Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 6 Aug 2010.
As long as it's MS that's found these vulnerabilities and/or fixed them before they are out in the wild i say bring on the patches.
they were in the wild for a while before they were patched :/
Well, MS could leave vulnerabilities to fester 6 months before patching (like other companies) so this is damn good.
A lot of it depends on mitigating circumstances.
Exploits that arent remotely executable or require some sort of specific user input are less significant than remote or automated ones.
As hackers evolve so does program security.
I rub it then you do it
As program security evolves so do Hackers
Let the patches keep coming, and to be honest telling XP diehards to go and get the final SP (seeing as they've now missed out on what, 80 updates unless installed separately) isn't unreasonable, is it coming up for two years old now? If you're going to use old stuff, it might as well be up to the last update MS is willing to give out.
I welcome the fixes but I will be making a restore point before I install them I think. I've had windows 'fixes' bugger my computer before now. So always best to have a restore point on hand.
only 2 fixes on my w7 install. the rest were normal updates. I don't understand these news, if they do patches "I my god, so many patches". If they don't "oh my god, they're lazy and don't care about security, lets all use mac and linux".
Yes, I'm not quite sure why this is news. Slow week, Bit-Tech?
I am not sure why this is news also. This is basic system maintenance.
Perhaps if you look after a whole 2 home PCs with 1 user in total and a bunch of very standard software.
The significant number of patches in one patch cycle is what makes this interesting for some audiences.
Picture, if you will, testing and deploying this quantity of patches to, say, 3000 PCs spread over multiple sites, running a vast collection of horrible proprietary software that breaks about 50% of the time if an update touches the .net framework because it was made in 1996 and the vendor doesn't exist any more so getting support from them is like pushing wet sh!t uphill with a rake.
Then your 'basic system maintenance' turns into hours upon hours of work for a team of professionals who are going to get shouted at if the software breaks when they patch.
Separate names with a comma.