Posted on 09/07/2004 4:47:44 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Reg Review We evaluated the security features of Windows XP SP2 on a test machine, following a clean install of XP Pro with no configuration changes and no third-party software or drivers installed. We installed XP with the NTFS file system, choosing all of the factory defaults, then patched it with each recommended security update including SP-1 (required), before installing SP2.
While we found that there are indeed a few minor improvements worthy of acknowledgment, in particular, some rather low-level improvements that don't show to the admin or user, overall, SP2 did little to improve our system's practical security, leaving too many services and networking components enabled, bungling permissions, leaving IE and OE vulnerable to malicious scripts, and installing a packet filter that lacks a capacity for egress filtering.
The new Security Center utility with its frequent Security Alert popups will certainly give users the impression that SP2 is a security-oriented package, as Microsoft's PR boilerplate promises. However, The Security Center does little beyond warning users that the firewall is disabled, that automatic updating is disabled, or that antivirus software has not been installed. It may look impressive, but the SP2 package fails to provide several of the most important, basic modifications required to run Windows safely on an Internet-connected machine.
(Excerpt) Read more at theregister.co.uk ...
A tech friend of mine said 15% of Microsoft XP users having problem with SP/2...That's a heck of a lot of folks...
Wasn't aware of that part of the problem.
They aren't even mentioning that , here.
One could make the case that security actually costs more in lost productivity than it saves from potential hackers. I work with secure systems, and have ported OpenSSL multiple times to multiple platforms so I can say this.
Just ordered a CD for my new computer
I was waiting for it before I go online
Guess it doesn't make sense to wait now
Hmmm... how many posts before someone utters the "L" word? (and, just to note, the L-word isn't a bad word in my book...just wondering).
I am in the It field, DO NOT INSTALL. They will once again come out with a fix for this fix. It is a demon, does not play well with active directory or any vpn clients.
I in#t^*8ed I! La^s&*t we*k and don@'t se%%e*m t0 ha$e an% Pro%*&bl#3Ms at at at at at A!_+ll.
As a longtime Windows network admin, I have come to learn the hard way to hold off on installing Microsoft patches. (actually most software vendor patches).
Its a sad state of affairs when a company puts so much hype behind something that really does so little!
I don't know what the true facts are, I was thinking about doing a big update, but was hesistant knowing the history of these major updates.... when I saw this.....
Same ole deal.....
Is that a babelfish translation??? ......ROFL!
Would that 'L' word be Linux..?
Looks to me like it's just Microsoft getting into the firewall and anti-virus markets.
Bump for Morning meeting discussion item.
Cheers,
knews hound
!2ps retfa enif tsuj si retupmoc yM . oN
Will not be installing this!!
These problems are legendary already. Where there is blinding choking smoke, there must be a ....FIIIIRE!
I look at MS as a car dealership service department. Take your vehicle in and it comes out busted up worse than when you dropped it off.
Do a fresh install of XP then install SP2. You will not have any problems. It is not necessary to install SP1.
Best feature is the popup blocker in IE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.