From: Mike '/m' 


I wish I oculd answer your question (having just finished patching the
three W2K PCs here).

btw, for one of them I had to download the NET 1.1 service pack, then after
I rebooted I decided to recheck Windows Update.   Sure enough, I
had to download a patch for the NET 1.1 Service Pack.  Now I need to go
back to the other two to make sure none of the patches need patches.....

 /m


On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:35:24 -0400, "Geo"  wrote:

>I only scanned thru them but it didn't appear any are a match for the 7
>remote code execution exploits listed on the eeye unpublished/unpatched page
>http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index.html (at least I didn't see
>eeye credited for any of the august patches).
>
>Just the tip of the iceberg? Why is it MS has this need to release 7
>separate patches for each version instead of one patch for all versions?
>Life would be so much simpler with just one executable that identified your
>version of windows and patched all 7. Guess that would not drive people to
>use windowsupdate though, huh?
>
>Just gotta ask, what is it about WU that makes it worth it to MS to have
>folks download the same patches over and over again for each machine instead
>of just downloading one exe and applying it to all your machines like you do
>with a service pack? The amount of work to make a combined patch has to be
>less expensive than the bandwidth for 600 million machines to download
>individually, no?
>
>Geo.
>
>"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>news:d39if15h6qkdorvcchisr9htqm1gje7de7{at}4ax.com...
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:50:30 -0400, "Geo."
 wrote:
>>
>> >Read em and weep..
>> >
>> >http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/current.aspx
>> >
>> >some are muy critical..
>> >
>>
>> Woof.
>>
>>  /m
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5