On Wed, 2002-01-02 at 09:16, Devdas Bhagat wrote: > On 29/12/01 22:04 -0700, Ryan Russell wrote: > <snip> > > normal people to keep up on patches is. I'm starting to think more and > > more that a 3-month expiration date on Windows is a good idea. If you > > haven't patched in 3 months, then your machine will refuse to do anything > > but download patches... > I second that idea. I don't think it will be implemented however, unless > the installer allows for that. Then again, I don't like my machines > updating themselves without my permission. (Yeah, I'm the geek that > knows what I'm doing and keeps stuff patched on my servers. Thankfully > I'm not the LAN admin, but I usually get to fix infected machines before > the LAN admins can get to figure out that they are infected by a worm > that yesterdays antivirus patch won't fix). Another issue to consider is those people who are on dialup accounts. If there's a number of patches that are going to take hours to download and I need to get work done right now, that "feature" becomes a big problem. This creates user antipathy for security which is the last thing you want. ---Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided by the SecurityFocus ARIS analyzer service. For more information on this free incident handling, management and tracking system please see: http://aris.securityfocus.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 09:48:28 PST