The same as it ever was. Test. -- ME2
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, justino garcia <[email protected]>wrote: > McAfee has changed its official response [warning: interstitial] on how > many enterprise customers were affected by a bug thatcaused havoc on > computers globally. It originally stated the bug affected 'less than half of > 1 per cent' of enterprise customers. NowMcAfee's blog states it was a 'small > percentage' of enterprise customers > > zd Net notes a supermarket giant in Australia that had to close down its > stores as they were affected by the bug, causing a loss of thousands of > dollars > > http://siblog.mcafee.com/support/mcafee-response-on-current-false-positive-issue/ > <http://siblog.mcafee.com/support/mcafee-response-on-current-false-positive-issue/> > http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=8656 > > <http://isc.sans.org/diary.html?storyid=8656>McAfee's "DAT" file version > 5958 is causing widespread problems with Windows XP SP3. The affected > systems will enter a reboot loop and loose all network access. We have > individual reports of other versions of Windows being affected as well. > However, only particular configurations of these versions appear affected. > The bad DAT file may infect individual workstations as well as workstations > connected to a domain. The use of "ePolicyOrchestrator", which is used to > update virus definitions across a network, appears to have lead to a faster > spread of the bad DAT file. The ePolicyOrchestrator is used to update "DAT" > files throughout enterprises. It can not be used to undo this bad signature > because affected system will lose network connectivity. > > What the lesson to be learned? > -- > Justin > IT-TECH > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
