RE: [Full-Disclosure] Automating patch deployment

["Bassett, Mark" <mbassett@omaha.com>]

The good thing about SUS is that you can set it up to not push out the
packages until you approve them.  The SUS box downloads all the critical
updates and then they sit in queue until you tell them it's ok to push
them out.  I think that's the best way to handle the situation.  Sure it
creates a little admin work, but I think the advantage is clear.  

-----Original Message-----
From: gregh [mailto:chows@ozemail.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:04 AM
To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Automating patch deployment


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Johnson, Mark 
> To: George Peek ; full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 7:12 AM
> Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] Automating patch deployment


> Look at Microsoft Article 328010 for information on setting up Windows
> 2000, XP and 2003 to automatically update Microsoft's patches.  I know
> this isn't the full solution, but maybe a start.


Just my 2 cents again - I distinctly remember March 28 2002 XP and 2000
update stuffing many systems around the world. I also remember the
811493 patch slowdown and eventual reissue by MS.

Automation of update patches? Not on your Nellie! I would have a machine
download patches and try installs on it before I felt comfortable about
passing them on to others.


*LOOK MA! NO HTML!*

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


************************************************************
Omaha World-Herald Company computer systems are for business use only.
This e-mail was scanned by MailSweeper
************************************************************

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html