OK when I woke today it was Friday June 20th. For those of you that still need more caffeine that means that it wasn't "patch Tuesday"
So why does Micro$haft want to update my XP SP3 system?
:shocked:
Printable View
OK when I woke today it was Friday June 20th. For those of you that still need more caffeine that means that it wasn't "patch Tuesday"
So why does Micro$haft want to update my XP SP3 system?
:shocked:
I think this is your answer mate:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=4600
Cheers:
Thanks DjM,
I don't have Bluetooth so I am not worried. However I find it interesting that M$ play it down, yet issue an immediate patch outside of their once a month cycle:sadwin:
:confused:
I found that odd as well, they usually only do that if the world as we know it, is coming to an end!Quote:
However I find it interesting that M$ play it down, yet issue an immediate patch outside of their once a month cycle
Cheers:
Hey DjM,
Do you think that Billy Windoze has bought into Bluetooth? ::bandit::
Isn't he into everything else? ::hide-behQuote:
Do you think that Billy Windoze has bought into Bluetooth?
Cheers:
What rock have you guys been living under? Windows embedded devices have been around since the Windows 98 era of computers.
Totally irrelevant to this post. The fix is specifically for XP SP2 and SP3 and Vista or Vista SP1 anything prior to that is not affected.Quote:
What rock have you guys been living under? Windows embedded devices have been around since the Windows 98 era of computers.
The point of this thread is that MS issued a fix outside of their normal monthly cycle............... I don't recall them having done that in the last 18 months?
Why are they running scared? :shocked:
Looks like it's an update to an update. Rated critical to boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sec.../ms08-030.mspxQuote:
Originally Posted by from TechNet
I just checked my update status and see that I have KB951376 (installed on 11 June) and KB951376-v2 (installed on 20 June). I guess that the second version made additional changes to those made by the first.
This raises something which I've been pondering for a while:
Is it absolutely vital that updates are applied in a specific order? I realise that any -v1, -v2 etc. updates should be applied correctly, but what about KB156342, KB873922, KB436518 and KB883291 (KB numbers created completely at random as an example)? Could I download them to apply to a fresh install of XP Pro SP2 but apply them in a random order?
I would suggest using MS Update on a single machine and finding what order MS wants to install them in. Given that some updates require a reboot then you may have to run this several times to get them all.
You can then build a slipstreamed image to incorporate them.
I would consider applying SP3 as this is mostly cumulative updates and will naturally get them in the right order.
Yes, I'd thought about slipstreaming the updates. I've avoided SP3 so far as I've seen several posts about it breaking the XP installation.
Hi Ignatius,
I haven't come across or heard of any problems around here yet. Mine worked just fine.
I know there was an issue with that MS small business retail management system stuff, but apart from that I would suspect a lot of problems have come from applying the SP to a system that was already unstable?
Some Updates will not install if the required earlier patchor SP is not already installed
.. that is those that are to be install in a specific order .. clues may be found in some of the log files.. not all.. this is winbloze after all..
XP SP3 on a clean install is Good.. on a well worn system.. oh feck
Not too impressed with Vista SP1.. been getting way to many "Driver" issues
Thank you. My XP installation is about 3 years old and, so far, seems to be behaving so I'll wait until I reinstall to apply SP3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Und3ertak3r
Hey All,
Let me see if I can provide some clarification on this..
Microsoft released MS08-030 on patch tuesday... There were two patches, one for XP and one for Vista. The Vista patch successfully patched the issue, however the XP patch did not. They had to modify the patch, so it was re-released.
If you have both registry keys this is simply because you installed the initial version and then installed v2 of the patch. If you only have the original registry key, you need to install v2 and are currently vulnerable. If you have only v2, then you didn't install the original patch and it doesn't matter because it doesn't do anything anyways, so you're fine :).