The good thing about SUS is that you can set it up to not push out the packages until you approve them. The SUS box downloads all the critical updates and then they sit in queue until you tell them it's ok to push them out. I think that's the best way to handle the situation. Sure it creates a little admin work, but I think the advantage is clear.
-----Original Message----- From: gregh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Automating patch deployment > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Johnson, Mark > To: George Peek ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 7:12 AM > Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Automating patch deployment > Look at Microsoft Article 328010 for information on setting up Windows > 2000, XP and 2003 to automatically update Microsoft's patches. I know > this isn't the full solution, but maybe a start. Just my 2 cents again - I distinctly remember March 28 2002 XP and 2000 update stuffing many systems around the world. I also remember the 811493 patch slowdown and eventual reissue by MS. Automation of update patches? Not on your Nellie! I would have a machine download patches and try installs on it before I felt comfortable about passing them on to others. *LOOK MA! NO HTML!* _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html ************************************************************ Omaha World-Herald Company computer systems are for business use only. This e-mail was scanned by MailSweeper ************************************************************ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
