Re: MS Updates SP1 for Windows Server 2003
John Gray <[email protected]> Tue, 17 May 2005 12:32:08 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.ntbugtraq |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <51D80A0E0F65714F97A5225A0A24DC1807E217A5@winse-msg-01.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com> |
Hi Joe: Neither of these packages have changed or been updated. For Windows Server 2003 SP1, we are releasing additional languages as they become available. This is what you are seeing on SUS servers. The most recent update should have been 5/10. For KB811630, the detection was updated on 4/26 to prevent it from being offered to Windows Server 2003 SP1 machines. The file itself has not been changed. You can look at the log of SUS changes on http://support.microsoft.com/kb/894199 - this KB is updated whenever SUS updates, including detection, are published, so you can find out what has changed. Hope this link to the KB article is useful in the future for these types of updates. -jg -----Original Message----- From: Windows NTBugtraq Mailing List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Dance Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: MS Updates SP1 for Windows Server 2003 Microsoft today released, via Software Update Services, an updated version of SP1 for Window Server 2003, as well as an updated version of Q811630, which applies to W2k SP2 and SP3. Joe Dance University of South Carolina --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] -- NTBugtraq Editor's Note: Most viruses these days use spoofed email addresses. As such, using an Anti-Virus product which automatically notifies the perceived sender of a message it believes is infected may well cause more harm than good. Someone who did not actually send you a virus may receive the notification and scramble their support staff to find an infection which never existed in the first place. Suggest such notifications be disabled by whomever is responsible for your AV, or at least that the idea is considered. -- -- NTBugtraq Editor's Note: Most viruses these days use spoofed email addresses. As such, using an Anti-Virus product which automatically notifies the perceived sender of a message it believes is infected may well cause more harm than good. Someone who did not actually send you a virus may receive the notification and scramble their support staff to find an infection which never existed in the first place. Suggest such notifications be disabled by whomever is responsible for your AV, or at least that the idea is considered. --