Infected XP owners left unpatched
in [Windows Viruses]
|
Prev: "xp smart security"
Next: Ping: David Kaye
From: ~BD~ on 16 Apr 2010 16:11 Some of the latest security updates for Windows XP will not be installed on machines infected with a rootkit virus. A rootkit is sneaky malware that buries itself deep inside the Windows operating system to avoid detection. Microsoft said it had taken the action because similar updates issued in February made machines infected with the Alureon rootkit crash endlessly. The latest updates can spot if a system is compromised by the Alureon rootkit and halt installation. said it had taken the action because similar updates issued in February made machines infected with the Alureon rootkit crash endlessly. The latest updates can spot if a system is compromised by the Alureon rootkit and halt installation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8624560.stm
From: MEB on 16 Apr 2010 16:36 On 04/16/2010 04:11 PM, ~BD~ wrote: > Some of the latest security updates for Windows XP will not be installed > on machines infected with a rootkit virus. > > A rootkit is sneaky malware that buries itself deep inside the Windows > operating system to avoid detection. > > Microsoft said it had taken the action because similar updates issued in > February made machines infected with the Alureon rootkit crash > endlessly. > > The latest updates can spot if a system is compromised by the Alureon > rootkit and halt installation. > > said it had taken the action because similar updates issued in February > made machines infected with the Alureon rootkit crash endlessly. > > The latest updates can spot if a system is compromised by the Alureon > rootkit and halt installation. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8624560.stm > > I'm curious to know: 1. Whether you believe it is more viable to leave an infected system un-patched with a notification of WHY the failure occurred; verses, 2. Patching an infected system giving a false sense of security AND leaving the system infected, AND the resultant security compromised within the infected computer - i.e., a non-existent security/fix? It would appear that unless one cleans the infection(s) FIRST, it is rather ignorant to install supposed security and other fixes/patches when they would be useless anyway [having already been compromised by the infection(s)]. We CAN'T expect an auto-cleanup/removal of the infections PRIOR to patching as that MAY destroy personal data or other untoward activities. So what EXACTLY would you suggest be done verses this purported activity of not patching infected systems? -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: "FromTheRafters" erratic on 16 Apr 2010 16:51 "~BD~" <BoaterDaveNoSpam(a)Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:hqag9f$ncb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Some of the latest security updates for Windows XP will not be > installed > on machines infected with a rootkit virus. Is that like a trojan rootkit virus? Non-replicating viruses? ....only in biology will you find such beasts. > A rootkit is sneaky malware that buries itself deep inside the Windows > operating system to avoid detection. My Avira "nag screen" says if I upgrade, I can be protected against "rotkits". (who says security programs can't be entertaining?) > Microsoft said it had taken the action because similar updates issued > in > February made machines infected with the Alureon rootkit crash > endlessly. It was kinda funny that people blamed MS for something they should have blamed themselves for. [...]
From: David H. Lipman on 16 Apr 2010 16:58 From: "~BD~" <BoaterDaveNoSpam(a)Hotmail.co.uk> | Some of the latest security updates for Windows XP will not be installed | on machines infected with a rootkit virus. Either it is a trojan or it is a virus. There is no "rootkit virus" like there is no Ford Chrysler. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: ~BD~ on 16 Apr 2010 17:02
MEB wrote: >> On 04/16/2010 04:11 PM, ~BD~ wrote: >> So what EXACTLY would you suggest be done verses this purported >> activity of not patching infected systems? I'd like to see infected systems disabled so that they can no longer connect to the Internet! A 'Warning' + advice on what to do to correct matters would be a welcome extra! -- Dave |