same coding problem, but we may learn too late that the solution could have been replaced with a better one. It happens, so don't pinpoint out Microsoft just because you have an illusion about how programming should work. They are responding fast to this fix, just like how the Linux 2.6 kernel had a 2.6.1 "hotfix" within a week or so to fix a chuck of code they fsckered.

    I admit that nothing is perfect ever and a software once developed is not perfect for ever But atleast it must work for some time before being taken care of.
    It does work. In fact, I've been using SP2 for a long time now (prerelease beta testing) and it still works. Don't confuse the facts that SP2 does work and Microsoft want's to release a patch to fix a glitch or two, with SP2 not working whatsoever.

    The king offers a kingdom with a price and then make them firmly beleives that it is secure for them. masses beleive and come to his kingdom overall making his kingdom strong. But if king wants to have largest kingdom in world he needs to face enemies, which he do but only after he has suffered several casualties of his masses and he secures his kingdom and this continues.
    What in the... did you think battle tactics for seige protection came out of thin air? Guess how battle tactics and army formations came to where they are now? Errors, problems, and casualties. The "Opps, that didn't work. How can we improve it?". The kingdoms of the oldem times had the problem you describe because that is a natural part of the learning process. You can't honestly ask why they didn't have water-protected-skid-resistant-self-inflating tires back in the stone age when they created the first wheel, do you? Everyone has to learn from their own experience or others, that includes security. We can feel something is secure and properly coded, but there will always be something we can't account for.

    Without error there is no need nor ability for innovation.

    I just see your entire viewpoing not somuch as flawed, but ill-informed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides