Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Pulls Broken XP Update

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the repatch-and-sin-no-more dept.

Microsoft 478

Cally writes "Yahoo! reports that Microsoft have pulled a Windows XP update from the Windows Update servers after it killed network access for some users of the claimed 600,000 who installed it. (Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?) The story hints that the problem was something to do with VPN or IPSec drivers clashing with Symantec software - however I haven't found anything about this on the Microsoft KnowledgeBase (the link Yahoo provide goes to the generic support home page.) Anyone got more info?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

updated link (4, Informative)

Carl_Cne (253854) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055707)

try http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb; en-us;818043

First Post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055708)

Always wanted to do that...

windows update (5, Funny)

satanicat (239025) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055709)

windows mustive been getting too stable. .

Do they have any sort of quality control?=)

Re:windows update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055733)


In fact Microsoft found the best way to secure a Windows to any possible attack, even viruses ... isolating it from any network :))))

Re:windows update (-1, Troll)

Debian Troll (676582) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055769)

Do they have any sort of quality control?=)

I propose a multi-level system of releases, arranged something like this:

Unstable This version will support the latest and greatest features, but will not have undergone rigorous testing by the community. Basically it's an untested pile of crap only fit for 36-year olds who live in their parent's basement and have never had sex.

Testing No-one really knows that this does, but it's good to have something labelled 'testing'. It makes it look like the developers are actually doing something instead of spending all day reconfiguring their apt.sources file and trying to recover their 'mission critial' 486s and Pentium MMX 'supercomputers' from broken packages in unstable.

Stable This is rock solid, but also like a rock, it just sort of sits there and grows moss on it. You could use it to prop open a door, or to hurl through the window of one of those newspaper vending machines and steal yourself a copy of USA Today. Either way you'll probably be fired for using it on the company firewall when you should have used Gentoo instead

Re:windows update (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055925)

Either way you'll probably be fired for using it on the company firewall when you should have used Gentoo instead

Gentoo on the firewall? What a great idea.

All. The external internet connections will be down today for a scheduled emerge of seventy mission critical packages. This will allow the firewall to run highly optimised binaries which won't actually speed up your internet connection as the firewall is generally idle anyway. The firewall will be up from 1am tommorow morning, unless the latest X is available, in which case I'll let you all know sometime next week once its finished building everything.

Maybe its not on KB because nobody is at work? (0, Offtopic)

MMDDay (45494) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055710)

It is 5am in the morning.

Re:Maybe its not on KB because nobody is at work? (5, Funny)

BabyDave (575083) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055730)

It is 5am in the morning.
Which is different to 5am in the afternoon ...

Re:Maybe its not on KB because nobody is at work? (1, Funny)

miscGeek (594829) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055842)

Well nobody but the poor Win XP admins who installed the patch :)

Re:Maybe its not on KB because nobody is at work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055882)

Ever heard of timezones?

Re:Maybe its not on KB because nobody is at work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055900)

Ever heard about that little place called Asia?
What about the other one, was it Europe? I keep forgetting the name.

Re:Maybe its not on KB because nobody is at work? (2, Insightful)

olderchurch (242469) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055905)

The patch has been out some time now (more then a week). I have indeed installed it and have been figuring out for a day why my network card did not work anymore :(

After deinstalling the update (luckily that was possible, there are updates where there is no rollback) everything worked fine.

I checked again with windows update and the patch wasn't avaialble anymore (this was last saterday), so I reckoned it had nothing to do with my setup, or at least was not the only one.

If only they had apt-get (5, Funny)

Debian Troll (676582) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055715)

I am currently porting apt-get to Windows. This will mean that these types of embarassing security breaches never happen again. apt-get is the answer to all of today's problems.

Re:If only they had apt-get (1)

BSD is Alive (575782) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055724)

NetBSD pkgsrc/FreeBSD ports is better!@

bash$ cd /usr/pkgsrc/www/ie
bash$ make install clean

Re:If only they had apt-get (1, Funny)

lovebyte (81275) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055772)

I am currently porting apt-get to Windows.
Please do. This Windows update patch did not work for me:
% sh Windows\ Update\ Patch.exe
Windows Update Patch.exe: cannot execute binary file

Re:If only they had apt-get (5, Informative)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055795)

I got tired of apt-get blowing up my unstable Debian, so I wrote this to make it transactional:

sub=dists/latest/binary-i386
dt=`date +"%y%m%d_%H%M%S"`
cd /data/apt
dpkg-scanpackages latest /dev/null > $sub/Packages
grep -Ex "Filename: latest/.+" $sub/Packages | sed "s/Filename: latest\/\(.*\)/\1/" > old/L$dt
pushd $sub
rm Packages.gz
gzip Packages
popd
mv latest $dt
mkdir latest
for x in `cat old/L$dt`; do mv $dt/$x latest; done
if [[ `ls $dt | wc -l` -eq 0 ]]; then rm -r $dt; fi

If it blows up, I can easily roll back, and keep a history of all the intermedate versions.

Re:If only they had apt-get (5, Funny)

Debian Troll (676582) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055856)

I got tired of apt-get blowing up my unstable Debian, so I wrote this to make it transactional:

Your code looks very interesting, and would make a fine addition to the new Windows version of apt-get which I have almost finished writing. It is crafted in MMX/SSE accelerated x86 assembler, so it runs really fast! You will, however, need to port your nice Java program to assembler. I am also looking for people to help out with the GUI front-end to win-apt-get, which is based around a helpful paper clip character called 'Klecker'. When the user requires an update, they 'Klick' on 'Klecker', and he helpfully tells the user to "Fuck off and read the manual you filthy Windoze luser", or to "Take a fucking number and wait for win-apt-get stable to be released in 2017".

microsoft (-1, Troll)

logicalstack (610931) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055716)

microsoft = DOS

Microsoft Security (-1, Troll)

SkArcher (676201) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055718)

Possibly becoming more of an Oxymoron than Microsoft Works?

So not only does this intended 'fix' not do its job, but it also prevents .net access entire? any word on what they are doing for the 600,000 people who got their access fried?

Repeat after me 'fdisk, format, reinstall'

Re:Microsoft Security (4, Informative)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055744)

RTFA. I mean it is not entirely your fault, the idiotic "reporting" of "news" from michael leaves a lot to be desired, but in the article, as well as in the three line summary to which you reply, there is a mention of some people only losing network connectivity after installing the patch. Actually READING the article (a novel idea, but bear with me) renders the following:

""There were hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded this, and we know of only a handful of people who had the problem."

Re:Microsoft Security (4, Insightful)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055762)

If those people lost network access, how would Microsoft know? ;^)

Re:Microsoft Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055926)

Because suddenly a sh*tload of boxes quit "calling back home".

Re:Microsoft Security (1)

fireman sam (662213) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055768)

The remainder were unable to connect to the net to complain

Re:Microsoft Security (0)

SkArcher (676201) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055788)

Have you ever tried getting hold of an actual human being at Microsoft by phone? Next to impossible, they allways want e-mail notification.

Now, what was that old thing about having to have .net access to send e-mail.. duh

Re:Microsoft Security (2, Informative)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055846)

Bollocks. First of all, MS outsources customer support in most countries, so you are likely never to have talked to a MS helpdesk. Second, and most important, I have had to talk to MS helpdesks in three different EU countries and, trust me, it has been VERY easy to get someone to register my problem. NOT ONCE have I been told to send them an e-mail. YMMV, of course, but "always", does not hold true.

Re:Microsoft Security (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055752)

any word on what they are doing for the 600,000 people who got their access fried?

What 600,000 people had anything 'fried'?

Article:
"There were hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded this, and we know of only a handful of people who had the problem."

Re:Microsoft Security (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055873)

Well, let's see. My hand has five fingers, I had to fix two computers yesterday because of this patch... that leaves 3 fingers of the handful to fix... They should call any minute now.

That's just my luck... Of the handful of people affected I had to know two of them...

Unless Microsoft is lying...

Noooooooo. They wouldn't...

Re:Microsoft Security (1)

Patchw0rk F0g (663145) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055755)

Well, if it's VPN and IPSec problems, they're probably on a network of some kind. Hopefully their IT guys were on the ball enough to have their own Windows Update disabled on their own machines!

Re:Microsoft Security (1, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055757)

Sounds secure to me. If a 'doze box can't access the internet, nobody can hack it...

Link has a typo. (2, Informative)

nlinecomputers (602059) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055719)

Not sure but I think this is the link. Does not mention that it is pulled though.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=k b; en-us;818043

Re:Link has a typo. (2, Informative)

mattrix2k (632351) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055739)

Clickable [microsoft.com] (link to MSKB article)

That's the problem with automatic patching (5, Insightful)

Tsu Dho Nimh (663417) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055721)

If XP is allowed to go find its master and patch itself, any problem with a patch will spread widely to the people least able to deal with it.

At least this patch made it perfectly obvious that it had a bug.

Re:That's the problem with automatic patching (5, Informative)

DShor (127100) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055816)

To the best of my knowledge, the auto-patch would not download this as it was a "security improvement" not an "urgent repair". The only people who would get affected by this are the ones who manually downloaded it themselves.

Why is this news? (3, Insightful)

1g$man (221286) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055725)

Has a Linux, or FreeBSD patch ever been pulled because it was broken? *yawn*

I'd say it was a slow news day, but it ain't even daytime yet.

Re:Why is this news? (4, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055756)

Yes. Look at the "do not use" and missing kernel numbers on www.kernel.org and "Heads UP" announcements on bsd-current.

Re:Why is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055780)

Come to think of it - even us Linux folks aren't in much better shape - have you seen the number of RedHat 'errata' messages in the last month or so - more than Microsoft.

Give me VM/CMS!

Re:Why is this news? (4, Interesting)

mblase (200735) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055800)

The second-to-last Mac OS X update had a glitch where, on many portables, it would reset the system clock to the epoch on restart. The update after that corrected the problem, of course.

This is somewhat minor compared to losing network access, but only somewhat. This sort of thing happens often when OS updates move from the lab to the real world, and the fact that Microsoft responded the way it did should be considered a virtue rather than a vice.

Re:Why is this news? (5, Informative)

theCoder (23772) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055804)

True enough, but then again, I heard this story on NPR on my way to work today, so it's only natural that /. would carry something about it.

But you're right, this does remind me of the kernel-that-never-should-have-been. I don't remember the version number (it was in the 2.4 series), but it was the one that corrupted your drives when you unmounted them. Of course, IIRC, that kernel wasn't pulled, the next version was just released very quickly. You can still get that kernel version if you really want to corrupt your data :)

You are kidding right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055902)

Or do you work for MS?

Hmmm....I wonder why... (5, Insightful)

Howard Beale (92386) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055727)

"Most systems didn't crash; they simply lost network connectivity," said Michael Surkan, a Microsoft program manager for its networking communications group. "There were hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded this, and we know of only a handful of people who had the problem."

Maybe because they couldn't get online to report the problem???

Re:Hmmm....I wonder why... (0, Redundant)

DShor (127100) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055832)

Hey, it was the ultimate security patch!

If you can't get out, then neither can anyone else, therefore, your network is secure :)

Re:Hmmm....I wonder why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055865)

It must be a "product feature" in that microsoft will shut down your network for you without having to do anything. A server got hit with this at my university and it was fun to be had by all conisdering that end of quarter assignments are due soon.

system restore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055897)

1) restore to yesterday
2) report problem online

MS consider 600,000 people... a handful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055913)

This is a joke...isn't it?

Re:Hmmm....I wonder why... (1)

MacroRex (548024) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055934)

Furthermore, the average user whose network was killed by windows update automatically installing the patch will not worry about it immediately. For them "the net is down", so what, happens all the time.

I pity the geeks who get hassled by this after the users figure that the net won't come up anymore, like it usually does.

I doubly pity the geeks who don't find about this in the news and don't realize it's just MS screwing with them.

Old news (5, Insightful)

rjch (544288) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055728)

Unfortunately, it's something we've all heard before. I'm a recent entrant to the world of tech support, and the company I work for (much like many other large companies) refuse to touch a new Microsoft OS until it's been through at *least* one, preferably two service packs. Likewise, updates that Microsoft class as "critical" are not to be installed for at least a fortnight, unless they are for serious security holes with known exploits. Whilst I think this is probably a rather conservative approach, it sure as hell is better than having the network crash down around you. I believe this company was bitten badly by such a problem with a patch a couple of years ago, hence their policy on updates.

Re:Old news (0, Flamebait)

Matrix272 (581458) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055797)

Hey, at least when the network crashes down around you, it's still YOUR network. If you neglect to install a critical update when it's new, it might be someone ELSE'S network by the time you get around to looking at it.

Not News (4, Interesting)

4of12 (97621) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055729)

In real life, people don't trust MS patches until they've tested them on their own systems with their own application mixes.

Until MS raises their quality assurance and testing to a higher level than it is now, knowledgeable system admins, responsible for managing lots of Windows systems in their environments, will continue not to trust Windows Update.

More Slashdot Sensationalism (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055731)

Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update

What do you think is more likely: "only" 600,000 people trust Windows Update or everyone else just hasn't patched for checked for patches yet? I personally don't use the little auto-notification thingie, I just check every once in a while.

Also, how is this different from any automated Linux update method? Software has bugs. Patches may have bugs. Regardless of vendor, patches are not perfect and may induce problems.

Agree or disagree with me, when you think about it without bias it's true.

Good reason to wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055857)

Let someone else do the testing ... wait a month ... then update!

Palladium Pre-Testing (3, Insightful)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055740)

Part of the pro-Palladium spin is that it will stop people infecting M$ machines with worms.

But that would leave a major gap which, according to this story, has been admirably filled.

Trusted computing - only trust the worms written and distributed by MS itself.

Re:Palladium Pre-Testing (4, Interesting)

DShor (127100) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055860)

In fact, there was an exploit in a previous version of MDAC (Microsoft Data Access Components) that was later patched, but someone could exploit patched users by pushing the unpatched MDAC from their web sites. If anyone had selected to always trust Microsoft for downloads, it would be downloaded and installed without ever notifying the user.

Automatic Updates (1)

xYoni69x (652510) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055742)

Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?

Don't forget the Automatic Updates (wuauserv) service. Many XP users use Windows Update regularly and don't even know it.

In Tomorrow's News (5, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055743)

A new worm has begun infecting XP systems that didn't install the latest patch. "It's their own fault, they should have kept up to date" said BG.

Yesterday's news: who cares about it? (1)

tearmeapart (674637) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055783)

im sorta glad Mandrake and Redhat has become so "user-friendly" with all there automatic updates and plug-and-play packages.

i remember a time when if a bug infected one of my systems with apache, i was told by my co-workers: "It's your own fault. You should have found that bug in the code yourself, and fixed it."
And they were serious.

and then... (1, Funny)

mschoolbus (627182) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055747)

Yahoo! reports that Microsoft have pulled a Windows XP update from the Windows Update servers after it killed network access for some users of the claimed 600,000 who installed it.

Furthermore, they realized how often all their OSes go down and decided to just give up.

If only was there a god to help us...

THINK, man, THINK (1)

bricriu (184334) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055748)

"Most systems didn't crash; they simply lost network connectivity," said Michael Surkan, a Microsoft program manager for its networking communications group. "There were hundreds of thousands of people who downloaded this, and we know of only a handful of people who had the problem."

Do you think that might be because, without the 'net, most couldn't contact you to complain? If they install an update and "the durn computer broke the Interweb!" do you think they're going to be able to debug and fix the problem in order to alert you?

Re:THINK, man, THINK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055908)

Indeed.

"Most systems didn't crash; they simply lost network connectivity."

Does it say *ANYWHERE* in there that they lost internet access? No, it doesn't.

Why don't YOU think before you start tearing apart other people's posts. Just because someone lost Network connectivity does not necessarily mean they lost internet access.

Before you all complain about auto update... (5, Informative)

26199 (577806) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055753)

The article says that since this wasn't a critical patch, just an 'improvement', auto update doesn't install it.

Re:Before you all complain about auto update... (5, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055813)

What the hell are you doing !! Get a hold of yourself man and stop trying to point out the facts in this story. Most posters so far have already managed to increase MS's few reported cases to 600,000 broken updates. Let them have their fun.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055754)

Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?)

It means that only 600,000 users that also had Symantec Security software installed used Windows Update in the time between when the patch was released (Friday) and when it was pulled (today).

RTFA. I don't expect that from posters, but I do from submitters.

Microsoft officials said Tuesday the update -- which had been available as an option since Friday on its "Windows Update" Web site -- apparently was incompatible with popular security software from other companies, such as Symantec Corp.

Re:No (2, Informative)

26199 (577806) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055815)

Nearly... it was 600,000 downloads, not 600,000 broken internet connections. According to the article only 'a handful' of the 600,000 who downloaded the patch had problems.

I had no choice -- I clicked Install Updates (-1, Offtopic)

jerryasher (151512) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055763)

The Architect: Hope, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

Personal Experience (5, Interesting)

aaaurgh (455697) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055770)

All I know is that, having decided to pull down some of the critical updates (not on auto, you understand) I can no longer get the properties window to appear for a directory in Explorer, except in safe mode. Kind of makes it difficult to administer security that does; oh and the performance went down a heap too. Even tried backing them all out too, but the system restore was disabled - too little disk space apparently, nice of it to tell me in time(!).

Only four hours ago, I was on the phone to MS support. If the p.c. is started with only MS services enabled (there's only Norton or MS ones on this machine) via the msconfig utility, everything is fine. If I disable all the non-MS services in the services window though and do a normal restart, everything is broken again - duh!

I'm going to try unloading/reloading all the Norton stuff again but don't hold out much hope. Oh well, looks like I'm up for another rebuild, the sixth in five months... and no, I won't be using the updates in future

Geez (5, Insightful)

Quill_28 (553921) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055773)

>Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?

Umm... NO. It doesn't.

And stop taking cheap shots at MS, it just make you look like a whiny school kid.

There is plenty of reasons to bash MS policies and software, but the signal-to-noise ratio is getting silly.

Software Update Services... (5, Insightful)

jamesh (87723) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055777)

... allows an admin to release patches to users when they have tested them. SUS retrieves patches from Microsoft. An Admin approves them. Client PC's (with an appropriate Group Policy) retrieve and install approved updates from the SUS server. Easy.

If you're paranoid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsensible, wait a week or more to give the rest of the world time to find bugs, test the patch thoroughly in a test environment, and of course ask yourself if you actually need it.

ps. how many of todays slashdot readers know what ^H means?

Re:Software Update Services... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055824)

ps. how many of todays slashdot readers know what ^H means

It means either

a) you didn't run stty
or
b) You're running an MS OS, so all the keys work like they are supposed to, but you feel the need to act funny by pretending you typed something and tried to delete it.

Re:Software Update Services... (2, Informative)

SkArcher (676201) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055843)

ps. how many of todays slashdot readers know what ^H means?

Telnet backspace echo

Man, I miss MUDing

Anyhow, to respond to your point - independently test bedding M$ updates certainly sounds like a good idea, but it either means 1- A seperate testbed machine or 2- using a standard machine for the process.

1- requires a fair ammount of money in the company, while 2- still has the possibility of nixxing one machine

It's still a good idea though :)

^H (1)

Hakubi_Washu (594267) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055863)

I never experienced it on my own, but wasn't that some terminals output if you pressed Backspace (Ctrl+H maybe)?

Most people I have met in Meat-Space though think it's a way of expressing that you're laughing ("Hahaha" or _H_umorous)... They even look dizzy if they see more than 3 ^H in a row, because they would consider it to be bad manners... Scriptkiddies... Afraid of the good ol' command-line.
I study Computer Science and, it was a shock, most of my fellow students were not able to get their compilers running on command-line, some were even trying to write their source in *cough* Word!!!

Re:Software Update Services... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055864)

How about you find out what ^W means?

attribution (4, Informative)

Cally (10873) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055779)

Story submitter here - I forgot the attribution (my bad); I picked this up from the Full Disclosure mailing list [netsys.com] , specifically, this post [netsys.com] by Richard M. Smith.

Um (2, Funny)

Obiwan Kenobi (32807) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055784)

(Does this mean only 600,000 XP users trust Windows Update?)

Or does it mean that after a hundred thousand complaints they pulled it from the site?

*SLAP*

Windows Update is buggy (2, Interesting)

delfstrom (205488) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055786)

Windows Update is flawed. I did a search the other week to find out more information on why some of our Windows 2000 workstations were suggesting old patches needed to be applied.

For example, I've downloaded, installed, and rebooted as required for the security update from Feb 13 for MSXML 4.0 and the bloody thing still keeps coming back!

Now I've got ones from April and later that keep returning like zombies to haunt me. You'd *think* that it would be simple... but noooo.

Re: Windows Update is buggy (1)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055878)

Windows Update is flawed. I did a search the other week to find out more information on why some of our Windows 2000 workstations were suggesting old patches needed to be applied.

For example, I've downloaded, installed, and rebooted as required for the security update from Feb 13 for MSXML 4.0 and the bloody thing still keeps coming back!

I don't know if this is true anymore, but back in the NT4.0 bad old days, adding or removing a winders component forced you to reinstall ALL service packs and patches. Is it possible that you added a patch out of order at some point (ie. You said "No thianks" to one of the recommended updates) and that is the problem?

Not a required update... (1)

ksheka (189669) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055791)

This was not a mandatory update. It was a security patch for those that you the particular service in question. This means that most people wouldn't bother installing it.

In that case, 600,000 people does seem like a lot, especially if they can't get on the internet afterwards to get the fix for the update, as the article implies. :-)

Vague stats (1)

matman (71405) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055792)

They say Friday -> Memorial day weekend. That sounds like they're suggesting an 8 day availability. It's interesting to read that over 8 days about 600,000 downloads occured. I would assume that security update downloads are a bit more frequent. How many XP installs are there out there? I'd be interested to see about how many people don't apply security patches. :)

It wasn't just Symantec (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055793)

Yet another example of MS trying toi pass the buck and dodge the bullet...

I had NO symantec s/ware on my system, (I use Mcafee) and I lost all networking / internet access.

Also, the Yahoo article says that the update had to be removed which is bull$hit, the update could NOT be removed, and the only way to fix my system was to re-install and re-update Windoze.

MS said only a small number complained, well, I did, and a couple of days later the update was pulled, no reply to my email though, not even a thank you or aknowlegment - typical MS =O(

fLaMePr0oF

Re:It wasn't just Symantec (-1, Flamebait)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055899)

apparently was incompatible with popular security software from other companies, such as Symantec Corp.

hmm popular security software like McAfee I wonder.

Maybe the reason you had to reinstall is because you cant read or just dont understand whats on your system.

Unfortunate (5, Insightful)

Davak (526912) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055802)

This is not good for the average consumer.

Bugs like this keep the common microsoft user from installing the latest and greatest updates. They might not understand that their security is troubled until they recent damage; however, they understand this:

"I finally ran windows update... and now I can no longer get on the internet. Crap, I'm never doing that again."

Methinks it's a Microsoft-is-too-huge-syndrome. Microsoft can't test its fixes on every possible configuration; therefore, problems like this will occur. Episodes like this [microsoft.com] have previously occurred and will occur again.

It's the nature of the beast.

btw, thanks Slashdot. I could have installed that this morning!

Davak

Happens to even the best... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055823)

As much as I can't stand M$, I've got to say that I had a similar experience with Mandrake when I was running 9.0 I ran an update and when I rebooted all of the sudden my wireless nic wouldn't come up! I later read in mandrakeforum that the initscripts that were part of the update were broken on some machines. I installed the old ones and I was back up, but it was an annoying couple of hours.

At least it wasn't a remote root exploit....

Microsoft KnowledgeBase (3, Funny)

leeroybrown (624767) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055828)

It's moments like this that prove that the phrase "Microsoft KnowledgeBase" may in fact be the ultimate oxymoron.

difficulty with software upgrades (5, Informative)

e**(i pi)-1 (462311) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055833)

Every software update is a risk. Especially OS updates. With software, I always fear that beside enhancements, also restrictions will be built in (happend with quicktime once years ago). Therefore, I usually
keep a copy of the old software or to make full backups before upgrading the OS. Updating software is not trivial because it X + A + B is not equal X + B + A : the update A can and will in general change something of the modification B. After a few such operations it becomes very difficult to keep track about all possible
states the users can have on their machine.

My experiences from updates:

- even for modern Linux distributions, it is a good idea
to make full new installs rather then upgrading. I personally
always had problems with upgrades and almost never had problems
with full reinstalls.

- the OS X updates went all smooth so far. Still, I always upgrade
first one machine, wait to see if everything works fine before
updating the others.

- XP updates. No problem with vmware. Just keep an copy of the
old virtual machine around. If something screws up or one of
the software has decided to "upgrade" itself:

rm -rf winXPHome
mv old.winXPHome winXPHome

Virtual machines can also easily be copied from one machine to
an other.

XpP (2, Funny)

soliaus (626912) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055847)

Thankfully, I uh.. well, lets just say that windows update would cause information about my machine *caugh*cd key*caugh* profile to be 'exposed'. So, like any self respecting geek, I killed update at the machine level. Now your thinking...insecure? No bug fixes? C'mon, its windows for gods sake! RAID couldnt kill THAT bug.

DRM (5, Funny)

Root Down (208740) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055849)

It's not a bug, it's digital rights management preventing illegal file sharing!

Best Security Patch Ever (0, Funny)

bmongar (230600) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055850)

Don't you see this is Microsoft making good on their promise for better security. Your computer cannot connect to the network then it is much more secure.

Automatic Updates (5, Informative)

bjb (3050) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055852)

I think the biggest problem is how the Windows Automatic Update feature is turned on by default on everyone's machines.

For most people, it is the only way they're ever going to install updates on their computer. However, I've found production Windows 2000 servers with this feature enabled! This is at least the 2nd or 3rd time that I've read a story on /. about a Windows XP/2000 patch that was no good.

If you want to disable automatic updates on your computer, go to Control Panel->System->Automatic Updates tab and click the buttons to turn it off. You'll be better off picking what you want to update manually.

news? (0)

kipsate (314423) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055867)

This item is another example of the pointless anti-MS sentiments of Slashdot. The item is not that newsworthy, and certainly not for the OSS minded community that frequents Slashdot.

Instead of feeling satisfied about how superior OSS is comparing to MS and how it doesn't suffer from these problems (which is not true, BTW), wake up, smell the coffee and get coding, because OSS has a lot of catching up to!

Obligatory Matrix reference (4, Funny)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055870)

What good is a Knowledge Base article, Mr Anderson? If you're unable to surf?

Re:Obligatory Matrix reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055911)

That would be ONE question, Sparky.

M$ makes better crappier OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055879)

Windoze updates fixes your pc to be more
buggy and full of security holes. Who says that M$ is not innovative they just make crappier OS day after day.

What's the big deal? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055880)

The update finally make windows computers secure from remote attacks. What's wrong with that?

That`s a security option (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055883)

MS is trying to teach users about the real hardcore security.
Next critical security update will shutdown you machine for good.
Hey, everyone knows that only machines turned off are secure from crackers and viruses.

Broken ??? (0)

Simon Lyngshede (623138) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055886)

It's not broken, it's efficient. - MS marketing Department.

Isn't this really Symantec's problem? (1)

vasqzr (619165) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055891)


Is Symantec security software the only thing affected?

"Broken" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6055893)

It was only "broken" in the sense that if you had third-party firewall software it would double-block you and basically block all the ports.

I don't see how this is Microsoft's fault, as it's whoever wrote the third party crap. If I installed Debian on my machine should I bitch at Microsoft if it doesn't boot windows anymore?

I'm impressed enough that MS will pull the update to resolve the issue (ie - fix third party's shit FOR them) rather than just go on about "RTFM n00b!!!" like another OS I know.

So this "update" killed the Internet . . . (-1, Flamebait)

privacyt (632473) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055896)

for people who are least likely able to fix it themselves. What a mighty POS is Micro$oft Windoze XP.

Clarification (-1, Troll)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055898)

Microsoft officials said Tuesday the update -- which had been available as an option since Friday on its "Windows Update" Web site -- apparently was incompatible with popular security software from other companies, such as Symantec Corp.

Seems to me that Symantec et al should be the ones that have to fix their software. Nice to see Microsoft will pull it until this gets worked out. Maybe things are getting better...?

Infection Vector (0)

FutureShoks (571976) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055921)

It's just occured to me what a wonderful Virus infection vector Windows Update would make. All-out access to install stuff on the most prevailent OS in the world today. Now, where did I put that copy of VCL..?

www.fuckmicrosoft.com is what I use for M$ support (0)

aroundsomewhere (244353) | more than 11 years ago | (#6055935)

www.fuckmicrosoft.com is what I use for M$ support
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?