From: Ellen K. 

Oh yeah, I remember that one.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:59:54 -0500, "Geo" 
wrote in message :

>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5290386/
>
>Geo.
>
>"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>news:mdb6115vpjcs57tceasi4hl4nhu8vk2j3r{at}4ax.com...
>> Question:   I understand that the updates themselves would not install
>> if not validly signed.   But following up the hypothetical case of the
>> WU server getting rooted, could something OTHER than the update not get
>> onto the client machine?
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:20:11 -0800, "Rich" 
wrote in message
>> :
>>
>> >updates, which I believe aren't even served by the Windows Update
>servers, are cryptographically signed and will not install if not validly
>signed.  This is in contrast to the linux distros to which you made an
>analogy which require users to find an independent source for the hashes of
>the valid content and to validate the downloads themselves.
>>
>

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