[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       focus-ms
Subject:    RE: HFNetChk Pro vs. other means to push out updates
From:       "Shutters, Mike" <mshutters () titan ! com>
Date:       2002-03-21 19:15:26
[Download RAW message or body]

Ahhhhhh, but Windows 98 IS a business desktop operating system.  ME is not,
which is why the Microsoft policy editor is not supported in ME.  "Windows
Millennium Edition contains features specifically designed for the home
user, and thus is not intended for policy use."  MS KB article Q266271.

Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jackson, Ben (DPH) [SMTP:Ben.Jackson@state.ma.us]
> Sent:	Thursday, March 21, 2002 7:46 AM
> To:	emann@questinc.org; brett@securityprofiling.com;
> focus-ms@securityfocus.com
> Subject:	RE: HFNetChk Pro vs. other means to push out updates
> 
> Ah, but there are businesses that use 9x, I know there are a good 
> portion of Netware shops that use 9x as their workstations and the 
> NW client does a very nice job of locking down the 9x system. Just
> because 9x wasn't initially designed for the business environment 
> doesn't mean it isn't used for such. Microsoft made the system
> so they should really support it.
> 							~Ben
> 
> --
> Ben Jackson - Asst LAN Admin - MA Dept. of Health - Bureau of Health
> Stats.
> ben.jackson@state.ma.us - bbj@shore.net - http://piro.dnsq.org/~bbj
> Sysadmining - Hours of frustration punctuated by moments of sheer terror.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: emann@questinc.org [mailto:emann@questinc.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:17 PM
> To: brett@securityprofiling.com; focus-ms@securityfocus.com
> Subject: RE: HFNetChk Pro vs. other means to push out updates
> 
> 
> In the grand scheme of this category of products, and I mean the category
> as
> a whole, yes, win9x/me needs to be considered, as would UNIX variants, but
> HFNetChk is a product designed specifically for Microsoft's business level
> operating systems.  Many of the readers here deal with homogenous
> Microsoft
> environments I'm sure, so they really are not concerned with anything
> aside
> from MS operating systems.  And since this product was designed for
> business
> level operating systems, which win9x/me are not, there would be no such
> support in this particular product, nor would I see a huge need for it any
> other package in this category of products that was Microsoft-only based.
> The Win9x platform was never suited well for business IMHO, and it is
> vastly
> old and outdated, and I can fully understand why someone would not invest
> the time to provide support in this type of product for it.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Oliphant [mailto:brett@securityprofiling.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 12:23 PM
> To: focus-ms@securityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: HFNetChk Pro vs. other means to push out updates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This catagory of product is awesome.  This is needed for every
> organization.
> No one has time to do this by hand. However since this is a new catagory
> of
> product ... aren't we overlooking some important considerations?
> 
> There are several packages out there. But long term doesn't this type of
> product need to support third party applications?  Doesn't it also need to
> cover other operating systems than just windows NT ? There are still tons
> of
> Windows 9x out there.  And what about unix? Do we care not about the total
> solution?
> 
> <caution> Judgement may be skewed for our product SysUpdate does exactly
> what I have said.
> 
> Brett Oliphant
> SecurityProfiling, Inc.
> www.securityprofiling.com
> 765.532.3123
> 
> 
> 
> > I'm giving a public webcast presentation on HFNetChk on April 9th.
> >
> (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://support.microsoft.c
> om
> /servicedesks/webcasts/wc040902/wcblurb040902.asp)
> > (above URL is wrapped)
> >
> > Among other items, we will discuss how hfnetchk always verifies the
> > existence of patches via fileversions and checksums.  The presentation
> will
> > also include a discussion of the next version of the XML schema and
> hfnetchk.
> >
> > In order to assist with performing a quick scan, the default action will
> > first try to determine if the patch may have been applied by looking for
> > the presence of a patch specific registry key.  If this key is not
> found,
> > we assume the patch was not applied and label it as not found.  If the
> key
> > is present, we verify the patch really is installed by checking the
> > fileversions and checksums of all involved files.  In any case, we don't
> > rely on the presence of a registry key alone to state that a patch has
> not
> > been applied.  (this has been the default behavior since the first
> version
> > of hfnetchk)
> >
> > If you are concerned that registry keys may not have been written, or
> have
> > been overwritten, etc. you can disable the reg checks altogether so that
> > existence or absence of the patch is verified solely by the checksum and
> > file version assessment.  Use the -z switch as documented in KB article
> > Q303215.  This feature has also been available since the first release
> of
> > the tool.
> >
> > FIY - SMS ships the same version of hfnetchk - an SMS add-on pack
> includes
> > the files necessary to automate the hfnetchk scan, file download, and
> patch
> > installation.
> >
> > At 09:44 AM 3/19/2002 -0800, Colin Stefani wrote:
> > >One product we use for patch distribution is PatchLink
> (www.patchlink.com),
> > >which has been good. It's an agent based product that is licensed on a
> per
> > >machine/node basis. We use it for all our servers and then use SMS for
> > >sending out to the workstations, since our workstations are fairly
> > >standardized the patches are all the same but our servers are different
> from
> > >each other in many cases.
> > >
> > >Patchlink takes some tweaking, but the company is helpful and willing
> to
> > >work with you. It's a commercial product, so it does cost money to use,
> but
> > >we felt it did a better job than HFNetChk in terms of looking at
> > >applications in addition to OS patches as well as the fact is allowed
> for
> > >silent distribution and automated reboots. It also performs check
> summing
> > >and version checking of files in addition to registry entries, which at
> the
> > >time of our evaluation hfnetchk didn't do (or do well) and was
> something
> we
> > >wanted and felt made a patch product more complete.
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]