Binding did the trick for me. I was in at work today with nobody else
around, so I did the bind with the MSFT initiator, rebooted, and all
my shares came back at reboot - didn't have to restart the server
service.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Andy Ognenoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have the
Lucky me Sunbelt is just down the road and some of the other campuses are
using their products. THEY are even closer than I am so Sunbelt is an easy
sell to management when we have the money. At the moment the quote for
Vipre they offerred and that Eset STILL will not quote for NOD32 is making
On 25 Oct 2008 at 21:45, Jon Harris wrote:
That ain't a warm place. You live in a warm place.
Now I do ... at least I can golf year-round.
Anyone else here golf? We ought to have a Sunbelt-sponsored annual golf
tourney somewhere nice.
--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
On 25 Oct 2008 at 20:24, Clubber Lang wrote:
I've installed this patch on about 100 XP workstatioins now, and the
final step of each installation shows the 'Do not restart now' checkbox,
which I leave unchecked.
Except one machine. It didn't prompt for a reboot, and it didn't reboot
This afternoon I got an email, too, probably because of my Technet subscription.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Steve Ens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got a personal email from Microsoft, but not a voice mail.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Kurt Buff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taking this in
Pretty much any dell poweredge will work, I have it running on 1750, 2500,
2900 series, all different configs, most importantly is the dell perc
controller is supported so that gets you through a lot. Obviously load it up
and if it works you will be all set.
From: Joe Fox [mailto:[EMAIL
Got 2 emails, and 3 voicemails, and 2 other calls from my reps.
I had some choice words for them and theree superiors about the timing
of the patch. If they knew on Patch Tuesday about this flaw then they
should have released the patch then, not 1.5 weeks laters.
Z
Edward E. Ziots
Yeah someone lit a fire under MSFT arse and they got with the program on
this one, but only after they detected systems getting exploited in the
wild. Why they didn't determine this flaw back when they patched 06-040
for the same type of issue we probably will never know...
Z
Edward E. Ziots
LOL I didn't leave early, but yes you are right TVK, and I figured the
dinner I bought at Charleys would have gone a long way, but I digress.
Joking HAPPY Patch SUNDAY!
Z
Edward E. Ziots
Network Engineer
Lifespan Organization
MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA
Phone: 401-639-3505
I'm not sure I would agree with that. Developing a fix isn't a 15 minute
job. The chances are they were already hard at work on it. There is a ton of
compatibility and regression testing that goes into a fax.
They probably got their hand forced because it was out in the wild, but I
wouldn't go so
Fax = fix
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 7:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Out of Cycle Critical Windows Patch ?
I'm not sure I would agree with that. Developing a fix isn't a 15 minute
job. The chances
One issue that I have seen is that Vmware for Windows will support multiple
CPU's but ESXi will only use the first CPU, ignoring the others in the box.
From: Devin Meade [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 5:45 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: VMware Server 2.0
Warm weather and Golf just go together!
-Original Message-
From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Wattage Calculation
On 25 Oct 2008 at 21:45, Jon Harris wrote:
That ain't a warm place. You
Not surprising at all. PXE reports the contents of the UUID array, while
Win32_ComputerSystemProduct contains the Windows GUID.
Here is how it maps:
#
# guidstr
#
# takes a 16-byte array and turns it into the standard
# text guid format.
#
# try as i might, i couldn't get system.guid
Great Post Ken,
Thanks
From: Ken Schaefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Checking what services are firing up and when.
If you have IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL please see my blog:
What is an
A hole that covers everyone of their OS's???
They need to hire more hackers. I think that 50 billion in cash would cover a
few of them.
From: Ziots, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 5:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE:
According to the SDL blog, this is why this particular issue is not easy to
discover, especially using automated analysis:
http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/10/22/ms08-067.aspx
Cheers
Ken
-Original Message-
From: Ziots, Edward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 27 October
Microsoft does have this...
They also have a bunch of internal staff (ACE) that train developers, work on
automated tools that analyse code, random code reviews, and creating
prescriptive guidance on how to write better code.
I know one of the guys (Rocky Heckman) on the ACE team out of CBR.
Hmm - I check MS06-040 again, and I don't think they are the same type of
issue.
The current bug is in the NetCanonicalize API - not in the Server service. It's
just that the server service is a route to get to that bug - because it calls
that API. But it's entirely possible for /other/
I definitely haven't seen that, I have dual quad core boxes and I show 0-7
instances in the cpu and can assign manually any set of those cpu's or allow
the system to allocate accordingly.
From: James Forbis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 13:31
To: NT System Admin
+1, I've got a box with dual E5420 quad cores and all 8 cores show up in
the VI console.
Benjamin Zachary - Lists wrote:
I definitely haven’t seen that, I have dual quad core boxes and I show
0-7 instances in the cpu and can assign manually any set of those cpu’s
or allow the system to
Yean pretty aware that netapi32.dll is called by a lot of items, which
sends the attack vector up quite a bit, but the server service was the
route into both if memory serves me right, so question is why did
another unauthenticated RPC error attack with that service as the route
happen again when
Um, not sure what you are saying here...
Are you saying that because there are unauthenticated ways of calling the
Server service, then Microsoft needs to review all the pieces of code that the
server service calls, even if they aren't part of the server service itself?
(FWIW Windows Server
Ken,
Basically it's a juicy door for exploits, unauthenticated remote code
execution, non-authenticated access is just that, unauthenticated, no
trust, no authenticated before authorization and legitimate access. It
basically a violate of AAA security principles. Honestly, I personally
loathe
Nothing you are saying is in dispute here. But I still don't see any argument
as to why this is the same type of vulnerability in 06-040 that you
previously stated, or why it should have been fixed as such.
That you need to spend time patching things isn't different to anyone else
here.
25 matches
Mail list logo
