seaman
Premium
join:2000-12-08
Seattle, WA
| [XP] Bad XP update pulled from store shelves
Another "Windows Update Ooops!" Turns out it didnt work well with software from a little company called Symantec. If anyone has further details about what products it hosed please post.
»seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/···g28.html |
|
FiOS Dan
Premium
join:2001-07-06
Redondo Beach, CA | I don't understand why the editor failed to mention the update number so we could all be on the lookout for it. 
--
"Well, come see a fat old man sometime!" |
|
seaman
Premium
join:2000-12-08
Seattle, WA
| Found a couple more details here-
»australianit.news.com.au/article···,00.html
Im afraid I was swayed by the number "600,000" which appears several times. Apparently, this issue didnt impact too many BBR users. |
|
BA
The Old Man's Gonna Roll the Hard Six
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-24
Vancouver, BC
clubs: 
| reply to seaman
I believe it's 818043.
Reference: »www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar···y27.html (Scroll to bottom)
Ameritech forum thread: »SBC DSL: DO NOT INSTALL WINDOWS XP UPDATE 818043 |
|
FiOS Dan
Premium
join:2001-07-06
Redondo Beach, CA | My mistake. The update number is mentioned, albeit way down "below the fold". 
--
"Well, come see a fat old man sometime!" |
|
Nonentity
"Quis Custodes Ipsos Custodiet?"
Premium
join:2003-05-02
Randolph, NJ
| reply to seaman
Here's my .02:
Sure there are Windows Updates "Oooops!es" all the time -- on the other hand, don't forget that Symantec products are by no means perfect themselves -- I've run into plenty of problems with Norton AV doing all kinds of strange stuff. I'm not knocking Symantec, but thems the facts.
So the question really is:
Was the Update flawed, or was it merely incompatible with 3rd party software? If the update didn't do what it was designed to do to the OS, I'd say go ahead and put the screws to MS -- on the other hand, if it was a synergistic side-effect of interactions with 3rd party software, shouldn't they bear some of the responsibility as well? I'm no MS apologist, but they get slammed for every little thing -- I'm willing to bet the patch worked just fine on testbed systems (without Symantec on them).
It is physically impossible to test every possible hardware/OS/software combination to see what the side effects of anything are... at least the fix was simple enough to enact.
--
"I'm a young man now, there's an old man on my back. I'm a young man now there's an old man on my back. As he gets stronger, I get weak. Someday soon, he'll take the place of me." -- Blues riff. Occupation: Professional Cynic |
|
timcuth
Braves Fan
Premium
join:2000-09-18
Pelham, AL
clubs:
 ·AT&T Southeast
|  reply to seaman
It is axiomatic in the computing industry: any software that is significant enough to be really useful has bugs.
This includes Windows, UNIX, Linux, MacOS, and everything else. All major applications. Most minor applications. Even NASA, NSA, and CIA software developed to the most stringent specifications and quality control standards.
Maybe someday this will no longer be true. But, not yet.
Tim
--
As Milton Berle said, "My wife and I have a perfect understanding. I don't try to run her life and I don't try to run mine." |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to seaman
This is why there are 'documented' and 'undocumented' interfaces.
Assume a program written entirely to use documented interfaces. If a new release of the OS comes out, and the program no longer works, it's the OS's fault. The documented interface is a contract between OS and program.
Assume a program written to use some undocumented interfaces. If a new release of the OS comes out, and the program no longer works, it's the program's fault. The programmer simply assumed that something apparently true today would be true for all time.
Sometimes you have to use undocumented interfaces to get the job done, and I'd imagine that is the case here. However, if you do that, it's up to you to test with every new update to the OS, and get yourself plugged in so that you get updates before they hit the stores (not hard; MS is tolerably good about supporting developers in this manner). |
|
Nonentity
"Quis Custodes Ipsos Custodiet?"
Premium
join:2003-05-02
Randolph, NJ |  reply to timcuth
The truth of the matter:
All Operating Systems Suck
GIGO
 |
|
PeeWee
Premium
join:2001-10-21
Clovis, CA
clubs:
·Pacific Bell - SBC
 ·Comcast
| reply to seaman
Im afraid I was swayed by the number "600,000" which appears several times. Apparently, this issue didnt impact too many BBR users. [/QUOTE]
--------------------------------------------
As reporters, and editors do. It would seem more newsworthy to make it seem to affect all 600,000 that loaded it, when the actual number of those it created a problem for would be quite less. Not trying to slight the problem but it seems not to be as fantastic as they would have you believe.
--
I'm just a fly on the wall in a room full of the best knowledge on the internet! |
|
Keizer
I'M Your Huckleberry
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-20 | reply to seaman
This was for a reccomended update, not a critical update correct? |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to seaman
Ah. I only just noticed that the title "from store shelves" was either an exaggeration, or poetic metaphor, depending on how you look at it.
In that case, there was probably nothing that Symantec would see before release (contrary to my earlier posting). |
|
seaman
Premium
join:2000-12-08
Seattle, WA
| After looking into this further I question whether it is even newsworthy. This glitch only impacted XP users that use certain VPN tunneling protocols and a "popular" firewall (i.e. Symantec's NPF). As noted in the story M$ has withdrawn the update. I apologize for spreading any unwarranted FUD. Thanks to BAuyoung for posting the specific update. |
|
seaman
Premium
join:2000-12-08
Seattle, WA
| reply to Keizer
said by Keizer  :
This was for a reccomended update, not a critical update correct?
Yes, this is true. It would not install via auto-update. You had to manually choose it. |
|
2kmaro
Think
Premium,ExMod 1 BC
join:2000-07-11
ColossalCave
clubs:
| reply to Nonentity
I'm in the same group as you! I've long been of the opinion that many of Symantec's products were too intrusive and worked in "non-standard" ways or at too low a level. I've had problems with many of their security/privacy tools - so much so that I don't install them on any system I own. Caveats: I don't have anything but experience and gut feeling to back up my statements. Yes, I know that hundreds of thousands use Symantec products such as Norton Personal Firewall and NAV with no problems at all.
But in the meantime - no room in my RAM for Symantec!!
--
Man - the animal voted least likely to leave well enough alone. |
|
subzero57
Premium
join:2000-06-28
Kent, WA
| The update is number Q815021 XP: Security Update. I just downloaded and nothing worked like before. Had to revert back to my system restore. What's Microsoft & Symantec thinking???
[text was edited by author 2003-05-28 15:30:48] |
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
| said by subzero57 :
What's Microsoft thinking???
That Symantec had a clue?
Absent any solid technical information on the actual problem, I'm loathe to assign blame here. There are two sides to any interface. |
|
subzero57
Premium
join:2000-06-28
Kent, WA | I'm not downloading any updates til there's a fix. Nortons and Microsoft should be banging their heads to find a fix for us Win XP users. |
|
Ivan
Premium
join:2001-11-15
Internet
| I have had so many problems lately that traced back to a MS updates (813489 & 811493 for starters) that I'll only install a Service Pack from now on.
FrontPage2002 (an MS product) was crippled by an MS update. That's crazy.
--
Asus A7N8X | XP2400+ | Kingston DDR333/PC2700 |
|
Nonentity
"Quis Custodes Ipsos Custodiet?"
Premium
join:2003-05-02
Randolph, NJ
| As an aside, it should be noted that part of the problem is partially our (the consumers) fault.
Note: I am not a programmer, nor a Microsoft employee (or apologist). This came from an article I read about three months ago -- if I can find the link to the article I will post later.
In getting hounded about "security issues" on a constant basis, Microsoft launched the "Secure PC" initiative as we all know. What isn't commonly known is that one of the directives of that initiative was to "plug all security holes ASAP" -- which translated means, "Don't bother checking every known application for compatibility, don't worry about crashing software, just plug the darn holes. If it breaks an application, we'll worry about it then, just as long as it's secure". I would also say that though unintentional, this application conflict certainly "secured" things vis a vis the Internet!
Normally, all updates are tested pretty thouroughly on a variety of platforms with a variety of MS and 3rd-Party applications -- they have apparently begun to accelerate the pace of that testing in order to push patches through much quicker. The end result of course, is that in production environments there is always going to be a set of conditions that cause the patches to backfire -- moreso than usual, I should say.
--
"I'm a young man now, there's an old man on my back. I'm a young man now there's an old man on my back. As he gets stronger, I get weak. Someday soon, he'll take the place of me." -- Blues riff. Occupation: Professional Cynic |
|
