>Subject: RE: Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe >From: Chris Scharff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:54:00 -0600 >>There are about 20 pages of material relating >> to this patch and since I run a dept. with over 50 systems > >Ok... So of the pages you did read.. Which were the compelling reasons which >caused you to apply the patch? What issue was it fixing for you which made >it a time critical installation? I don't install any patch from Microsoft
Simply put, eliminate the nonsense about auto-running of vb scripts and accident execution of like programs, yes including .exe and .com. But damnit, I still wanted a way to get those .exe and .com attachments from some workstations. I never stated that I regret installing this patch, rather, I'm annoyed that MS choose this as their solution to the vb* scripting stupidity. The smarter solution would have been to remove the dangerous capabilities of their scripting language. Is that so difficult for some to understand? >There are certainly other solutions and Microsoft provided workarounds.. >Analogies are so inaccurate when actual factual discussions would suffice. True, however, analogies are very effective when factual discussions are not understood. >Well, that's about 30% short of what was needed. Since this was an Outlook >patch, did you visit the FAQ's suggested resource for any Outlook questions? >If so, you would have found a ton of information on the subject. Again, I did understand the nature of this patch. 70% meant that I skimmed through the documentation but I understood what to expect. If you're referring to the FAQ advertised in this discussion list, I just recently read it; my compliments to the creator(s). Very well done! >This isn't a friendly discussion group, it's a professional discussion >group. The Outlook security patch has been discussed ad infinitum here. It's >hardly new and if you'd wanted to know its value, you could have checked the >archives. A group of 'professionals'? Well, I'm not entirely convinced by *some* of the responses I've received. I'm new here, so I've only recently found the archives. >The assumptions I see being made are that you didn't take the time to >thoroughly read up on the patch or research it, and that you deployed it on Incorrect. I've already explained this several times. Perhaps I wasn't clear about this in the beginning. In my original message, I did clearly demonstrate my knowledge of the registration work-around to the patch's intended limitations. I was simply inquiring about alternative corrections. > Your proactive stance being to deploy the latest version without testing? Erroneous assumption. > Gee, let me share my $0.99 test plan... >1. Acknowledge existence of new patch. >2. Monitor public forums as idiots deploy it without testing. >3. Laugh >4. Learn from their mistakes. >5. Read the advice of industry experts. >6. Decide if it's something I even need. >7. Deploy it on a test box... Or a VM if I can't afford a test box. >8. Understand what it does. >9. Explain what it does to mgmt. along with a recommendation to deploy or >not. >10. Consume frosty beverage. Yep, I agree. Although the mgmt part.... I am management! I really don't have anyone to confer with. It's rather lonely being the only IT 'expert' in this organization. Anyhow, you reminded me of a scenario I read about on Microsoft.public.windowsnt.apps that occurred a few years back with NT 4 SP4. I'll post this in my next msg. - title: Why one must test before deploying patches! Read it, it's a riot! Anyhow, Chris... it was a joy responding to you. Have a nice day, Shawn _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
