[Janak Parekh]

http://news.com.com/2100-1002-5074415.html?tag=nl

Another very serious vulnerability in Windows NT/2k/XP/2k3 RPC services was announced yesterday, and it could enable another Blaster to hit the Internet if people don't patch their boxes soon. Translated: we will see another worm, because there are just enough people out there that don't know how to patch or won't be able to roll it out to all of their systems in time. :?

What I'm truly worried about is a "cross-vector" worm -- one that spreads BOTH via vulnerabilities and email. This way, it can get past the firewall to the internal network as long as someone executes it. I expect it to exist one day, and that will truly will shake up people's consciousness about security. I hope. Anyway, make sure you hit Windows Update, use a virus scanner, and have a firewall and you should be all set.

[Janak Parekh]

http://news.com.com/2100-1002-5074415.html?tag=nl

Another very serious vulnerability in Windows NT/2k/XP/2k3 RPC services was announced yesterday, and it could enable another Blaster to hit the Internet if people don't patch their boxes soon. Translated: we will see another worm, because there are just enough people out there that don't know how to patch or won't be able to roll it out to all of their systems in time. :?

What I'm truly worried about is a "cross-vector" worm -- one that spreads BOTH via vulnerabilities and email. This way, it can get past the firewall to the internal network as long as someone executes it. I expect it to exist one day, and that will truly will shake up people's consciousness about security. I hope. Anyway, make sure you hit Windows Update, use a virus scanner, and have a firewall and you should be all set.

[easylife]

Originally Posted by Janak Parekh

What I'm truly worried about is a "cross-vector" worm

What about cross-platform viruses? :lol: Oh yes, I believe everything I read on BBSpot. :wink:

[Ed Hansberry]

Originally Posted by Janak Parekh

boxes soon and/or use firewalls.

then

What I'm truly worried about is a "cross-vector" worm -- one that spreads BOTH via vulnerabilities and email.

This is why anyone that thinks a firewall is protection is just fooling themselves. Patch your @$*(&@ system!!!

I can think of a dozen ways to get an infected machine/worm behind a VPN in a company with 5,000 employees. The firewall doesn't do diddly. Patch, patch and then patch. I personally just wish people would quit saying a firewall is valid. It is as asinine, IMHO, as walking into a community infected with small pox while wearing a protective suit. Chances are, the longer you stay in the community, the higher your chances are of getting infected. Get the vaccine. Patch.

[Janak Parekh]

Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry

This is why anyone that thinks a firewall is protection is just fooling themselves. Patch your @$*(&@ system!!!

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I meant to say that because people won't patch AND because they won't use firewalls, they'll get hacked. Firewalls are an extra line of defense, but not a complete defense themselves. Post edited.

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

Originally Posted by Janak Parekh

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I meant to say that because people won't patch AND because they won't use firewalls, they'll get hacked. Firewalls are an extra line of defense, but not a complete defense themselves. Post edited.

--janak

Thanks. Just don't let it happen again. :wink: :rotfl:

[Sslixtis]

Ahh, the Love! pclove:

Feels almost like home! :rotfl:

[qmrq]

Originally Posted by Ed Hansberry

The firewall doesn't do diddly.

Exagerating a bit, eh?

I suggest everyone install BeOS, or buy macs. 8)

[brianchris]

I am NOT arguing that people should not patch their systems, as they absolutely should, but immediately and blindy patching has its own issues, right? We are all aware of MS patches that have been pulled becuase they caused issues equal to or greater than those problems they were created to fix. As far as a client is concerned, it really isn't too important to them whether their server is down due to a virus or a patch.....their server is down. This is similar to the seatbelt argument in which there are a number of "what-if" scenarios where a seatbelt would do more harm than good, however those are few and far between. Chances are, you're safer with the seatbelt than without, and you're safer with the patch than without.

My only point is, just as firewall's aren't perfect, neither is patching.....its a jungle out there

-Brian

[icatar]

I read an interesting bit that said that one of the problems is that Microsoft announces the vulnerability which then allows all the hackers to go ahead and exploit it, knowing full well that not everyone is going to have it patched.

As I sit here and plan a patch deployment to 2500 systems (again!), I wonder whether it would be better if Microsoft would just not announce the vulnerability and we can live blissfully in ignorance!

[Jeff Rutledge]

Originally Posted by icatar

I read an interesting bit that said that one of the problems is that Microsoft announces the vulnerability which then allows all the hackers to go ahead and exploit it, knowing full well that not everyone is going to have it patched.

As I sit here and plan a patch deployment to 2500 systems (again!), I wonder whether it would be better if Microsoft would just not announce the vulnerability and we can live blissfully in ignorance!

I somewhat agree with you there. I think the problem with that though is that it's usually Security firms that discover the vulnerability so that information is already "out there" so MS has to announce it.