Security Patches

Securtiy Patches?

What are they? when you download the service pack 2 and afterwords, you see security patches in your add/remove programs. what are they exactly and how many shoudl there be? Thanks.

Security patches issued by Microsoft or any other vendor should be applied to your machine to repair flaws to the code (instructions) that your computer uses to operate. These patches can be operating system or application specific. The number that you notice on your system is specific to it and no others unless you're running two identical systems which is very unlikely. When downloading patches you may wish to start performing custom installs so you have more control over which patches are being applied to your machine. This is also a better option because patches have been known to make a stable system unstable and prone to crashing. A bit of research and prudence is always a good practice when it comes to patching your machine.

How can you take security patches so seriously?

Your request contained a restricted parameter combination. When SearchIndex equals Blended, Manufacturer cannot be present.

When using a wireless system, there are countless security concerns to be aware of, many of which require the system to be patched regularly to keep it up to date. Patches should be applied to both the operating systems and the applications, or the system will still be vulnerable. Keeping your wireless system patched gives hackers few places to get inside as well as warding off the new types of attacks that are being developed. While security patching is of the utmost importance, few companies are offering information about the security that is needed for wireless systems.

One of the threats that wireless users face is MAC spoofing. There are programs that allow hackers to "sniff" the traffic on the network and find MAC addresses that have privileges on wireless networks. This allows the sniffers to get through the MAC filtering systems that allow specific MACs to get that access. By using software that allows their own computer to pretend it has the MAC address it has sniffed out, it then has the same access to the network.

Another threat to wireless data is using WEP, which is notoriously easy to crack. WEP is an attempt to give wireless networks the same kind of encryption that a wired system has. The encryption, however, is not as secure as most people believe. The encryption is flawed and can be hacked within minutes. It's often the subject of hacking attempts both for its ease and because it's been around so long that just about any wireless device supports it.

To get a better level of protection, use WPA2 instead. WPA2 adds a much stronger layer of protection to your wireless security than by simply using WEP. In its second generation, provides more than just encryption- it also provides a controlled access entry. Using the network requires the use of a lengthy password that is unlikely to be hacked. The passwords to gain access can be up to 63 characters, making it easy to come up with one that will be virtually impenetrable. Of course, this is dependant on using a unique password that has never been found in any printed or online work.

If you use a wireless system often, leaving it running at all times to keep it available can be tempting. But, keeping the broadcast running around the clock only increases the amount of time it can be the object of an attack. If you turn off the network at times when you won't be using it, you can remove some of its vulnerable time.

Using the system out of the box without implementing these strategies leaves it unsecured and vulnerable. If you run your system with WPA2, choosing a long password, and couple that with running the system only when it's needed and patch your system often, you have a much better chance of keeping your system from being hacked. And if the system does come under attack, have an intrusion detection device in place. The standard products used for wired networks don't always translate into the same service for wireless ones, so use one that is specifically for wireless networks.

About the Author:

IC endorses Paul Walsh who manages Protocol solutions network security, learn more about network security issues for business and Protocol solutions vulnerability management, visit us today!

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com - Wireless Security

Tags: microsoft, security, security patches, security patches are backported, security patches for linux, security patches for uniforms, security patches for windows xp, security patches microsoft, software, update, windows

Categories: Ebook Reader Devices

---

2 Responses

1. 

   Peter Norman:

   Hi James! I just read about your post via Warner over at GBM. I don't know what I'd do without you guys – I visit JKontherun and GBM almost a dozen times a day – more when I'm sufficiently propped up on the caffeine crutch.

   Anyway, I'm sorry for repeating myself but as I posted at GBM:

   “Whatever the reasons for Vista's performance, surely what matters is Microsoft's response? They've had almost a year, since releasing Vista to manufacturing, to work on updates.

   - the Reliability & Compatibility updates came only a few weeks ago, 7 months after retail release/9 months after corp
   - after a year of work, SP1 is due in December as a beta – A BETA!
   - the monthly release schedule produced expected security patches rather than OS updates, though occasional driver updates have made steps in the right direction

   With all the programmers & related resources that it has available, Microsoft's efforts have shown very little results. The three points listed above demonstrate that they've been doing SOMETHING, but it also shows that they haven't produced much.

   Is anyone resentful about Microsoft's plan to release SP1 as a beta, after over a year working on it? Is anyone encouraged by it?”

   So, clearly I agree with you, James and I'm amazed at how the Vista situation is unfolding. But its brought to light some startling discoveries for me. Its all confirmed, to as much an extent as is possible, that there's something behind all this that helps make sense of it all – which isn't the same as justifying it since its obviously not proving to be an entirely successful way of doing things for Microsoft customers like you and I!

   Please note up front that I'm a longtime Mac nerd and have come back into the Microsoft world full force via the TabletPC, though I've supported and maintained Microsoft products (SBS, SharePoint, WinXP, etc) for years in my day job. The upshot is starting in 2005, for the first time since the early 90s, I got to watch how Microsoft does things, but this time from the eyes of a 'grownup'. Reading the blogs of Microsoft employees helped a lot. (That was a strategy with potential dividends definitely not missed by Microsoft.)

   First, Microsoft's OS goals are motivated by the enterprise market, not the consumer market. Duh, you might say, but hey! I've been 'wandering in the wilderness' for 13 years – when I last looked up, 'shoegaze' was all the rage! This is significant because a small, lean Apple can move fast on product strategies when dealing with the consumer space – hell, they had 3 major OS releases in five years! Given the kickback by Dell and other OEMs when faced with a retail Vista rollout just before Christmas 2006, can you imagine their reaction if this happened EVERY year for four years? Microsoft can't be as nimble for loads of reasons I'd never considered – that doesn't mean you and everyone else hadn't recognized this, of course. But IMO its helpful to bring it up in this context. The proof is in the fact that Microsoft CHANGED their retail release plan to suit those OEMs.

   Second, Microsoft has established perhaps the best (happiest?) place on the planet for IT people to work. They've done this by removing the rat-race as much as possible, developing a career path for everyone from the paper-jam jockeys (like me!) to the Unit Managers. IT is still very young in the business world and executives on down to assistants still don't know what IT people really get up to, in the same way that they understand what accountants do; if this isn't the case, then why are accountants paid so much more than IT staff? The accountants have had hundreds of years to carve themselves an identity in the business world. Anyway, somehow, Microsoft made it possible to be a programmer/developer without a 3-pack a day habit, be healthy, and have relationships longer than a few minutes (!?) up against a wall in the back of a club (ok, minutes sounds optimistic, but not when foreplay (the pizza) and cuddling (ie: cigarette) is included!). When even the testers and interns can have what Maxim or even Jugs magazine would characterize as “a life”, we can't expect the kind of results that are characterized by Apple's early days or current shareware developers.

   So, within this giant, IT-safe, bureaucratic workplace, its not so much about the customer as it is about the process; sure the customer motivated the original development of this process but the argument stands: a better product will roll out the door in the end, and thats what drives any business – see Microsoft's Mac Business Unit's recent 'pr' on the delay of Office 2008 for Mac to see this approach in action.

   Third, the software industry (perhaps following Microsoft's lead or perhaps simply falling victim to the demands of the new marketplace) has changed its goal of releasing finished products to releasing works-in-progress. Everyone from Apple to Microsoft to Xandros now work this way and it has a lot to recommend it. Ship a product and with the new broadband world its easy to address any shortcomings. We've been effectively living in this world for a long time but Vista may be the first time its been evident on such a large scale.

   The promised Vista SP1 fits this 'theory' and why it matters is to do with expectations – your article sets out the parameters of those expectations very well: what worries me is that we can no longer apply the same expectations that a lot of us grew up on, the 'world order' has changed, requiring a new set of expectations. We are being expected to 'work with' Microsoft as they release updates; whether they are 'beta quality' can hardly be a valid point when the original software (Vista in this case) was of similar quality upon release.

   Instead, the SP1 beta release will serve as an ongoing updating, testing, and tightening effort – its just badly named given the new world order. For instance, since its release in May 2005, Apple has released ten point releases to Tiger; thats about once every 3 months over 27 months – not including security patches. In Microsoft's parlance these ten updates would be viewed as Service Packs. But Microsoft won't be able to release as many Service Packs – the OEMs etc would freak.

   Are we now stuck with this way of doing things. If this really is whats happening, then why couldn't Microsoft have released the beta of SP1 in July and followed with a schedule of regular updates? Thats anyones guess but I'm thinking their work culture has informed the state of updates as much as anything. Perhaps they're sensitive to the perception that Vista's delay was due to making it properly fit for release and have been avoiding quick (or slow) update schedules for fear that the enterprise market would scream and retreat on their Vista transition plans if they 'see proof' that Vista is not as ready as they were led to believe. Apple's method of an update every two months is cool for consumers but as I said earlier, the enterprise market would have a lot of problems with such an approach.

   Finally, while it looks to be the case, Microsoft is not actually making this up as it goes forward. According to Microsoft's Partner site, Windows XP will not be available to anyone but builder/OEMs after January 2008. As mental as it sounds, they do have a strategy; they are on a path and following it. However, its as much of a strategy as you CAN have in a marketplace where the enterprise is dictating the schedule in more ways than is always apparent; mix in the time it takes to develop and test with the usual delays and soon, the prospect of leaving Vista customers alone (except for security updates) for a year with a new OS makes some kind of mad sense. Its obscene but they've got us by the short hairs with one hand while the other caresses and placates the enterprise. Unfortunately, no individual is Microsoft's customer. If we want that kind of experience, then the closest you'll find is probably Apple, based primarily on their product release/update cycle. We're stuck with this new world order and its corresponding slow pace. Sadly, its all about making things easier for Microsoft and the enterprise.

   09.09.2010 02:12

2. 

   Gavin B:

   Thank you for the tip,I do know that Microsoft do not send e-mails about up dates

   25.10.2011 11:17