It is fully patched, but it isn't as protected as it could/should be. I think he is sticking to the strict meaning of 'fully patched' and he is correct. I think you are saying is it 'fully protected' and it isn't and are also correct.
From: Christopher Bodnar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:51 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: clarification on sp level and patching Got a question, If a machine is not at the latest SP level, say for example a server is at W2K3 SP1, but it has all the critical updates for SP1 applied, is that machine considered "patched" for critical updates? It has always been my impression that it is not. My reasoning is that it's missing all the critical patches that are included in the latest SP ( SP2 in this case) and all the post SP updates. My colleague disagrees and says that as long as it has the latest updates for its SP level it's fully patched. Can someone clarify this for me? Thank you, Chris Bodnar, MCSE Sr. Systems Engineer Distributed Systems Service Delivery - Intel Services Guardian Life Insurance Company of America Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Phone: 610-807-6459 Fax: 610-807-6003 ________________________________ This message, and any attachments to it, may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or communication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. Thank you. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
