back to article Windows 7 'security' patch knocks out PCs, knackers antivirus tools

Windows 7 users should uninstall a security patch Microsoft issued on Tuesday because some PCs failed to restart after applying the update. The software giant advised users of Win 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2* to roll-back a patch within MS13-036, a security update that closed two vulnerabilities in the Windows file system …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. LarsG
    Meh

    Ouch, ouch, ouch ouch.....

    1. Fatman Silver badge
      FAIL

      RE: Ouch, ouch, ouch ouch.....

      I know!!!

      I had a relative call me up after his WindblowZE 7 box crapped out after installing this botched update.

      He was so unhappy when I informed him that like the maid, I don't do Windows anymore, since I switched to Linux in 2008.

      He was so desperate!!!!

      Icon says it all!!!!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: RE: Ouch, ouch, ouch ouch.....

        Maybe someone could tell Steve Baller to stop working on his basketball-theme cookbook and fix MSoft!

        1. Tom 13
          Devil

          Re: stop working on his basketball-theme cookbook and fix

          No, leave him where he is. There's a better chance of things getting fixed if he's there instead of in the shop.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: RE: Ouch, ouch, ouch ouch.....

        @Fatman

        Auto downvote for using the term "WindblowZE" as I do for anyone using terms like "Micro$oft" or "crApple", even if I liked the rest of the post.

  2. Pete Spicer
    Pint

    So for people who use Win7 at home, who have automatic updates turned on but don't follow tech news outlets like El Reg, how are they going to know to roll this update back and/or apply a fix?

    Pint, because it's Friday and I've dealt with enough issues today.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Because their PCs will be tits-up?

      This is quite a rare issue that only hits certain combinations of corporate focused software - so unlikely to effect the vast majority of home users....

      1. Tom 13

        Re: Because their PCs

        If you had left it at just that first line, you would have been in line for lots of up votes.

    2. Helldesk Dogsbody
      Coat

      As the majority of home and/or small business users don't permit updates to run automatically and apply patches to Windows at gunpoint or other threat of iminent death or pain I reckon they're probably safe.

      1. Stevie Silver badge

        Er...

        Do you have actual figures to back up that statement? It would fly in the face of the Windows 7 nagware which suggests you turn on automatic updates. Indeed, if you got you machine from Dell, it is in all likelihood turned on for you before it leaves the shop.

  3. Bill the Sys Admin
    Mushroom

    Oh dear. That will cause serious issues. A good example of why never to use auto updates..

    1. Captain Scarlet Silver badge
      Mushroom

      I apply updates when I shutdown, I can't help that I am lazy (Well ok I can but I am so lazy I demand Automatic updates take place when it doesnt bother me).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Updates

      Indeed, but even users who do not auto update will be affected by this. I checked this patch out, decided I needed it, then had it not been for an El Reg email today, on a day that I do not normally read El Reg, then I would not have now just installed it as a precaution despite not been affected.

  4. Alister Silver badge
    Joke

    Win 7 PCs in Samba-loving Brazil are apparently hardest hit.

    Well if you will use an open source network protocol, what do you expect?

    1. Dalen
      Pint

      Took me a second to figure out they weren't talking about network protocols. Pint, because I need one.

  5. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

      "Windows is not ready for the desktop"

      Erm. You mean not ready for the ~ 5% of desktops it isn't yet installed on?

      At least Microsoft's patches go through regression testing unlike many Linux vendors....It won't catch everything, but its a good start. You should test patches in you own environment before deployment.

      My standard approach is deploy the critical ones to Dev / UAT the 2nd weekend after release which gives ~ 10 days for evaluation and initial testing, and then to Prod / DR the following weekend, and then everything else non critical goes in next months patch cycle....

    2. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
      Linux

      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

      We know windows is crap so stfu thanks

    3. mickey mouse the fith

      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

      @Eadon "Linux is virus-immune......."

      Erm, it most certainly is not dear boy, it just isnt profitable for malware writers to bother with much due to its tiny home machine market share (less than 4% isnt it?). Most Linux users are more tech savy , due in part to all the command line pissing about to get it working properly, and thus its harder to write a sneaky program that goes unnoticed, but it does happen. It only takes a click on the admin account `allow` button to install god knows what, just like any other os. This is the attack vector for most malware these days, let the user approve and install it themselves.

      There was also a state sponsored trojan that sat in an irq client included in many distributions for years unnoticed, as no one bothered checking the source before including it.

      Im not anti-linux btw, but you are talking bollocks on the trojan/virus thing.

      1. Chemist

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

        "due in part to all the command line pissing about to get it working properly"

        FUD !

      2. Chemist

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

        "due in part to all the command line pissing about to get it working properly"

        Just to clarify - I've installed Linux ~6 times a year since ~2000 without needing to use the command-line. That's almost always SUSE or OpenSUSE. The only exception to this was installing x86 Android to a VM when a bit of tinkering was needed to get the networking going.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. PCPuss

          Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

          I once had to install - I dread to say it - Redhat Linux - on my laptop. It was about 10 years ago. No modem driver available, no printer driver, don't even think Bluetooth or wireless mouse. I rest my case. As an os it was smooth, convoluted and minimum support. Basically my laptop was as much use as a heavy calculator.

          I am not anti-any os, just a sheep who goes for the one with the most support and ease of use...

          1. Chemist

            Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

            "It was about 10 years ago."

            Right !

          2. Roo
            FAIL

            Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

            "I once had to install - I dread to say it - Redhat Linux - on my laptop. It was about 10 years ago. No modem driver available, no printer driver, don't even think Bluetooth or wireless mouse. I rest my case. "

            I have suffered the same lack of device support problems with all of the versions of Windows (3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, XP) that I installed 10+ years ago. You have no case if you are trying to assert that Windows was somehow easier and more complete back then. My memories of setting up Windows boxes back then was carrying a large stack of CDs around with about 10 zillion drivers on them to get the motherboard up to speed... That hasn't changed much really - these days I have a USB stick stuffed with drivers that I've had to download instead.

            Not so very long ago I came across 3 installs that failed the exact same way with 3 totally different combinations of PC (with pre-installed OS), Windows (XP,Vista,7) and all in one printer+scanner (HP & Kodak). In each case the unlucky user tried installing the drivers supplied with the all-in-one printer+scanner they found that the scanning functionality of Windows was irretrievably broken. In each case they tried vendor support and in each case vendor support tried blaming another vendor and when pushed still failed to deliver a solution. My part in this was plugging these all-in-one devices into my Linux box to see if they worked. All I had to do was plug in a USB cable and they worked first time without me needing to install anything on my Linux box.

            There is no happy ending for those folks though, they either gave up or replaced their entire rig to get a solution because the vendors could not/would not fix their products.

            In my view both Widows and Linux can fall short with driver support on occasion, but only in Windows land have I seen people forced to give up because there is no solution.

            GG

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

          "Just to clarify - I've installed Linux ~6 times a year since ~2000 without needing to use the command-line. That's almost always SUSE or OpenSUSE. The only exception to this was installing x86 Android to a VM when a bit of tinkering was needed to get the networking going."

          I simply don't believe this. I've been using Linux (Red Hat, CentOS, Ubuntu/Mythbuntu) since the late 90s and while it's vastly improved the only times that it is ok "out of the box" seems to be when I install it on a VM. Sometimes it'll be ok on a particular system that I run, often that's a one-off and the next major update will leave something not working that did before. 1366x768 screen resolutions, slightly unusual WiFi adapters or DVB/USB devices are top of the list of things which are flakey and need a command line session to fix. Any commercial software usually needs command line hacking to install, etc.

          Linux is a great system (depending upon distro) but it's not perfect (neither is Windows) you may be able to get the most generic system working without resorting to the command line, but that's about it, anything unusual invariably requires command line access.

          It's also odd that lots of people who say here that Windows users are point and drool users and should use the command line are the same people who say that linux doesn't need you to use the command line...

          1. Chemist

            Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

            "I simply don't believe this"

            Believe what you like - I'm a physical scientist and not used to being economical with the truth. I regularly use the command-line for all sorts of jobs but, with the exception of the Android in a VM I haven't used the command-line to INSTALL a distro for years. I have stuck with SUSE however.

            You don't have to believe me plenty of other people here have stated exactly the same.

            Commercial software is different - it's down to the developers and in any case isn't the same as installing a distro. I've used some extremely expensive protein modeling software that was rather a handful to install and use.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

            Chemist: "I've installed Linux ~6 times a year since ~2000 without needing to use the command-line. That's almost always SUSE or OpenSUSE."

            AC 15:15 "I simply don't believe this."

            As Chemist says, "believe what you want."

            I've only been installing and using Linux since Red Hat 4 and Suse 8 (and Mandrake, and a few others); say ten years worth and a bit. I am hopefully therefore in a better position than AC 15:15 to confirm that there is *very* little need for the CLI in SuSe for my usage as sysadmin or user.

            The various older Suses are still around, and could easily be used to verify the claim that Suse has little or no need for CLI access for routine sysadmin or user stuff. If anybody could be bothered.

            Obviously Suse lacks the hiptrendiness of yer RedHats and Ubuntus and Debians and so on. But if what folk want to do is Get Stuff Done, it's been well worth a look for a decade or more.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

        > due in part to all the command line pissing about to get it working properly,

        What command line pissing about?

        > It only takes a click on the admin account `allow` button to install god knows what, just like any other os.

        Which button is this? I've never seen this allow button in any of the linux distributions I use.

        > There was also a state sponsored trojan that sat in an irq client included in many distributions for years unnoticed, as no one bothered checking the source before including it.

        Reference please. I would like to know about this.

        1. mickey mouse the fith

          Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

          "Just to clarify - I've installed Linux ~6 times a year since ~2000 without needing to use the command-line. That's almost always SUSE or OpenSUSE. The only exception to this was installing x86 Android to a VM when a bit of tinkering was needed to get the networking going."

          Heh, I must just be really unlucky with my choice of machines, I always end up with a non working wifi/ethernet/sd reader driver that needs the command line to fix.

          And please dont take my statement so seriously, I like and use Linux. What I ment to say was that Linux users are by default more tech savy due to the mere fact they chose to seek it out and install it over the default Windows install in the first place. Tinkering with the command line is part of that. It wasnt a criticisim, just a badly worded quip.

          "What command line pissing about?"

          See above.

          "Which button is this? I've never seen this allow button in any of the linux distributions I use."

          The `ok` button on the admin popup u get when u install something through the gui.

          "Reference please. I would like to know about this."

          http://www.pcworld.com/article/198686/linux_trojan_raises_malware_concerns.html

          http://forums.unrealircd.com/viewtopic.php?t=6562

          Quote from the above forum:

          "This is very embarrassing...

          We found out that the Unreal3.2.8.1.tar.gz file on our mirrors has been replaced quite a while ago with a version with a backdoor (trojan) in it.

          This backdoor allows a person to execute ANY command with the privileges of the user running the ircd. The backdoor can be executed regardless of any user

          restrictions (so even if you have passworded server or hub that doesn't allow any users in).

          It appears the replacement of the .tar.gz occurred in November 2009 (at least on some mirrors). It seems nobody noticed it until now.

          Obviously, this is a very serious issue, and we're taking precautions so this will never happen again, and if it somehow does that it will be noticed quickly.

          We will also re-implement PGP/GPG signing of releases. Even though in practice (very) few people verify files, it will still be useful for those people who do.

          It was in a repository for quite a while."

          1. Chemist

            Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

            "I must just be really unlucky with my choice of machines"

            Well I've installed on a dual-core atom ITX, Asus netbook, 5 misc desktops and Lenovo & HP laptops. I've got 3G dongles, USB/serial convertors, Epson scanner/printer, 3 WiFi , laser printer and heaps more all without problems. Maybe the distribution ?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

            Unreal3.2.8.1.tar.gz isn't linux. It isn't part of the kernel or "many" distributions. It wasn't "state sponsored". Had the trojan been part of the kernel or the core distribution and had it been able to escalate its privileges, you might have had a point.

            "The `ok` button on the admin popup u get when u install something through the gui."

            If I am installing anything I have to enter a password. So it takes more than a click on the admin account `allow` button.

            1. mickey mouse the fith

              Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

              ""The `ok` button on the admin popup u get when u install something through the gui."

              If I am installing anything I have to enter a password. So it takes more than a click on the admin account `allow` button."

              Yeah, ok, you put in a password then click ok on the admin popup thing that appears, application gets installed and can do whatever it likes within the limitations of the account type its installed into, happy now?, you know exactly what i mean, stop being so bloody pedantic :-).

              "Unreal3.2.8.1.tar.gz isn't linux. It isn't part of the kernel or "many" distributions. It wasn't "state sponsored". Had the trojan been part of the kernel or the core distribution and had it been able to escalate its privileges, you might have had a point."

              Irrelivent, it can still rape your data from the user account its installed in and I never said it was in the kernel, but it was certainly in many distro`s repositories. I cant find the source at the moment, but there were rumours that a certain government planted the thing to monitor conversations betwix ner-do-wells.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                > Yeah, ok, you put in a password then click ok .... stop being so bloody pedantic

                Here is what you actually said:

                "It only takes a click on the admin account `allow` button to install god knows what, just like any other os."

                Other OS'es might allow you to install with a single click, but linux doesn't.

                > Irrelivent, it can still rape your data from the user account its installed in and I never said it was in the kernel, but it was certainly in many distro`s repositories.

                It wasn't in many distro's repositories. It was in the mirrors of the unreal distribution. Not the repositories of many distros. The only distribution that I know off that might have got caught is Gentoo. All of the others used the source from Unreal's primary site and so never distributed it.

                > I cant find the source at the moment, but there were rumours that a certain government planted the thing to monitor conversations betwix ner-do-wells.

                A rumour. Must be true then. I'm sure that if I look hard enough I can find a rumour that aliens did it.

                Don't let the fact that the inserted code was to execute commands and not to listen in on chats get in the way of you conspiracy theory.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Coat

                  Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                  If you don't know what "command line pissing about" means, then you don't use Unix, you use Mac (had to sneak in!).

                  P.S. I use nothing but Linux. Let me rephrase that. I use nothing but some malformed kernel that used to be stable that I have now broken so badly I've caused more problems for myself than anyone else every has. Oh the joys of not understanding kernel code properly...but pretending I do.

                2. This post has been deleted by its author

                3. mickey mouse the fith

                  Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                  "Other OS'es might allow you to install with a single click, but linux doesn't."

                  Aaaaaaaargh, it doesnt matter how many clicks it takes, If the user installs something with hidden malware in it, it could take a million passwords and clicks, but it still gets installed and the malware still does its stuff.

                  Maybe i phrased the "It only takes a click on the admin account `allow` button to install god knows what, just like any other os." a bit wrong, it was a generalisation, not a technical explanation, but my point still stands, if the user installs something that has a hidden function, it doesnt matter what os he/she is using because it still runs with the users consent (like the irc thing).

                  My original point was to counter Eadons "Linux doesnt get malware" comment, which was wrong, as it can and does. I have no idea how this turned into a debate into how many clicks it takes to install something.

                  "Don't let the fact that the inserted code was to execute commands and not to listen in on chats get in the way of you conspiracy theory."

                  Commands to install keyloggers and rat tools, doesnt matter how you do it if the end result is the same.

                  And gentoo has a pretty big userbase, even if it was just that distro (which im pretty sure it wasnt), its still a serious security issue, especially as it went unoticed for so long.

                  Also makes you wonder what else is in all that open source software, does anyone check every single line of source regularly in the thousands upon thousands of current and legacy apps in various distros and repositories?

                  1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

                    1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                      "Preventing viruses from operating is trivially EASY. You set the execute flag to OFF. It's a problem that was solved in the 1970's. However, Windows cannot do this without breaking backwards compatibility, hence the need for these Windows virus scanners.

                      Any exploitable buffer overflow etc. that allows a process to take control to write virus files to the file system would also have the ability to chmod +x the file.

                      If the users of the system are really just casual users, your only option would be to mount the whole user partition as no-execute (or set on a per-directory level on some-unix-systems-that-names-don't-rhyme-with-pinux

                      1. El Andy

                        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                        "Any exploitable buffer overflow etc. that allows a process to take control to write virus files to the file system would also have the ability to chmod +x the file."

                        +1

                        Note that Unix-like operating systems are actually much more vulnerable to this, because the existence of the setuid bit means that malware can create files that run under permissions other than those the user has, which can lead to additional escalation of privileges problems. This is a very long known flaw in the Unix security model, but it can't easily be removed due to, get this Eadon, backwards compatibility concerns. Windows doesn't suffer this since it doesn't provide any mechanism for automatically impersonating another user without credentials.

                        1. Anonymous Coward
                          Anonymous Coward

                          Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                          > because the existence of the setuid bit means that malware can create files that run under permissions other than those the user has

                          If the malware is running as user "joe" then it can only create files owned by "joe" and can only setuid binaries as "joe". It cannot use setuid to run a binary as "fred" or "root" or any other user. The only user that can do this is "root" and if the malware is already "root" then it doesn't need to use setuid.

                          NOTE: I am specifically saying binaries rather then scripts since the setuid functionality on scripts has been disabled on every variant of linux I know for at least 10 years.

                          1. El Andy

                            Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                            @Condiment: Great if "joe" is the only user, not so great if "bob" and "fred" are also users but aren't supposed to have as much permission as "joe"....

                            1. Anonymous Coward
                              Anonymous Coward

                              Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                              Lets say piece of malware compromises account "joe". It can not use setuid to get "bob" or "fred" or any other users permissions. The malware can not save an program, change the owner of the program to "bob" and then setuid the program so that it has bob's permissions (or any other sequence). There might well be programs on the system owned by "bob" that have the setuid bit set but all "joe" can do is have the program do whatever it was designed to do.

                              As an example, the "ping" program is owned by the user "root" and it is setuid and "joe" can execute this program and it will run as root, but all "joe" can do with it is ping another computer.

                        2. eulampios

                          @EL Andy

                          the existence of the setuid bit means that malware can create files that run under permissions other than those the user has, which can lead to additional escalation of privileges problems.

                          With buffer overflow you'd be able to run with the process privileges, i.e., user's or a daemon's, or you gotta have a another vulnerability to guess where another process is stored in memory.

                          Rubbish, so you're stating that I can just do: "chmod any_user+x malware", even if any_user is root without messing up umask? Have you actually heard about user permissions?

                          1. El Andy

                            Re: @EL Andy

                            @eulampios: "Rubbish, so you're stating that I can just do: "chmod any_user+x malware", even if any_user is root without messing up umask? Have you actually heard about user permissions?"

                            No, but malware can exploit the setuid bit to ensure it runs under the current credentials, regardless of how restricted a user who later executes it is. There are numerous ways that this can potentially be used for privilege escalation. In a single user scenario, it's probably less likely to be an issue (because the only other account worth compromising is root, at which point you're already on the other side of the airtight hatch), but on any system with multiple user accounts it can be a serious issue.

                      2. eulampios

                        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                        Any exploitable buffer overflow etc. that allows a process to take control to write virus files to the file system would also have the ability to chmod +x the file.

                        Except if you you have extra measures for the process running a (potentially) risky application like a web browser: sandbox, MAC systems, like SELinux and AppArmor

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                      "Preventing viruses from operating is trivially EASY. You set the execute flag to OFF. It's a problem that was solved in the 1970's. However, Windows cannot do this without breaking backwards compatibility, hence the need for these Windows virus scanners"

                      Windows has no execute file system ACLs available since NT3.5 without breaking anything.

                      It doesn't seem to prevent Viruses spreading in Linux though: http://news.cnet.com/New-worm-targets-Linux-systems/2100-7349_3-5938475.html

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                        Interesting. The "New worm" your link refers to is from November 7th 2005. It exploits a vulnerability that was patched on 18th January 2005 or 10 months before the worm appeared.

                        If sys admins don't keep up to date then their systems are going to be vulnerable irrespective of the OS.

                        1. El Andy

                          Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                          @AC09:59 "If sys admins don't keep up to date then their systems are going to be vulnerable irrespective of the OS.

                          Except that Eadon has repeatedly made the claim that Linux is invulnerable to viruses. They simply cannot exist on the system ever. So clearly there is never going to be a need to patch the system to protect against potential virus vectors. Well that or Eadon is talking utter bollocks of course.

                          1. pPPPP

                            Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                            "Well that or Eadon is talking utter bollocks of course."

                            You reckon? :-)

                            Eadon, a lot of people here agree with you that Linux is "better" than Windows. What it isn't is immune to viruses, or other malware, seeing as you're now determined to make the distinction. Most of us run software on our Linux computers. That software may be vulnerable to viruses or other malware. The exposure depends on what privileges the software runs at. Personally I would be a little bit miffed if some malware destroyed my OS so it couldn't boot, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. If it zeroed out all of my photos I'd be more annoyed (and that's why I back them up).

                            Do you really think Linux is immune? Really?

                    3. 1Rafayal
                      FAIL

                      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                      @Eadon, you do realise, of course, that the term malware is the umbrella for what is referred to as malicious software? I hope the term isnt too subtle for you.

                      And you do realise that, by definition, all software that could be labelled a virus falls under this term? Of course you do - because you never spout BS at all, do you?

                      To highlight your 'Linux is immune' standpoint, you also are aware that one of the most prominent threats to desktop computing right now is the concept of the cross-platform virus? You know, like badbunny - the crossplatform virus that hit OpenOffice.org on Windows and Linux?

                      I also assume that you have never heard of the following Linux threat tools, rkhunter and Volatility? I guess not, given you also seem to provide the universal cure for preventing all malware attacks on both Windows and Linux by pointing to some esoteric nonsense about the "execute flag".

                      I sincerely hope this helps.

                    4. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                      Re: Eadon

                      > You set the execute flag to OFF

                      The execute bit isn't necessary for running a program.

                      If it is a script then you run the appropriate shell (bash, ksh, perl, php5 etc) with the script as an argument.

                      If it is a binary you use the dynamic link loader to execute it.

                      /lib/ld-linux.so <some binary without the execute bit set>

              2. EpicTweaknet

                Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

                Could The Onion have been your resource for most of your misinformation perhaps?

              3. eulampios

                @mickey mouse V

                I never said it was in the kernel, but it was certainly in many distro`s repositories.

                No, you're wrong. According to this guide UnrealIRC is not repositories. So your have no point.

                application gets installed and can do whatever it likes within the limitations of the account type its installed into, happy now?

                You apparently have no clue about file permissions and multi-user system, neither for POSIX/Unix nor Windows. That indeed was the case for me on Windows XP. I am frequently assured that it's a pretty rare practice even on modern MS Windows, maybe it's not so. BTW, on Android, it's taken to the extreme (due to the evolved potential risks) EVERY application is mandated to run under unique uid.

            2. Montreal Sean

              Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

              So only slightly harder to do than clicking the OK in Windows UAC pop-up window?

              Oh wait, if you are running as anything other than a user with admin rights you get prompted for admin credentials.

              Don't get me wrong, I know Windows is more prone to virii and I am certainly not a fan of Windows, I use it on my corporate provided laptop by necessity. My personal machines run either OSX or Mint, and have for almost a decade.

              What I don't understand is why people seem to think a paucity of virii in their OS of choice would mean it is any more virus immune than another OS.

            3. robynsveil
              FAIL

              Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

              "The `ok` button on the admin popup u get when u install something through the gui."

              No, actually that's Windows. :-/ Sheesh.

            4. Tom 13

              Re: isn't linux.

              Yes, I will continue to pick up the 'you said IE was part of the OS now deal with' cudgel and beat them soundly with it every time an IE ActiveX exploit compromises their system.

              But, I am getting tired of hearing it from the Linux fanatics. Without all the rest of the stuff that gets rolled into a standard distribution, the Linux kernel would be worse than useless. Yes Linux was coded so it can be more resilient than Windows without a lot of work. But I still think if it were truly released to the masses, the same compromises would be made and it would be just as infected as Windows. Linux right now, with its very wide server distribution is benefiting mostly from the fact that the people installing it take care installing it.

          3. eulampios

            mickey mouse V

            What's "unreal irc"? Never heard of it, it's not in Debian repositories nor in other major GNU Linux distributions. If it is installed outside of of official repositories, it is a risk. As in the case with a lot of the so called 3d party software Windows users install everyday would be making MS Windows a huge even if it was <1% market share and users would be as geeky as Linux or BSD users.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

        "Most Linux users are more tech savy [sic], due in part to all the command line pissing about to get it working properly..."

        Slightly out of date. On the same basis, one could criticize Windows for being layered on top of MS-DOS.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

        Lets review how many falsehoods there were in your original comment.

        due in part to all the command line pissing about to get it working properly

        False. Modern distributions "just work" for the vast majority of hardware out there.

        It only takes a click on the admin account `allow` button to install god knows what, just like any other os.

        False. You have to enter a password to install applications.

        There was also a state sponsored trojan that sat in an irq client included in many distributions for years unnoticed

        False. No evidence of anything being state sponsored. This is just a conspiracy theory.

        False. It wasn't included in many distributions. Gentoo is the only distribution I can find that *might* have distributed it.

        False. It didn't go unnoticed for years. It was compromised in November 2009 at the earliest and corrected at the beginning of June 2010, a little more than 6 months.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

        (less than 4% isnt it?).

        Linux desktop share has never so far exceeded 1%.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: Linux desktop share has never so far exceeded 1%.

          Desktop share may be below 4%, definitely above 1%, but that number is largely irrelevant to discussions about security issues. For a long time they have been a major player in the server market, especially internet facing servers. Those are much more valuable targets than desktop systems and therefore more valuable. That we haven't seen penetration of Linux at that level speaks well to its ability to be secured. That MS had serious problems on that from early on spoke to its abject failure at the time. MS has improved significantly since then, but it still suffers from noticeable problems. Linux goes years without a major incident, MS goes months (which is an improvement from when they at most went weeks and sometimes mere days).

    4. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful @Eadon

      "Linux is virus-immune, has no need for any of these dodgy anti-virus products"

      You obviously didn't read this recent article: "Researcher sets up illegal 420,000 node botnet for IPv4 internet map" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/19/carna_botnet_ipv4_internet_map/

      By not actually running security software on Linux you are in effect running blind, as you don't actually know if you are running unauthorised code until it bites you!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful @Eadon

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/19/carna_botnet_ipv4_internet_map/

        Rubbish - the standard firewall and lack of activated telnet would not let this happen !

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful @Eadon @AC 21:19

          >Rubbish - the standard firewall and lack of activated telnet would not let this happen !

          You missed my point

          Yes a potentially simple configuration change (primarily by the OEM) could of prevented the botnet exploit; however, a key factor in this exploit going unnoticed was that the Linux systems being used were unmanaged ie. either not running 'security software' or being monitored so that new and unauthorised activities would get highlighted. Hence even though you may lock down your system (remember BOTH XP and some flavours of Unix/Linux have achieved EAL4+ certification), the question has to be asked how can you be sure that your system hasn't been compromised without having some form of monitoring?

      2. Chemist

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful @Eadon

        "http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/19/carna_botnet_ipv4_internet_map/"

        You are joking ? How many Linux desktops have telnet activated by default - none I've used since ~~1998

      3. plrndl
        Linux

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful @Eadon

        If you'd read the article you quote, you would have noticed that the researcher infiltrated machines where the root password was blank, or "password". Your comment is comparable to complaining about a car that is damaged when fuelled with water rather than petrol/diesel/gas. .

      4. boltar Silver badge
        WTF?

        Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful @Eadon

        "By not actually running security software on Linux you are in effect running blind, as you don't actually know if you are running unauthorised code until it bites you"

        I can't speak for other linux users but I know exactly what I download onto my machine whether its an update or just ordinary software. And for the latter I NEVER install it as root. And you know what? In 19 years running linux I've only had 1 hack - via an unpatched ftp server - back in the 90s, and no viruses or malware (unless its REALLY good at hiding itself). I wonder how many Windows users can claim the same thing?

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

      Eadon has his moments, this is not one of them.

    6. pPPPP

      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

      Eadon, you've excelled. I don't like Windows particularly, and currently run Slackware 14 on most of my computers, including the laptop I'm using to type this. I'm pretty confident I'm in control of them because I installed all of the packages myself, although I'll admit I only built a few of them myself and read and verified each and every line of source of fewer (i.e. none). Do I think it's virus-immune? Do I think it's secure? Of course not.

      As others said, Windows is only subjected to malware because it's the most common OS out there. And most malware is distributed through phishing nowadays anyway. Assuming Linux (or any other OS for that matter) is secure is naive to say the least.

      Comments like yours really don't help your cause. They're entertaining though, I'll give you that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        @pPPPP Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

        Like you I run Slackware 14. I run it on all my computers and I love it. Any package installations are done on the command line, no pissing about in a gui or clicking on buttons.

    7. Adam 1 Silver badge

      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

      Talk about missing from right in front of the posts. If there is an article with as much Microsoft fail as this you should have been able to get +40 rather than -40.

    8. This post has been deleted by its author

    9. plrndl
      Linux

      Re: Windows is not ready for the desktop and it is not Industrial Strength.

      I've always said that anyone who entrusts their business computing to a company that wants them to put wallpaper on their desktop gets what they deserve. MS proves this once again.

    10. Anonymous Coward
      Windows

      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

      I see you've got at least forty seven anonymous trolls on your case ...

    11. David Glasgow

      Re: Windows Security Patches + Anti-Virus considered Harmful

      EADON!

      The first comment was 14:23. Yours is 14:48. I expect a more promptly spittle-flecked Linux-driven screen than that.

      We're you distracted by something?

  6. RyokuMas Silver badge
    Coat

    Oh boy...

    Friday sweepstake on how long before the first anti-window-bile post hits from the usual suspects, who will have conveniently "forgotten" about how a Linux patch was bricking some machines in a very similar manner not too long ago...?

    1. thesykes

      Re: Oh boy...

      Seems you were a minute too late.. good old reliable-as-ever Eadon.

      1. RyokuMas Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: Oh boy...

        Would have been alright, had it not been for that dodgy Iranian time-machine I was using!

    2. This post has been deleted by a moderator

      1. mmeier

        Re: Oh boy...

        It secures my parents and older relatives PCs from Gnuliban PFYs using the "it's free" meme to replace a working Windows with a ultimately NOT working Debian. As soon as "beloved program x" does not run I have spend my weekend driving up home, wipe the Gnuheap and re-install Windows and the apps from the backup.

        Secure Boot on and the PFY is gone!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          IT Angle

          Re: Oh boy...

          "...with a ultimately NOT working Debian."

          Shouldn't you yourself learn how to use something before passing it off down the chain? Are you senior management at work or something?

          1. mmeier

            Re: Oh boy...

            Oh, I know how Unix and it's retarded lil brother Linux work, used Unix since before Linus wrote the first Minix add-ons.

            Does not change the fact that "Program X" my older relatives want to use (Game, House Control, Graphics Program, ....) is a WINDOWS software and won't run on the Gnuheap the PFY "computer expert" installed. So making sure he can no longer install a new OS is the second best solution. The best is (sadly) illegal.

            1. eulampios

              @mmeier

              It reminds me when a friend asked me to help with a Windows Exp 5.0 app.

              Some idiot, statistics professor apparently never heard of TeX and friends and used 10 year old program. It didn't install on my friend's Vista 64bit, because it was 32bit, she had to pay for 64bit version quite a high sum. Okay, I try it on my 32 Ubuntu through wine, it isntalls and runs, but it's 32, right? I get 64 Debian system and install it via ssh, wow??? Attention now, just for some more laughs, I got a 32 bit FreeBSD 7.1, and voila it installs on it too.

              I hope, you'll get the point

              1. Not That Andrew

                Re: @eulampois

                Sounds more like it used a 16 bit installer (InstallShield?), a lot of older 32bit programs used them for some odd reason.

                1. eulampios

                  @Andrew

                  No, If I remember correctly, it said it was incompatible and could not install on a 64 bit Windows and advised to acquire the proper 64 bit version of it. Not sure if it was the Windows installer or its own. Contrary to "the Windows way ", normal systems have a unified installer for every app. AMOF, wine installs without root but in the Windows jail it creates, hence a little less security concerns.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @mmeier

                EXP 5.1 with Service Pack 4 is compatible with Windows Vista with the one caveat that the EXP help system is not available unless the WinHelp extension to Windows Vista is installed (see below for details). All other areas of EXP 5.1 function normally, but there are some issues you should be aware of. Please read all the information below.

                The EXP 5.1 help system uses a subsystem within Windows known as WinHelp. Microsoft made the decision not to include WinHelp as part of the standard distribution of Windows Vista. Microsoft has created a Knowledge Base article discussing this subject:

                http://support.microsoft.com/kb/917607

                it's not 32/64 bit issue

                http://www.expswp.com/support/Vista/index.htm

                1. eulampios

                  exp 5.0 viewer

                  That one was version 5.0, 5.1 might have fixed it.

  7. Dodel

    Firstly it looks as though this is a kaspersky related issue, but also you can boot into safe mode (F8) and uninstall the offending update until a fix is issued.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Microsoft is determined to kill the desktop. And apparently since they are having trouble doing it with Win8 because nobody wants to buy it, now they're going after Win7 users via automatic updates.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Win7 + Patch + Kaspersky here

    I haven't noticed any probl

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Win7 + Patch + Kaspersky here

      have you rebooted ?

  10. NomNomNom

    well i only reboot about every 3 weeks so guess I'll just leave it to microsoft to silently patch the patch and if they dont i will just have to watch tv

    1. Captain DaFt

      "i will just have to watch tv"

      That's a rather harsh punishment, even if it's self inflicted!"

      Man up and uninstall the patch!

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
    WTF?

    Not the only problem with recent patches

    One (not in this lot) has changed how Windows Explorer sees some of my USB Flash Drives.

    If I take one drive and plug it into a USB3 port on my laptop the output is shown by file type rather that the 'details' list. If I want to see that I have to right click on the drive, select open as removable media etc.

    If I take the same drive and plug it into a USB2 port on the same machine it shows the classic 'details' list.

    WTF Microsoft?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. mickey mouse the fith

      Re: Not the only problem with recent patches

      "One (not in this lot) has changed how Windows Explorer sees some of my USB Flash Drives. If I take one drive and plug it into a USB3 port on my laptop the output is shown by file type rather that the 'details' list. If I want to see that I have to right click on the drive, select open as removable media etc. If I take the same drive and plug it into a USB2 port on the same machine it shows the classic 'details' list."

      I noticed this behaviour suddenly appear, but didnt attribute it to an update, I just thought it was a random screwup on my windows install. Its really, really irritating, rather like the way Vista used to randomly change the icon sizes in control panel.

      My laptop doesnt have usb3 ports, so its not that causing it, but it does change depending on which port the flash drive is plugged into.

      1. frank ly

        Re: Not the only problem with recent patches

        Windows has done this for years. I've had folder view settings randomly change on an individial basis. At the moment, Windows 7 keeps taking icons off my system tray and I have to go into the options to set them back to 'Show Icon and Notifications' .

        It keeps you alert and stops you getting complacent.

    3. tempemeaty

      Re: Not the only problem with recent patches

      Great, somebody at MS probably broke something in the code and the resulting mess you are seeing is their kludge to make it stay working. Chances are they'll call this USB FUBAR a new "Feature".

      Thank God I didn't update last Tuesday.

      m(_ _)m

  12. wondermouse
    FAIL

    Dell OEM and other hit last weekend - was it this?

    At some point last weekend, my trusty Dell Laptop suddenly decided that my Dell OEM Windows 7 was not geniune. So did my mate's. All this week I've been hearing about machines that were legitimately running Windows 7 OEM suddenly being illegitemised.

    Is it the same thing? Something MS has done seems to have screwed the status of these machines.

    1. J. Cook Silver badge

      Re: Dell OEM and other hit last weekend - was it this?

      @wondermouse: It's entirely possible that MS may have nuked the OEM key that Dell uses on their pre-loaded image. I seem to recall Dell doing that for their XP image, at least.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dell OEM and other hit last weekend - was it this?

      Go through telephone activation. They will resolve it for you by issuing a new key if required.

    3. Paul Crawford Silver badge
      Linux

      Re: Dell OEM and other hit last weekend - was it this?

      Ah yes, reminds me of one very good reason why XP was the last MS operating system I got: "Product Activation" that could be revoked (unlike w2k that just was happy with the CD key).

      <= Tux, my non-DRM'ed friend.

  13. Roger Stenning
    Meh

    Odd...

    I've got auto update switched on, and the machine performed the usual update routine last night; it rebooted, and the usual messages following such an update were present when I woke it up this morning.

    However, having looked over the installed patches via the control panel, there's no trace of KB2823324 ever having been installed; guess they deleted the offending patch from the update before my machine got around to getting the update done.

    *shrug*

  14. ashdav

    I've just uninstalled the offending update KB2823324 ,like a good citizen.

    Restarted as requested and lo and behold Windows Update offered it to me again!

    Wasn't causing a problem anyway. I'll leave it off for now and see what transpires.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Looks like we've been hit

    I was scratching my head over one machine today suffering a problem with Kaspersky AntiVirus for Windows Workstations.

    Wound up uninstalling and reinstalling Kaspersky. Still it refuses to see the license. I did the install using the network agent in the Kaspersky Administration Kit. I left it thinking I'll take it up with Kaspersky on Monday.

    The same machine also showed CHKDSK on boot … something it started doing a few days ago.

    Looks like I know what I'll be doing first thing on Monday, is uninstall this patch.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm confused.

    KB2823324 installed on my machine on the 10th and I haven't noticed any problems - no crashes and startup is fine. Should I uninstall it anyway?

    1. Graham Marsden

      Re: I'm confused.

      Good question.

      I had more problems with the latest update to Skype which caused the machine to freeze (but not BSOD) after booting.

      Eventually after restarting in Safe Mode and stopping Skype trying to run on startup I was able to uninstall it and roll back to an earlier version which fixed the problem.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'm confused.

        Re Skype - thanks for that. I shall continue to ignore requests/prods to update it. Don't have any use for it anyway.

  17. Cipher
    Joke

    Don't be so hard on Microsoft. Everyone knows how hard it is to do proper testing before release when your company has such meager resources. This is no worse than the 5 major update fails in 2012, Microsoft just cannot devote resources to testing and QC when Marketing clearly needs the help far more...

  18. Colin Ritchie
    Windows

    Are you sure you don't want a nice new Win 8 build ?

    When Vista was being ignored by the XP masses M$ released SP3 for XP. It killed all sorts of network functionality on a friend of mine's PC. His NAS and Xbox mysteriously decided to stop connecting to it and M$ suggested he update to Vista to restore his previously happy networking situation. He preferred a clean reinstall of XP and blocking SP3 on the updates list. M$ made sure SP3 nagged and attempted to be applied forever more.

    I can't help thinking that Win 7 users will suffer a string of unhelpful and increasingly buggy patches till the herd accept that this crap isn't going away till they buy in to Win 8 and are properly assimilated into the collective.

    1. frank ly

      Re: Are you sure you don't want a nice new Win 8 build ?

      Same happened to me with XP on my old latop. I've installed Linux Mint 13 on it and I'm very happy with it so far after five days. It can do everything my shiny new Windows 7 laptop can do, including running my favourite Windows applications (in WINE, obviously). This is the first time I've used Linux and I'm pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to get going and customise. There have been problems and shortfalls but they may be caused by the fact that the laptop is now 8 years old and has a dead battery.

      I'll get used to it and when I'm fully satisfied and confident, then I'll install Linux on my shiny new laptop and not bother with future versions of Windows.

  19. pete 22
    Mushroom

    But, how can that "free" stuff *possibly* be of higher quality ?!! After all, this has a big corp backing it up, and we *paid* for it!!

  20. Dr_Cynic

    Was messing up my laptop, windows event viewer was showing various dlls as having invalid hashs and was trying to do a chkdisk on every boot(but finding no problems. Kaspersky refused to start claiming corrupt database which an update fixed.

    Checking another machine this morning , which also now keeps wanting to run chkdsk, but in this case kaspersky keeps claiming it's not activated, point it at the key file it is happy till next reboot at which point it has forgotten again. Looks like I will have to remove the update from that machine on Monday.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rule number one for Windows Update

    TURN OFF AUTOMATIC UPDATES.

    Never trust that the updates okayed for release by Microsoft will work flawlessly. Manually update. Read up on the security bulletins.

    This is not the first time Microsoft had screwed up a software update. I won't be surprised if Microsoft is cutting corners on software maintenance due to its declining corporate fortunes. Whatever it takes to keep the sinking ship afloat, eh?

    1. Wzrd1

      Re: Rule number one for Windows Update

      Either that or have a test environment full of sacrificial lambs to slaughter with the oopsdate.

  22. ElNumbre
    Facepalm

    Wonder..

    .I wonder if this is the cause of my laptop knifing itself. Consuming most of the CPU resources with nothing running. I was going to blame McAfee, but it seems like it may be Microsoft.

  23. sisk Silver badge

    Microsoft's security gnomes also deserve credit for quickly determining there was a problem before the vast majority of corporates rolled out the problematic patch.

    I disagree. They deserve the blame for failing to follow the basic step of TESTING THEIR PATCH before they started to roll it out. How many times does this have to happen before Microsoft figures that out? It seems like they've been pushing out a dodgy patch two or three times a year for ages. That's the sort of thing I expect in the beta software I run, not in a fully released product like Windows.

    1. Crazy Operations Guy Silver badge
      FAIL

      Yeah because testing with 100s of different software packages and system configurations while there is a looming deadline to get a patch out before the exploit becomes common is so damn quick and easy to do....

    2. El Andy

      @sisk: "I disagree. They deserve the blame for failing to follow the basic step of TESTING THEIR PATCH before they started to roll it out. How many times does this have to happen before Microsoft figures that out?"

      Er, they do. Why do you think it takes so long to produce patches in the first place?

      The problem is the sheer volume of combinations of hardware and third party software that exist in the wild mean that testing ever single possible combination out there is just never going to happen. Sooner or later there is going to be an edge case combination that hits a problem, it's simply a mathematical certainty. Doubly so when you consider how many of these third party "security" solutions often dick around with internal data structures of Windows in ways they really ought not to.

  24. Gray
    Facepalm

    I'll uninstall that patch ...

    right after I get back from having the root canal done at the discount dentist shop!

    Thanks EVER so effing much, M$!

    (Mr. Ballmer has a summer home here, on the west side of the island. The other week a huge chunk of the island slid away into the Sound, taking a neighbor's home with it. The local newsrag's said nothing about it, but I suspect it was triggered by Ballmer bangin' his chair against the garage wall, working out his tension from the office!)

  25. computer repair bronxville

    Hard to do

    It's ok to roll back for IT admins but hard for normal non-tech Windows 7 users. Better to shift to Linux.

    1. Crazy Operations Guy Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: Hard to do

      Yeah because a user that doesn't know how to use the Uninstall feature in Programs and Features is totally going to be able to install Linux...

      1. eulampios

        Re: Hard to do

        Can't recall a similar problem with my GNU Linux systems for some time. However, by default, a common practice for grub (or whatever boot loader) and updater to mark and keep at least the last stable kernel. So if your system has a problem with new one you can always boot that one.

    2. Toothpick

      Re: Hard to do

      and what about software that doesn't run under Linux?

      1. robynsveil
        Happy

        Re: Hard to do

        Simple answer: VirtualBox. Free and easy.

      2. eulampios

        @Toothpick

        And what about the one that doesn't run under Windows?

        What is your point? There is plenty of software available for both OS', however you might be surprised with some "weird" facts. Plus, MS

        Windows has a pretty messy architecture. It's hard to debug and control, it's poorly designed. It has a lot of things as afterthoughts, just like a headless server or PowerShell.

        Take this particular problem, there is no "safe kernel" to boot, unlike GNU Linux.

  26. CodeMonkery
    Joke

    "Windows 7 users should uninstall a security patch Microsoft issued on Tuesday because some PCs failed to restart after applying the update."

    So... how do you uninstall it if you can't restart it??!! :-p

    1. Zmodem

      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2839011

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    SOS, DD

    It's amazing that Microsucks raps Billions in rvenues annually from selling defective products and releasing defective updates.

  28. RyuWonder

    Buy a Mac...

    That is Apple's answer

  29. chivo243 Silver badge
    Holmes

    3 days?

    It took 3 days to figure this out? Uhm.... so even my waiting 36 hours after release to install updates isn't sufficient to determine the update is borking systems? Fortunately, we use MSSE on our MS Boxes.

    Nice Monday meeting talking point...

  30. This post has been deleted by its author

  31. David Glasgow

    Grave potential

    As I read

    "STOP: c000021a {Fatal System Error}

    The Session Manager Initialization system process terminated unexpectedly with a status of 0xC000003a (0x00000000 0x00000000).

    The system has shutdown."

    ... It suddenly occurred to me that this would be a pretty good inscription on a gravestone. I might just change my will. Until now, I had specified " E16-10-06 10:36:16|SETI@home|Unrecoverable error for result 09my03aa.866.9600.884652.3.79_1 ( - exit code -4 (0xfffffffc))

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    Kaspersky license problems — a fix that worked for us.

    For those on the forums here who were hit. Some notes:

    Typical problem is that Kaspersky will claim its license is invalid. Uninstalling KB2823324 for us resulted in Kaspersky accepting the license, but then refusing to start due to an "unexpected error".

    The fix was to uninstall the patches KB2817183, KB2813347, KB2813170 and KB2808735, rebooting each time, then using the Kaspersky uninstaller tool distributed with your version of Kaspersky, uninstall it, and re-install from your installation media.

    Turns out three of the users here got Patch-Wednesday'd (we run UTC+10 here, so it falls on a Wednesday for us). I'm putting a general network notice out to our users here, but for those who read these forums, the above might be worth trying. It of course comes with no guarantees whatsoever.

  33. Wzrd1

    NT4, SP6 repeat, on steroids.

    Way to suck, MickeySoft!

  34. Fihart

    Pity about the fire....

    Nice Windows 7 installation you got there. Pity if something terrible happened to it. On the other hand we have Windows 8 that might interest you.

  35. NOTiFY

    How I fixed it

    Just seen this. I assumed the problem I had on Tuesday am was related to some previous start-up problems.

    It took nearly an hour from logging in to get to start menu, then it was really slow. Restarted in safe mode and rebooted okay.

    Disabled a load of automatic start-up services. Eventually isolated it to the AVG Watch service,

    Uninstalled AVG and it all started okay. Now relying on Microsoft Security Essentials.

  36. vmcreator

    Cloud Beware

    And they want us to move from Vmware to Hyper-V and their Private Cloud!.

    Patch Tuesday = kill your cloud.

  37. Maharg
    WTF?

    But, but but....

    I don't understand, did they not test it?

  38. AndrewCarlton
    Angel

    Tried Kaspersky once...

    I tried Kaspersky once, while I was trying to find replacement for ESET Nod32, Kaspersky is really annoying so went for Bitdefender AV

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019