MS withdraws XP update...

[mjc]

Microsoft said Tuesday it has withdrawn a security update for Windows XP after discovering that it switched off Internet connections for some of the 600,000 users who downloaded and installed it.

The update, a small software addition that is used to fix and add features to existing software programs, was originally aimed at improving the security of Internet connections.

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1010562.html?tag=lh

WASHINGTON -- Microsoft withdrew a security improvement for its flagship Windows XP software after it crippled Internet connections for some of the 600,000 users who installed it. Microsoft officials said Tuesday the update -- which had been available as an option since Friday on its "Windows Update" website -- apparently was incompatible with popular security software from other companies, such as Symantec.

Microsoft said Internet connections failed immediately for an unspecified number of more than 600,000 computers using Windows XP who downloaded and installed the update. Consumers could reconnect only by removing the update, which promised to improve reliability for types of secure Internet connections commonly used by corporations.

http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,59006,00.html

[Budfred]

Damn, I installed all the updates for my sisters in North Carolina over the weekend. I hope this garbage doesn't give them any problems.

M$ strikes again!!!:mad:

[jabarnutcase]

Does anyone know what the reference number of this update was?

I looked through the links and didn't see an actual number unless I missed it. :confused:
I've just now installed a security update before I saw this post.

Well, at least I still have an internet connection. (Obviously, or I wouldn't be here) :p

Ever since that god forsaken 811493, I've been very leary of updates causing slowdowns or other problems....Got to love it.
(Makes it so I don't trust Uncle Bill like I used to!) :D


(Edit) Wow- This is interesting. The one I just installed is 815021.
I just ran windows update again, and the infamous 811493 doesn't show up any more. (First they changed it from "critical" to "recommended" and now it's gone completely...I wonder if this new one was a fix for that too?

[pentachris]

I was looking for the same thing, jabar. All I could find was that it was released 21 May.

[david eaton]

The update concerned was 818043 - L2TP-IPSec NAT-T Update for Windows XP and Windows 2000

Just found a reference while looking for something else!

David

[jabarnutcase]

Yes thanks Chris...Since the one I just installed came out today, and M$ claims to have pulled the "bad one", I think we're all set.

Still find it interesting that 811493 no longer comes up. Until now, I had it in my "declined updates" list...Even took it out of there, ran updates again, and 811493 is nowhere to be found!
(Which is a good thing if you happen to remember that thread about all the slowdowns it caused!)

(Edit) Thanks David...(You just snuck in there before me) ;)

[Mark Miller]

budfred, you will know right away as what happens is that you cannot connect to net. If she is able, noo problem.
Mark

[pentachris]

budfred, you will know right away as what happens is that you cannot connect to net. If she is able, noo problem.
Maybe we should say "no known problem." :rolleyes:

On a related note, check out IE's dumbest bug ever (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9288).

[Mark Miller]

Pentachris,
"no known problem'
true, true
Mark:D
Oh by the way the problem is only with certain instances of Norton firewall. Don't these guys talk?
I also don't think it was a critical update but a recommended update.
I am really getting to the point that if it's not crtical and it's not broken, leave it alone.
M

[neb1211]

that is the same way that i am.

[Budfred]

I only get out to see my sisters once or twice a year, so I tend to try to get them up to date while I am there since they are both afraid to download and install updates. They will go online and play games at Pogo for hours, download all sorts of java plug-ins and other unsafe things, but they are afraid of accepting updates.... maybe they are right!!:eek:

I wasn't worried that they had the particular problem noted in the article since they were still able to get on the internet, but I am worried that that mess may cause other problems.... Since they won't update usually, they probably won't even get whatever fix MS puts out (if they are responsible enough to do that)....

[jabarnutcase]

Yes- I hear you guys. I am very selective about what updates I install, although most critical updates are just that...Critical!

I always read exactly what the fix is before installing it, and if it's something that's "recommended", rather than "critical", (and especially if it doesn't apply to me directly), it often ends up unchecked in "personalized updates" so it won't show up again.

I know what you mean Budfred about people that don't even bother installing any of them- (Or are afraid to for lack of basic computer knowledge). In some cases, that's asking for real trouble.

What's bothering me lately, is some of the updates that truly are critical, are often "buggy" themselves.....Need an "extremely critical" update to fix the "critical" update! :eek:

If only the windows world were a better place to live. :p :D

[dvangelder]

Do any of you subscibe to Woody Windows Watch? Woody Leonhard is a Que books author and authority on MS OS's and Office products. He publishes an online newsletter and I never use anything from Redmond until Woody either says it's safe or publishes a workaround to un**ck your system after the 'update' updates it to death.

[Mark Miller]

Same thing with Dan Goodin of Dummies fame. Most of the "critical" updates are theoretical security situations that could happen. I think they are important but I am learning not to download any thing blindly. If it does not effect the way my machine is set up I now leave it alone. By the way lots of the problems with the updates lately are with Norton products, not the patch itself.
Mark:(

[Budfred]

If a patch put out by MS is not able to play nicely with the most popular security software around, I would say that the patch is the problem....

Norton is able to screw things up enough itself without any help from M$:rolleyes:

[jabarnutcase]

:D Yes...Though sometimes I think there's a fine line between who's software doesn't play nice with the other guys....Seems almost ALL software = Bugs and Patches. :(


Often too, a critical update is a little more serious than a theoretical security situation that could happen. It's something that did happen...And then M$ says...:eek:..We better fix this and fast! :p


Makes me wonder- Did the very first Rotary lawn mowers have "WARNING! Keep hands and feet out from under!!" stickers all over them, (Or did they start putting those warnings on after people started cutting their hands and feet off?) :eek: :D

(Geesh Jabar...What the heck kind of analogy was that???) :confused:

[Mark Miller]

Budfred,
true,true
Your right if anything it should work with Norton, or at the very least have been tested with it.
Mark;)

[Steve]

I'm very selective when it comes to installing M$ updates. As a matter of fact I haven't installed any! :eek: Including XP's SP1. When I bought XP it seemed to work OK. I haven't had any problems with it, so I haven't loaded any of the updates. And you know what? It still runs OK.

Those updates aren't as critical as you might think. ;)

[bassman]

Yet another reason to slash your registry of anything even closly resembling Symantic:eek:

Funny how people buy into marketing. The most popular security software is the most dangerous virus in the computer world. The most popular operating system presumably does not operate well (presumed by the manufacturer) without constant updating and patching:rolleyes:

[dvangelder]

I'm going to run knoppix from a CD...no more windows so no more need for Norton because nobody hacks knoppix!

[mjc]

Steve

Tell that to all the unemployed sysadmins who got hit with CodeRed, SQL Slammer, etc....(btw, a full install of Office XP is vulnerable to SQLSlammer)

There are critical and then there are recommended....and with MS it seems that both are a crap shoot.

[Steve]

Yeah...I know. But you're talking to a guy who doesn't even use an A/V program. :D

A few years ago, I worked converting an old mill down on the Merrimack river for the AutoDesk folks. When the construction was done, they moved in about 500 computers and an incredible networking system. I can't imagine what it all cost. If it was mine, I'd have every everything I could get my hands on and I'd be paying for people to invent things to protect my investment.

For a home user like me...not much can be called critical. ;)

[mjc]

Glad you didn't get mad at me...I forgot a couple of :D ;) :cool: in my last post...

But for many users they see Critical and automatically do it, I usually wait a while before adding any and since I am not running XP for anything other than testing I don't do the XP one very often.

How does that one go....

Windows a 32 bit patch for a 16 bit GUI for an 8 bit OS created for a 4 bit processor by a 2 bit company.....

[Steve]

Heh heh...Don't worry guy, it take alot more than that to get me mad.

:) :D :p http://mindscraps.com/s/cwm/cwm/spin2.gif http://216.40.249.192/s/contrib/ruinkai/upsidedowna.gif http://www.smilies.okipages.com/s/contrib/lynx/bluehappy.gif :eek: