|
-
January 22nd, 2002, 05:46 AM
#3
THEJRC:
That was most eloquently put! I totally agree that it is most certainly the way in which the O/S is secured which exemplifies its security, not the O/S itself. I also totally agree about testing patches on test machines prior to using them on production machines (especially if it is a large corporation that can afford a couple of extra workstations). The consulting firm I work for was doing a new server install, which includes applying all service packs and hotfixes (yes, this was an NT/2k environment), but when we attempted to use Microsoft's Security Rollup Pack (it contains all the security hotfixes), it bonked the whole server! Thankfully it was a new install and not an existing one, or else we would have had a lot of tape restores to do. I should also mention that Microsoft unofficially knew about the problem in the rollup pack, though they never mentioned anything (I find this to be a significant problem with Microsoft, just as in the same way they never officially recognized a problem between Outlook XP and Exchange 5.5), but the point is that you should test patches! Sorry about that mini-rant about Microsoft, that just bothers me sometimes.
Regards,
Wizeman
\"It\'s only arrogrance if you can\'t back it up, otherwise it is confidence.\" - Me
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|