Re: Patch Update Verification
From: Bill Sanderson (Bill_Sanderson_at_msn.com.plugh.org)
Date: 09/13/03
- Next message: YoKenny: "Re: Computer has been hacked"
- Previous message: Bill Sanderson: "Re: Need an answer to this please."
- In reply to: LocalAdmin: "Patch Update Verification"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:37:54 -0400
I disagree. I think best practice is to look a the file particulars for the
patch itself and ignore the registry.
To make this easy, why not use an automated tool? There are at least three
free scanners for the ms 03-026/ms 03-039 series of vulnerabilities, and
there's MBSA and Shavliks's HFNETCHK tools.
If you want to get a feel for the complexities of doing this right, read a
support newsgroup for one of Shavlik's tools--some patches--java engine
versions, for example, are extremely difficult to test for on a remote
basis.
"LocalAdmin" <shhhhplz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e9b01c3798c$fc85df00$a501280a@phx.gbl...
> As a best practice what is the most secure and dependable
> way to verify a patch has been successfully applied. I
> shared with my team that verifying via the registry is
> the best solution. They disagree. Any thoughts?
- Next message: YoKenny: "Re: Computer has been hacked"
- Previous message: Bill Sanderson: "Re: Need an answer to this please."
- In reply to: LocalAdmin: "Patch Update Verification"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|