Talk:Patch Tuesday/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Patch Tuesday. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Expiration of services
Just wondering why XP Home Edition is singled out here?
The Microsoft Support Lifecycle table (via the source link) says "Extended Support Retired: 08/04/2014" on rows for Home Edition, Professional and all Media Centre Editions. Can't see any difference personally. 194.116.198.178 (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I've expanded this section to include all versions listed in the Microsoft Product Lifecycle article it links to. Cannot see any justification for singling out the Home Edition when the extended support date is the same (08/04/2014) for each one.
86.147.222.215 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Article expansion
- I enhanced the entry to something I think can live up as a non-stub. I added a bit of full disclosure discussion into the mix, but I tried not to put too much. Shachar 08:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Exploit Wednesday?
What's the use of the Exploit Wednesday link in the "See also" section, if this entry is redirected to Patch Tuesday (as it currently is)? Before creating an Exploit Wednesday entry, does it really make sense to deal with that in a different entry (then we should create one, of course) or would it be better to add an Exploit Wednesday section to this entry and keep the redirection? But let's definitely remove the link as long as it only redirects here.
So far, I'd say, Exploit Wednesday is not to be seen independently, but it only makes sense as a reaction to Patch Tuesday. So by my gut feeling, I'd suggest to add an Exploit Wednesday section for now. If that grows to a substantial content, we can still move it to a separate entry. --raschi 20:00, 26 October 2006 (CEDST)
- So now we have "Hack Wednesday" and "Exploit Wednesday" in different parts of the articles. --Henrygb 09:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to say the whole spirit of this article is based on a "gut feeling" Where are the citations? Wikipedia is not about opinions and this article has citations for Patch Tuesday, and the Skype crash of 07' other than that, no citations what-so-ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.214.221 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd favor removal of the sentence "Malware authors can sit on the vulnerability of a new exploitation entry point until after a given patch Tuesday, knowing that there will be an entire month before Microsoft releases any patch to fix it." A citation is needed, has been requested, and is likely not forthcoming, as in fact this is not a common practice; Microsoft releases patches to critical vulnerabilities for which exploits are known to exist in the wild as they become available, and not solely on Microsoft Tuesday. Bonehed (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Exploit Wednesday: questionable reference link
I didn't find any information in this alleged 'article' [1]
~ender 2007-05-06 16:57:PM MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Skype Outage
Someone has added the following remark to the Other Consequences section. "Outage happened two days later - whether or not Patch Tuesday was the cause is questionable. Computer reboots, especially automatic, do not always signify the logon required for such network strain)." According to the source previously cited, Skype itself identified Patch Tuesday as a contributory cause. However, Skype was careful not to blame Microsoft for a bug that was clearly Skype's own responsibility; Skype was merely explaining why it had not found the bug before, because the bug only surfaced in exceptional circumstances. I am rewording the original statement and removing the remark. --RichardVeryard (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"Last quarter of 2004?"
This phrase was first sighted on usenet in April 04, not in the last quarter Bitplane 02:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitplane (talk • contribs)
What two problems?
"The Windows Update system suffered from two problems, affecting opposite ends of the users scale. On the one hand, less experienced users were not aware of it, and did not run it. Microsoft's solution was to introduce the concept of "Automatic Update", which would pro-actively inform the user that an update was available for their system."
What two problems, what opposites ends, and what is on the other hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.96.209 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Records
Can a section be added showing records: Typical, Extreme High and low in patches or vulnerabilities cured per Patch Tuesday?
For example, the record high number of security patches was April 2011, 17 patches fixing 64 holes.
Secunia.com reports that in 2009, 300 vulnerabilities were patched in that year.
Reference-able sources exists and this information is useful for both Risk Assessment and Informed Consumers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctific (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)