mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:41 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: clarification on sp level and patching
Thanks for the info on the Vista (which we aren't using) and Win2008
accordingly. Still use qchain for 2k3 and below and works just fine, also my
Shavlik uses i
k Engineer
Lifespan Organization
MCSE,MCSA,MCP+I, ME, CCA, Security +, Network +
ezi...@lifespan.org
Phone:401-639-3505
-Original Message-
From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: clarification on sp level an
h long ago when qchain
functionality was embedded in the update installer.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: clarification on sp level and patching
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at
Everything old is new again. I never really bought it that MS had
sufficiently cleaned up its act regarding updates and rebooting. At least
now they're admitting it.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Jeff Bunting
> wrote:
> >> Just remember i
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Jeff Bunting wrote:
>> Just remember if you apply a service pack to a server, without re-applying
>> the post SP updates the fixes you put in place, will be undone when the
>> service pack is applied,
>
> Is this still true? I thought the $hf_mig$ directory was now
---
>
> *From:* Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 10, 2009 11:09 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: clarification on sp level and patching
>
>
>
> normally a service pack contains all the hotfixes and security
lifespan.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: clarification on sp level and patching
Just remember if you apply a service pack to a server, without re-applying
the post SP updates the fixes you put in place, will be undone when the
service pack is
]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 11:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: clarification on sp level and patching
normally a service pack contains all the hotfixes and security patches
since the last service pack release. The service pack is considered
cumulative for all precedents up to
t 10, 2009 11:31 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: clarification on sp level and patching
I think it's valid to say that it's a fully patched SP1 system.
Without the SP qualifier, the statement might be somewhat ambiguous.
If someone asks, "Does this have all the latest
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Christopher Bodnar
wrote:
> My reasoning is that it’s missing all the critical patches
> that are included in the latest SP ( SP2 in this case) and
> all the post SP updates.
Your understanding is wrong.
Microsoft releases critical updates to fix problems li
On 10 Aug 2009 at 10:51, Christopher Bodnar wrote:
> If a machine is not at the latest SP level, say for example a server is
> at W2K3 SP1, but it has all the critical updates for SP1 applied, is that
> machine considered "patched" for critical updates? It has always been my
> impression that
I think it's valid to say that it's a fully patched *SP1 *system. Without
the SP qualifier, the statement might be somewhat ambiguous.
If someone asks, "*Does this have all the latest patches*", then "No" is a
valid answer, if there is a subsequent service pack that can be installed.
-ASB
htt
normally a service pack contains all the hotfixes and security patches since
the last service pack release. The service pack is considered cumulative
for all precedents up to published release date ( RTM date ) ...
Erik Goldoff
IT Consultant
Systems, Networks, & Security
_
Fro
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: clarification on sp level and patching
It is fully patched, but it isn't as protected as it could/should be. I
think he is sticking to the strict meaning of 'fully patched' and he is
correct. I think you are saying is it 'fully protect
It is fully patched, but it isn't as protected as it could/should be. I think
he is sticking to the strict meaning of 'fully patched' and he is correct. I
think you are saying is it 'fully protected' and it isn't and are also correct.
From: Christopher Bodnar [mailto:christopher_bod...@glic.co
Your colleague is correct.
Carl
From: Christopher Bodnar [mailto:christopher_bod...@glic.com]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 10:51 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: clarification on sp level and patching
Got a question,
If a machine is not at the latest SP level, say for examp
16 matches
Mail list logo
