serverph 0 Report post Posted January 15, 2006 Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/HP-TouchPad-Needs-68-Weeks-for-Additional-Shipments-142584 Microsoft Corp. has shipped the first critical security update for Windows Vista, the next version of its flagship operating system. Over the weekend, the company released patches for beta testers running the Windows Vista December CTP (Community Technology Preview) and Windows Vista Beta 1, and warned that the new operating system was vulnerable to a remote code execution flaw in the Graphics Rendering Engine. A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month. Microsoft's out-of-cycle security update for the WMF vulnerability makes no mention of Windows Vista being vulnerable, but with the release of this weekend's patches it is clear that the poorly designed "SetAbortProc," the function that allows printing jobs to be cancelled, was ported over to Vista. related article on why security patch is released:http://forums.xisto.com/topic/31835-serious-wmf-windows-exploit-no-one-is-safe-right-now/= VISTA beta-testers, that's what BETAs are for anyway. to iron out kinks, with you as guinea pigs. (on second thought, even official OS release versions out of beta are likewise open to such kinks in security, so we are all guinea pigs all the same. ) microsoft ought to build their next OS release from scratch instead. cleaner. leaner. and more stable. how i wish! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TejWC 0 Report post Posted January 16, 2006 Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/HP-TouchPad-Needs-68-Weeks-for-Additional-Shipments-142584 related article on why security patch is released: http://forums.xisto.com/topic/31835-serious-wmf-windows-exploit-no-one-is-safe-right-now/= VISTA beta-testers, that's what BETAs are for anyway. to iron out kinks, with you as guinea pigs. (on second thought, even official OS release versions out of beta are likewise open to such kinks in security, so we are all guinea pigs all the same. ) microsoft ought to build their next OS release from scratch instead. cleaner. leaner. and more stable. how i wish! 221381[/snapback] The problem with most Microsoft OSs has little to do with making their design "cleaner, leaner, more stable". Vista is actually a very stable OS (from what I have seen from coworkers using it). However, the problem that Vista has (as this case shows) is their legacy support. WMF came out a long time ago and Microsoft still has to support it. They made a mistake in the parser many years ago and now they have to pay for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
serverph 0 Report post Posted January 16, 2006 see, that's what i meant. stable as vista may be, it is still built over an older version (in which case, i guess it would be server 2003), with a lot of security quirks and excess baggage in it. a fresh OS should be their future. with an army of coders bill gates has today, that would be a breeze (but then again, too many cooks spoil the broth, so they say. ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
moldboy 0 Report post Posted January 16, 2006 Yep it's all about backwards support, if microsoft dropped it (they'd make a whole mess of people mad) but the OS would be a lot more secure, I always say the reason OS's in general are unsecure is because they were all written in a time of no networks, or atlease networks where you knew everyone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adriantc 0 Report post Posted January 16, 2006 I have a feeling (to be read: I sure that) this first security patch is going to be only the beginning of a very very very long patches... We all know how Microsoft works... For you to understand what I mean remember the moments after you install a fresh copy of Windows XP and you start downloading 50mb of security patches. If this is the case (and I'm pretty sure it is) Vista is going to be another typical software (OS) from Microsoft.The future doesn't look too pink.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unregistered 015 0 Report post Posted January 16, 2006 You should all be aware of that already. I myself install a new OS only AFTER at least Service Pack 1 is released. I consider the first version to be, hmm... beta. Or even alpha. :(be carefull and wait some time if you want to keep your nerves... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
michaelper22 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2006 First patch already! They haven't even publicly released it yet (Betas don't really count as public) and they found a hole. I suppose that the first week I will be using Vista (if I ever get it) I will be faced with downloading a whole bunch of patches, maybe even a Service Pack (whoa! Might just happen!). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gameratheart 0 Report post Posted March 1, 2006 (edited) Looks like I got some agreeing to do... see, that's what i meant. stable as vista may be, it is still built over an older version (in which case, i guess it would be server 2003), with a lot of security quirks and excess baggage in it. a fresh OS should be their future. with an army of coders bill gates has today, that would be a breeze (but then again, too many cooks spoil the broth, so they say. )Too true. And I agree. Windows is so badly flawed they might as well scratch it and start again.Hands up if you want to do an appeal or poll! I have a feeling (to be read: I sure that) this first security patch is going to be only the beginning of a very very very long patches... We all know how Microsoft works... For you to understand what I mean remember the moments after you install a fresh copy of Windows XP and you start downloading 50mb of security patches. If this is the case (and I'm pretty sure it is) Vista is going to be another typical software (OS) from Microsoft.The future doesn't look too pink.... You're right, Adrian. It's always that way with Microsoft. I have had a Windows XP computer for just about a year now and already it has over 30 hotfixes and a total of 40mb of patches. And what's worse, Microsoft Update ain't working neither, so I have to go to support sites to get the real important stuff, and that takes ages! In addition, Windows 98 (which is not supported by MS anymore) has had in total 300 patches for it. It just goes to show that if it's been that way with one OS, it's always gonna be that way. You should all be aware of that already. I myself install a new OS only AFTER at least Service Pack 1 is released. I consider the first version to be, hmm... beta. Or even alpha. be carefull and wait some time if you want to keep your nerves...Word up to Ciroxyz! This is why you wait for betas to become official alphas! Lemme tell you, the only people who test betas are the people who know their computers and have too much time on their hands, and/or no sense of understanding that everything is bound to go wrong . Edited March 1, 2006 by NDPA (see edit history) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kioku 0 Report post Posted March 20, 2006 Seriously. It's Microsoft, so go figure. I wouldn't expect them to iron out ALL of the kinks, less than I'd expect them to create a brand new operation system entirely from scratch. After all, it's Microsoft. Over the weekend, the company released patches for beta testers running the Windows Vista December CTP (Community Technology Preview) and Windows Vista Beta 1, and warned that the new operating system was vulnerable to a remote code execution flaw in the Graphics Rendering Engine.All I have to say about that is "LOL". It might just be that fact I'm not a Microsoft fan-boy. :| I'm glad the BETA testers caught that, at least. Else wise, there would be some serious problems in the future of Vista's usage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadowx 0 Report post Posted April 26, 2006 Now thats just silly....They know the issues exist obviously so why dont they build the patches in?! its the next best thing to startin over again instead of giving it a new interface and heavier programs fill the holes! But yeh atleast it was the testers and not me! Its just bad though, how lnog has the BETA been out so far? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
