Re: Bringing new NT4 installation up to snuff
From: John Brock (jbrock@panix.com)
Date: 01/30/03
- Next message: Curtis Anderson: "Re: Bringing new NT4 installation up to snuff"
- Previous message: Mark H. Wood: "Re: Bypass administrator rights"
- In reply to: Curtis Anderson: "Re: Bringing new NT4 installation up to snuff"
- Next in thread: Curtis Anderson: "Re: Bringing new NT4 installation up to snuff"
- Reply: Curtis Anderson: "Re: Bringing new NT4 installation up to snuff"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: jbrock@panix.com (John Brock) Date: 30 Jan 2003 11:42:34 -0500
In article <OW0BPiAyCHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP12>,
Curtis Anderson <nedfla@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Brock <jbrock@panix.com> uttered:
>> Are there one or two files which
>> will bring each up to date, or am I going to have to spend time
>> searching out a zillion unrelated fixes?
>You're going to have to search out a zillion unrelated fixes. There is hope
>though, in the form of http://hfnetchk.shavlik.com , which will tell you
>what they are. Hint: Use the -vv option to make it tell you the URLs as
>well.
Thank you for a very helpful post. There are several products on
the page you pointed me to (which, BTW, is mostly unreadable from
the version of Netscape I am using on Solaris), and I am a bit
unclear about them. It sounds though that HFNetChk is a *Microsoft*
command line utility that you can download from this company's
site, while HFNetChkLT is an expanded version with a GUI and
automatic application of patches (rather than just letting you know
what is missing). Is that right? Is HFNetChk also available from
Microsoft's site? And can you tell me how this functionality differs
from what seems to be available from the Windows Update page at
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com? Is there any reason to avoid
Windows Update?
>> Applying SP6A installed Internet Explorer 5.00.
>No it didn't. IE was updated by someone, on purpose. Applying SP6a to a
>fresh NT install results in IE v2.0, which is what ships on the CDROM. I
>should know, I just rebuilt the machine beside me this morning ;-)
I checked my SP6A CD, which I bought direct from MS, and IE 5.00
is definitely on it. It's a separate install though -- I applied
it after applying SP6A. Now I'm wondering if I should try to
uninstall it before installing something higher.
>> All of the security
>> updates I see are for IE 5.01 or higher, so I am assuming that I
>> have to download a complete new copy of IE, rather than just patching
>> IE 5.00. Right?
>Right. If you have a copy of the IE5SETUP.EXE from IE 5.5. SP2 you can
>still use the web install to update it, or bite the bullet and go with IE 6
>SP1. FWIW for minor web browsing, patch downloads, etc. I really haven't
>noticed a major performance diff on my aging 486/66/32MB. I do try not to
>launch Ie on it unless I really need to though ;-)
OK, you are recommending IE 6 over IE 5.5, and telling me that both
are usable on a machine even slower than mine. Good! BTW I'm
encouraged by your attitude problems with WMP, since I don't really
trust Microsoft, and I wanted to hear from someone with a critical
attitude.
>> This particular file, q324929.exe, appears in several different
>> places in the search, and it appears that it is a cumulative update
>> for *all* versions of IE. Is this correct? Is this a property of
>> all cumulative IE patches?
>No, read the MS Q-article carefully. When you go to download it you will be
>asked which IE you are updating.
Yep, I noticed later that different downloads named q324929.exe
seemed to have different file sizes. This seems strange though;
I thought the general industry practice was that every driver or
update file should have a unique name.
>> Is there anything else I should be downloading? For example, while
>> this is emphatically not a multi-media machine maybe I should get
>> the latest version of Windows Media Player anyway. (The latest
>> version for NT4 seems to be 6.4, and it says a Pentium 166 is
>> required. That won't stop the install will it?).
>WMP 6.4 installs and runs just fine on a 486/66 with 32 MB. Playback of
>true-colour video files *sucks*, but it does work. If you take my
>suggestion of the HFNetChk download, you'll also find out that there's a
>security patch for it. I have an attitude problem with WMP versions higher
>than 6.4 so can't tell you if they would install/work or not.
Sounds good enough. I've got the space, so I'll install it.
Since you were so helpful with these questions I wonder if you
wouldn't mind another. I still haven't connected this computer to
the Internet under NT, because I am afraid the moment I do some
autohack script will break into it. I have looked for NT security
measures on the Web, and what I have found seems to be much more
complicated than those recommended for 95/98 (long lists of services
to be turned off, renaming admin accounts, dealing with things like
disk shares, and so on). Can you give me any simple NT security
recommendations, or point me to a Web page with such recommendations?
Or is it really that complicated, and I'm just going to have to
bite the bullet? What security measures have you taken on your
own machine?
I did download the free version of ZoneAlarm, but I haven't installed
it yet, and it's not clear to me whether this is something I should
do in addition to other security measures or if ZoneAlarm will take
care those other measures once I install it. Do you know anything
about this? Thanks again for your help!
-- John Brock jbrock@panix.com
- Next message: Curtis Anderson: "Re: Bringing new NT4 installation up to snuff"
- Previous message: Mark H. Wood: "Re: Bypass administrator rights"
- In reply to: Curtis Anderson: "Re: Bringing new NT4 installation up to snuff"
- Next in thread: Curtis Anderson: "Re: Bringing new NT4 installation up to snuff"
- Reply: Curtis Anderson: "Re: Bringing new NT4 installation up to snuff"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
