Windows update seems to have killed internet connection

debtworrier

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I think it's up to Microsoft, and other software manufacturers, to test their software, including updates and patches, with all widely used applications before issuing them. Zone Alarm could not have known that MS were going to issue this patch if MS didn't tell them in advance. If MS had done the testing, then chances are that the ZA update written to accommodate it could probably have been issued before the patch, or simultaneously with it. To say that MS are entitled to issue non fully tested updates as and when they please is indeed a joke, and if that's what happens, then large numbers of users are likely to suffer this sort of grief again and again. Is that customer-orientation ? I don't think so. And I'll bet that the vast majority of non-tecchie PC users will agree with me.

Regardless of what MS are entitled to do, releasing security updates in a way that unnecessarily cripples their customers' computers is STUPID. If they make a habit of it, then people will just turn off auto-updating in order to avoid the hassle - and then we'll see more viruses spread, more spamming, blah-de-blah.

If ZA was some tiny little company with a couple hundred users - well, okay. But this is one of the major players in the computer security game. What we just saw was MS indulging in short-term business tactics to damage its market rivals and ignoring the longer term damage it's doing to its own OS. Stupid stupid stupid.

[Deleted User]

debtworrier wrote: »

Regardless of what MS are entitled to do, releasing security updates in a way that unnecessarily cripples their customers' computers is STUPID. If they make a habit of it, then people will just turn off auto-updating in order to avoid the hassle - and then we'll see more viruses spread, more spamming, blah-de-blah.

If ZA was some tiny little company with a couple hundred users - well, okay. But this is one of the major players in the computer security game. What we just saw was MS indulging in short-term business tactics to damage its market rivals and ignoring the longer term damage it's doing to its own OS. Stupid stupid stupid.

No it wasn't. Microsoft responded to a serious flaw that was found in the way some of their operating systems handled DNS. Microsoft released this patch to ensure that their operating system and customers could not fall victim to this. No other firewall manufacturer apart from ZoneAlarm fell foul to this.

The finger of blame squarly points at the developers of ZA. Whether this was an oversight or not on their behalf, they should still bear the blame for this.

What long term damage? It made the operating system more secure.

GeorgeHowell

be_alright wrote: »

No it wasn't. Microsoft responded to a serious flaw that was found in the way some of their operating systems handled DNS. Microsoft released this patch to ensure that their operating system and customers could not fall victim to this. No other firewall manufacturer apart from ZoneAlarm fell foul to this.

The finger of blame squarly points at the developers of ZA. Whether this was an oversight or not on their behalf, they should still bear the blame for this.

What long term damage? It made the operating system more secure.

The key issue here is were ZA informed before the patch was distributed : (a) that the patch existed and/or (b) that there was a conflict. If the answer is yes to one or both, then certainly ZA should have reacted. But if neither a nor b applies then I just cannot see how ZA can be held responsible for this. Nothing I have seen in the media indicates that either Miscrosoft tested this patch properly with widely used forewalls etc, nor that they informed other software houses in advance so that they could test it out, or at leats be alert to the risk. In fact I have seen is stated somewhere that MS did not inform the likes of ZA. If so, I must agree with the writer above that the way MS have handled this is stupid. And I bet there are a lot of Windows/ZA users who like me have a lot more regard for ZA over the whole thing than we do for Microsoft. If the Windows firewall was all that it should be then we would not have use ZA etc anyway, would we.

[Deleted User]

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The key issue here is were ZA informed before the patch was distributed : (a) that the patch existed and/or (b) that there was a conflict. If the answer is yes to one or both, then certainly ZA should have reacted. But if neither a nor b applies then I just cannot see how ZA can be held responsible for this. Nothing I have seen in the media indicates that either Miscrosoft tested this patch properly with widely used forewalls etc, nor that they informed other software houses in advance so that they could test it out, or at leats be alert to the risk. In fact I have seen is stated somewhere that MS did not inform the likes of ZA. If so, I must agree with the writer above that the way MS have handled this is stupid. And I bet there are a lot of Windows/ZA users who like me have a lot more regard for ZA over the whole thing than we do for Microsoft. If the Windows firewall was all that it should be then we would not have use ZA etc anyway, would we.

The research on the flaws in DNS has been ongoing since March (according to the BBC website) with collaboration all over the industry. How come every other third party firewall manufacturer has not been affected by this? How come it is only Zone Alarm?

It is Microsoft's responsibility to ensure their own software is secure, crikey, they get shot down enough for security vunerabilities in the past.

The MS firewall is effective as any software firewall is, ie, a waste of resources if you've spent money on a good router and not the cheapest you can get