Yesterday Schmehl, Paul L wrote: > > > Because the local techs have no clue, it will > > > take the affected companies ages to get back on the net. > > > > Which is perfect actually as it points out all the > > stupid admins who get paid a lot of cash but really > > sit around all day with their finger up their noses. > > I just curious how you geniuses would solve this problem. You have a > multi-six figure scientific instrument, which is only manufactured by > one vendor in the entire world. Your research department depends upon > that instrument to do research for which they are being funded > handsomely by grants and expected to produce results. > > There's only one problem. The instrument requires that you run Windows > 2000 Server with IIS, and the vendor requires that you not apply *any* > patches post SP2. The government certifies the equipment at a certain > patch level, and if the equipment is patched then the certification no > longer applies, the research is no longer funded and you are now staring > a six figure boat anchor. > > Given that scenario, please apply your scintillating logic to the > problem of patching this machine to protect it against threats that were > discovered *after* SP2.
In the paragraph before you say, that there are not to be applied *any* patches ... so how comes now you want to patch it ? * If no patches are to be applied then all is well, you don't care about windowsupdate working or not. * If patches are to be applied, I assume the vendor would certify the one which makes patching possible as well. cheers tobi -- ______ __ _ /_ __/_ / / (_) Oetiker @ ISG.EE, ETZ J97, ETH, CH-8092 Zurich / // _ \/ _ \/ / System Manager, Time Lord, Coder, Designer, Coach /_/ \.__/_.__/_/ http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~oetiker +41(0)1-632-5286 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
