Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Accessing the MS newsgroups in Outlook Express Newsreader http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroupsetup.mspx Setting up Outlook Express to access Microsoft newsgroups http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm Setting up Windows Mail (Vista) to access Microsoft newsgroups http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/microsoft-newsgroup-setup-instructions-for-windows-mail/ -- ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002 AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net DTS-L http://dts-l.net/ flpat4747 wrote: > Hi Folks, Help please. Have picked this question only because it is recent > and I hope then people will see my call for help. I would like to pose a > question but everytime I try to use new > it doesn't work; it turns red and the drop down list appears. I chose > question but after that nothing happens. I'm trapped. Help I put this > message in one other place in the hopes someone would see it. > > "PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote: > >> [Crossposted to Windows Update, WinXP General, IE General, Security, >> Security Home Users newsgroups] >> >> Resolution [was Workaround] for Sudden Loss of Internet Access Problem >> http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/free/pressReleases/2008/LossOfInternetAccessIssue.html >> (revised multiple times since release on 08 July 2008) >> >> NB: Do NOT use Option #2 if at all possible! The vulnerability addressed >> by KB951748 *is* a big deal! See >> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/07/patch_the_entire_internet_tues_1.html >> >> Want to consider other, more highly-rated firewalls? >> http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php >> -- >> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) >> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002 >> AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net >> DTS-L http://dts-l.net/
Guest xxexbushpig Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Well it might have been a "dimbulb" (which is a great new word BTW), but it wasn't as big a dimbulb as the Microsoft person who issued the KB951748 update that screwed up millions of people! "Nunya Bidnits" wrote: > PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: > > Nunya Bidnits wrote: > > <snip> > >> OK, I just refreshed the page and now its there. But you can see > >> from the cut and paste it wasn't there, at least not for a while. > >> The "date last revised" on that page has not changed, July 9. I may > >> be crazy but I ain't stupid, when everyone said it was there I tried > >> that page several times, and > >> have never navigated to it before today, so it was not in my cache. > > > > That page has been revised at least four (4) times since it was first > > published on 08 July 2008. > > Well, some dimbulb revised it at least once without the update links.... > sheesh. > > MartyB in KC > >
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party application, not the other way around? Get real. xxexbushpig wrote: > Well it might have been a "dimbulb" (which is a great new word BTW), but > it > wasn't as big a dimbulb as the Microsoft person who issued the KB951748 > update that screwed up millions of people!
Guest V Green Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message news:OF4tAiE5IHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party application, > not the other way around? Why not? ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it. So it's ZA's problem? Get real. > > Get real. > > > xxexbushpig wrote: > > Well it might have been a "dimbulb" (which is a great new word BTW), but > > it > > wasn't as big a dimbulb as the Microsoft person who issued the KB951748 > > update that screwed up millions of people! >
Guest Shenan Stanley Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released <snipped> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: > So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party > application, not the other way around? V Green wrote: > Why not? > > ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it. > So it's ZA's problem? > > Get real. Yes. Stay general and tell me how you can logically and reasonably say otherwise... Leave out any specific names. The original manufacturer of an original product released a patch/upgrade for their original product. The original product had been modified in this case by a third party product. The original manufacturer has no responsibility to test all the possible third party add-ons/changes you can perform on their product - because they simply would not have the resources or time to do so - nor is it probably logistically possible/plausible. Therefore - if a change (critical) is made to the original product and the third party product no longer functions as the third party vendor said it would - it is their responsibility to decide whether or not to make it right. I responded like this in another location already - if you have someway to legitimately change that logic around - I would be glad to read. This is what I wrote earlier - it's repetative in many ways to what I wrote above - but perhaps seeing it described in a couple of ways will allow more people to understand the point... And if there is another side to it - perhaps be able to explain that point of view. ( begin repost ) No offense meant below - honest question... You have a (potential) problem with an update for the original product you purchased because you have modified the original product with the addition of a third party product that has no relation with the manufacturer of the original product other than the fact they made their product to fit 'on top of' that original product - and your complaint is with the original product manufacturer? Wouldn't your complaint be better received if made to those who made the third party product you chose to replace the parts of the original product when you decided you wanted to modify it? P.S. - I couldn't care less that the specific complaint is about Microsoft, Chevrolet, Whirlpool or whomever - that is why I left out names in my actual query completely. It doesn't matter who made the original product in question - if you chose to modify it with some third party product and then some recall/update/upgrade comes out for the original product - do you honestly believe the manufacturer of the original product should find out every modification you *could have made* to their product is and make sure their upgrade/update for their product works with all of those possibilities? Or would it be more logical to place the responsibility of maintaining the third party modification to the makers of said modification? ( end repost ) In the end - I believe one could more easily argue the point that it is the end-users responsibility more than anyone's - as they are the one who made the conscience choice to change the original product for 'supposed' more protection with a third party add-ons; and then, when the original product is changed in some way (by the original manufacturer) and that makes the original product fail unless the add-on is removed... well - who made the choice to utilize that product? But that's a completely different point of view than the one I originally presented - but one I could see someone taking and being able to defend. Please - present your point of view and back it up - I would actually like to hear it because I am finding it difficult to fathom it right now. Perhaps you have a generalized way of explaining it where I can see your point of view. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Guest Phyllis Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Sorry about posting in the wrong place, but I was mainly commenting on the fact that there were others with what seemed like the same problem that did not have ZA. XP SP3, IE 7, and my AVG did an update this week that required restart of my computer which has never happened before, so it is possible they made some changes as well. Has anyone complained about that freebie screwing things up? Seems like everything I have on my computer has been wanting to update today and I'm getting a little gun shy. Thanks "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message news:OmgVyZD5IHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > No, sorry. It's been a very long week... > > Then again, you did post in a thread about ZoneAlarm and KB951748 instead > of beginning your own thread. > > What's your Windows version (e.g., WinXP SP3) and IE version, Phyllis? > What other updates did you install this week besides KB951748? > -- > ~PA Bear > > > Phyllis wrote: >> So this fix works even if you are not running Zone Alarms? >> >> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ezKj7394IHA.4988@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> ZA's had the fix for several days now: >>> >>> Resolution [was Workaround] for Sudden Loss of Internet Access Problem >>> (revised multiple times since release on 08 July 2008) >>> http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/free/pressReleases/2008/LossOfInternetAccessIssue.html >>> >>> NB: Do NOT use Option #2 if at all possible! The vulnerability >>> addressed >>> by KB951748 *is* a big deal! See >>> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/07/patch_the_entire_internet_tues_1.html >>> >>> Want to consider other, more highly-rated firewalls? >>> http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php >>> -- >>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) >>> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002 >>> AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net >>> DTS-L http://dts-l.net/ > <snip>
Guest Freddy Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Unfortunately, I hve new problems now. Windows XP is hanging on "Scanningprocess.exe" for over 2 hours. I can't do anything but shutoff my machine and reboot in Safe mode. Any other solutions?
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released What other *Windows* updates did you install this week? Exactly what problems are you experiencing since installing the July 2008 updates? Did you upgrade from AVG v7.5 to v8.0, and are you now running v8.1.135? -- ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002 AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net DTS-L http://dts-l.net/ Phyllis wrote: > Sorry about posting in the wrong place, but I was mainly commenting on the > fact that there were others with what seemed like the same problem that > did > not have ZA. > > XP SP3, IE 7, and my AVG did an update this week that required restart of > my > computer which has never happened before, so it is possible they made some > changes as well. Has anyone complained about that freebie screwing things > up? Seems like everything I have on my computer has been wanting to > update > today and I'm getting a little gun shy. Thanks > >> No, sorry. It's been a very long week... >> >> Then again, you did post in a thread about ZoneAlarm and KB951748 instead >> of beginning your own thread. >> >> What's your Windows version (e.g., WinXP SP3) and IE version, Phyllis? >> What other updates did you install this week besides KB951748? >> -- >> Phyllis wrote: >>> So this fix works even if you are not running Zone Alarms? >>> >>>> ZA's had the fix for several days now: <snip>
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Please begin a new thread in an appropriate newsgroup about these problems, Freddy. Thanks. Freddy wrote: > Unfortunately, I hve new problems now. Windows XP is hanging on > "Scanningprocess.exe" for over 2 hours. I can't do anything but shutoff > my > machine and reboot in Safe mode. Any other solutions?
Guest mae Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released read this and follow the links: Alliance forms to fix DNS flaw http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11526 mae "xxexbushpig" <xxexbushpig@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A3F3FADE-1D54-48E4-B6AD-14F9AB809EB0@microsoft.com... | Well it might have been a "dimbulb" (which is a great new word BTW), but it | wasn't as big a dimbulb as the Microsoft person who issued the KB951748 | update that screwed up millions of people! | | "Nunya Bidnits" wrote: | -snip-
Guest Phyllis Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Microsoft Windows Updates this week were KB951748 (Security Update for XP), KB951978 (Update for Windows XP), KB890830 (Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool). I have been experiencing problems with my internet connection all week. Sometimes I can't get it to connect at all, or a window will come up and say "there is no internet connection available, do I want to work offline or retry." If I click retry it will connect right up. Then at other times it will connect to the cable connection with no problem, but then my wireless connection will not connect, it doesn't even show a network available. After fooling with it (disable, re-enable, repair) it will just finally connect up. I had already upgraded to AVG 8.0 several weeks ago. The update this week was just a part of daily updates, but required restart of my computer which it never did before. It says 8.0.138. "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e30nuxF5IHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > What other *Windows* updates did you install this week? Exactly what > problems are you experiencing since installing the July 2008 updates? > > Did you upgrade from AVG v7.5 to v8.0, and are you now running v8.1.135? > -- > ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) > MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002 > AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net > DTS-L http://dts-l.net/ > > > Phyllis wrote: >> Sorry about posting in the wrong place, but I was mainly commenting on >> the >> fact that there were others with what seemed like the same problem that >> did >> not have ZA. >> >> XP SP3, IE 7, and my AVG did an update this week that required restart of >> my >> computer which has never happened before, so it is possible they made >> some >> changes as well. Has anyone complained about that freebie screwing >> things >> up? Seems like everything I have on my computer has been wanting to >> update >> today and I'm getting a little gun shy. Thanks >> >>> No, sorry. It's been a very long week... >>> >>> Then again, you did post in a thread about ZoneAlarm and KB951748 >>> instead >>> of beginning your own thread. >>> >>> What's your Windows version (e.g., WinXP SP3) and IE version, Phyllis? >>> What other updates did you install this week besides KB951748? >>> -- >>> Phyllis wrote: >>>> So this fix works even if you are not running Zone Alarms? >>>> >>>>> ZA's had the fix for several days now: > <snip>
Guest Sam Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released xxexbushpig wrote: > Well it might have been a "dimbulb" (which is a great new word BTW), but it > wasn't as big a dimbulb as the Microsoft person who issued the KB951748 > update that screwed up millions of people! Look, I understand where you are coming from. I have been bitten by this "bug" too (well, not me personally, but couple of relatives I help with computer stuff). Also note that I am no Windows fan boy. So I don't get giddy eyed and swoon at every new Windows release or update and neither do I *religiously* defend their "secure OS" or their pricing policies (as some do there ... *ducks*). I just use it as a tool for whatever I have to do. So, in my view this particular update, the KB951748, appears to fix some DNS vulnerability in Windows. Good. But it also messed up Zone Alarm. But MS has nothing to do with Zone Alarm and ZA people already gave out an upgraded version of ZA which solves this. It would have been prudent of ZA people to have seen this coming and taken corrective measures earlier. As long as MS gave sufficient prior warning to all the vendors in the field about this update, I don't think they are to blame. My 2c.
Guest V Green Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message news:OoOdedF5IHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > <snipped> > > PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: > > So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party > > application, not the other way around? > > V Green wrote: > > Why not? > > > > ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it. > > So it's ZA's problem? > > > > Get real. > > Yes. > > Stay general and tell me how you can logically and reasonably say > otherwise... Leave out any specific names. > > The original manufacturer of an original product released a patch/upgrade > for their original product. The original product had been modified in this > case by a third party product. The original manufacturer has no > responsibility to test all the possible third party add-ons/changes you can > perform on their product - because they simply would not have the resources > or time to do so - nor is it probably logistically possible/plausible. > Therefore - if a change (critical) is made to the original product and the > third party product no longer functions as the third party vendor said it > would - it is their responsibility to decide whether or not to make it > right. Sorry, but no. I don't screw over MY customer base that way. If you choose to live life doing that sort of stuff, then we must just agree to disagree. And good luck with customer loyalty...wait a sec, Windows is a monopoly. Happy Customers, what are those??? They don't have a choice (go ahead and argue that if you wish, you KNOW it's true and I won't respond to it) so what do we care about their "user experience"? > > I responded like this in another location already - if you have someway to > legitimately change that logic around - I would be glad to read. This is > what I wrote earlier - it's repetative in many ways to what I wrote above - > but perhaps seeing it described in a couple of ways will allow more people > to understand the point... And if there is another side to it - perhaps be > able to explain that point of view. > > ( begin repost ) > > No offense meant below - honest question... > > You have a (potential) problem with an update for the original product you > purchased because you have modified the original product with the addition > of a third party product that has no relation with the manufacturer of the > original product other than the fact they made their product to fit 'on top > of' that original product - and your complaint is with the original product > manufacturer? > > Wouldn't your complaint be better received if made to those who made the > third party product you chose to replace the parts of the original product > when you decided you wanted to modify it? > > P.S. - I couldn't care less that the specific complaint is about Microsoft, > Chevrolet, Whirlpool or whomever - that is why I left out names in my actual > query completely. > > It doesn't matter who made the original product in question - if you chose > to modify it with some third party product and then some > recall/update/upgrade comes out for the original product - do you honestly > believe the manufacturer of the original product should find out every > modification you *could have made* to their product is and make sure their > upgrade/update for their product works with all of those possibilities? Or > would it be more logical to place the responsibility of maintaining the > third party modification to the makers of said modification? > > ( end repost ) > > In the end - I believe one could more easily argue the point that it is the > end-users responsibility more than anyone's - as they are the one who made > the conscience choice to change the original product for 'supposed' more > protection with a third party add-ons; and then, when the original product > is changed in some way (by the original manufacturer) and that makes the > original product fail unless the add-on is removed... well - who made the > choice to utilize that product? > > But that's a completely different point of view than the one I originally > presented - but one I could see someone taking and being able to defend. > > Please - present your point of view and back it up - I would actually like > to hear it because I am finding it difficult to fathom it right now. > Perhaps you have a generalized way of explaining it where I can see your > point of view. > > -- > Shenan Stanley > MS-MVP > -- > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > >
Guest Sam Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 [PLAIN][sOLVED] Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released[/PLAIN] [sOLVED] Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: > [Crossposted to Windows Update, WinXP General, IE General, Security, > Security Home Users newsgroups] > > Resolution [was Workaround] for Sudden Loss of Internet Access Problem > http://download.zonealarm.com/bin/free/pressReleases/2008/LossOfInternetAccessIssue.html > > (revised multiple times since release on 08 July 2008) > > NB: Do NOT use Option #2 if at all possible! The vulnerability > addressed by KB951748 *is* a big deal! See > http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/07/patch_the_entire_internet_tues_1.html > > > Want to consider other, more highly-rated firewalls? > http://www.matousec.com/projects/firewall-challenge/results.php * Uninstalled the KB951748 update. This got internet working again. * Upgraded Zone Alarm (was using free version) by downloading the new version: zlsSetup_70_483_000_en.exe(from the Check Update option of ZA). * Reinstalled the KB951748 update. * Got everything working. All is well again. Thanks to all the people who suggested this solution. -- --- Please remove underscores, if any, from my email address to obtain the correct one. Sorry for the trouble but this is to reduce SPAM.
Guest Big_Al Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Sam wrote: > xxexbushpig wrote: >> Well it might have been a "dimbulb" (which is a great new word BTW), >> but it wasn't as big a dimbulb as the Microsoft person who issued the >> KB951748 update that screwed up millions of people! > > Look, I understand where you are coming from. I have been bitten by this > "bug" too (well, not me personally, but couple of relatives I help with > computer stuff). > > Also note that I am no Windows fan boy. So I don't get giddy eyed and > swoon at every new Windows release or update and neither do I > *religiously* defend their "secure OS" or their pricing policies (as > some do there ... *ducks*). I just use it as a tool for whatever I have > to do. > > So, in my view this particular update, the KB951748, appears to fix some > DNS vulnerability in Windows. Good. But it also messed up Zone Alarm. > But MS has nothing to do with Zone Alarm and ZA people already gave out > an upgraded version of ZA which solves this. It would have been prudent > of ZA people to have seen this coming and taken corrective measures > earlier. As long as MS gave sufficient prior warning to all the vendors > in the field about this update, I don't think they are to blame. > > My 2c. > > > > Sam, Read this article: The DNS bug was found & should have been a co-operative update July 8. http://securosis.com/2008/07/08/dan-kaminsky-discovers-fundamental-issue-in-dns-massive-multivendor-patch-released/ The article does not say who was notified, but the bug was *not* found by MS and MS has no responsibility to tell others, as this was all supposed to be done July 8. IMHO, ZA missed the boat or was just slow.
Guest H. S. Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released Big_Al wrote: > > IMHO, ZA missed the boat or was just slow. > Yup, I agree. -- --- Please remove underscores, if any, from my email address to obtain the correct one. Sorry for the trouble but this is to reduce SPAM.
Guest PA Bear [MS MVP] Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released > I have been experiencing problems with my internet > connection all week. "All week" meaning since you installed KB951748, KB951978, and the Malicious Software Removal Tool on or shortly after 08 July 2008? When did you install WinXP SP3? Was AVG running in the background when you installed SP3? Do you only experience such issues after resuming from Standby or Hibernation? You've told us that ZoneAlarm isn't installed. Is another third-party firewall installed or are you using the Windows Firewall? Has a Norton or McAfee application ever been installed on the machine? Lastly, if you uninstall "Security Update for Windows XP (KB951748)" via Add/Remove Programs & reboot, does the behavior persist? PS: Please tell me which newsgroup you're using to view and reply to this thread. I'd prefer that we discontinue the unnecessary crossposting. -- ~PA Bear Phyllis wrote: > Microsoft Windows Updates this week were KB951748 (Security Update for > XP), > KB951978 (Update for Windows XP), KB890830 (Windows Malicious Software > Removal Tool). I have been experiencing problems with my internet > connection all week. Sometimes I can't get it to connect at all, or a > window will come up and say "there is no internet connection available, do > I > want to work offline or retry." If I click retry it will connect right > up. > Then at other times it will connect to the cable connection with no > problem, > but then my wireless connection will not connect, it doesn't even show a > network available. After fooling with it (disable, re-enable, repair) it > will just finally connect up. > > I had already upgraded to AVG 8.0 several weeks ago. The update this week > was just a part of daily updates, but required restart of my computer > which > it never did before. It says 8.0.138. > > > "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:e30nuxF5IHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> What other *Windows* updates did you install this week? Exactly what >> problems are you experiencing since installing the July 2008 updates? >> >> Did you upgrade from AVG v7.5 to v8.0, and are you now running v8.1.135? >> -- >> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) >> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002 >> AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net >> DTS-L http://dts-l.net/ >> >> >> Phyllis wrote: >>> Sorry about posting in the wrong place, but I was mainly commenting on >>> the >>> fact that there were others with what seemed like the same problem that >>> did >>> not have ZA. >>> >>> XP SP3, IE 7, and my AVG did an update this week that required restart >>> of >>> my >>> computer which has never happened before, so it is possible they made >>> some >>> changes as well. Has anyone complained about that freebie screwing >>> things >>> up? Seems like everything I have on my computer has been wanting to >>> update >>> today and I'm getting a little gun shy. Thanks >>> >>>> No, sorry. It's been a very long week... >>>> >>>> Then again, you did post in a thread about ZoneAlarm and KB951748 >>>> instead >>>> of beginning your own thread. >>>> >>>> What's your Windows version (e.g., WinXP SP3) and IE version, Phyllis? >>>> What other updates did you install this week besides KB951748? >>>> -- >>>> Phyllis wrote: >>>>> So this fix works even if you are not running Zone Alarms? >>>>> >>>>>> ZA's had the fix for several days now: >> <snip>
Guest Shenan Stanley Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released <snipped> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: > So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party > application, not the other way around? V Green wrote: > Why not? > > ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it. > So it's ZA's problem? > > Get real. Shenan Stanley wrote: > Yes. > > Stay general and tell me how you can logically and reasonably say > otherwise... Leave out any specific names. > > The original manufacturer of an original product released a > patch/upgrade for their original product. The original product had > been modified in this case by a third party product. The original > manufacturer has no responsibility to test all the possible third > party add-ons/changes you can perform on their product - because > they simply would not have the resources or time to do so - nor is > it probably logistically possible/plausible. Therefore - if a > change (critical) is made to the original product and the third > party product no longer functions as the third party vendor said it > would - it is their responsibility to decide whether or not to make > it right. > > I responded like this in another location already - if you have > someway to legitimately change that logic around - I would be glad > to read. This is what I wrote earlier - it's repetative in many > ways to what I wrote above - but perhaps seeing it described in a > couple of ways will allow more people to understand the point... > And if there is another side to it - perhaps be able to explain > that point of view. > > ( begin repost ) > > No offense meant below - honest question... > > You have a (potential) problem with an update for the original > product you purchased because you have modified the original > product with the addition of a third party product that has no > relation with the manufacturer of the original product other than > the fact they made their product to fit 'on top of' that original > product - and your complaint is with the original product > manufacturer? > > Wouldn't your complaint be better received if made to those who > made the third party product you chose to replace the parts of the > original product when you decided you wanted to modify it? > > P.S. - I couldn't care less that the specific complaint is about > Microsoft, Chevrolet, Whirlpool or whomever - that is why I left > out names in my actual query completely. > > It doesn't matter who made the original product in question - if > you chose to modify it with some third party product and then some > recall/update/upgrade comes out for the original product - do you > honestly believe the manufacturer of the original product should > find out every modification you *could have made* to their product > is and make sure their upgrade/update for their product works with > all of those possibilities? Or would it be more logical to place > the responsibility of maintaining the third party modification to > the makers of said modification? > > ( end repost ) > > In the end - I believe one could more easily argue the point that > it is the end-users responsibility more than anyone's - as they are > the one who made the conscience choice to change the original > product for 'supposed' more protection with a third party add-ons; > and then, when the original product is changed in some way (by the > original manufacturer) and that makes the original product fail > unless the add-on is removed... well - who made the choice to > utilize that product? > > But that's a completely different point of view than the one I > originally presented - but one I could see someone taking and being > able to defend. > > Please - present your point of view and back it up - I would > actually like to hear it because I am finding it difficult to > fathom it right now. Perhaps you have a generalized way of > explaining it where I can see your point of view. V Green wrote: > Sorry, but no. I don't screw over MY customer base that way. > If you choose to live life doing that sort of stuff, then > we must just agree to disagree. > > And good luck with customer loyalty...wait a sec, Windows > is a monopoly. Happy Customers, what are those??? They don't > have a choice (go ahead and argue that if you wish, you KNOW > it's true and I won't respond to it) so what do we care about their > "user experience"? I am going respond because you decided to literally side-step the question and just dis-like some specific company instead of making a logical argument based in reality. If you do not answer - that is your choice. However - if you don't respond - my thought is you could not come up with a logical, non-biased argument *not* based on anything specific and/or you will respond with another seemingly personal attack. This is nothing personal - this has nothing to do with you or your business practices. You have somehow decided to attack me personally and what you feel is my personal belief system instead of what I presented as the reality of the situation from almost all situations like this. If you were to buy a chevrolet vehicle and modify some part with a third party product and chevrolet did a recall and the recall/replacement part made your modification either not work or caused you to be unable to do something else (like close the hood, etc) - whose responsibility is it to fix it? If you had a whirlpool dishwasher and you bought a third party utensil basket that was larger but still fit the door and then they recalled/replaced the door on the unit for some reason and their replacement was larger and thus you could no longer close the door and latch it with your third party utensil basket in it - whose responsibility is it to fix it? So please - if you can - present your case in a generalized form. Be realistic. See the examples I gave above and tell me if I am not correct in my assumptions on who would be responsible in those cases. Please - don't take this as some personal attack - it is not. Please do not make it into a personal attack, as it seems to me you have already somewhat by assuming my presentation is anything more than the way things usually work - and how it makes sense to me. This is supposed to be a discussion on why you believe if someone buys something, modifies it, gets a replacement/upgrade/fixed part from the original manufacturer of the original item that makes their third party part fail/invalid - that the original manufacturer of the original part should have known/tested for that and/or have been the one to remedy the situation... And not the way I presented where the third party part manufacturer and/or the end-user themselves have to take responsibility for the fact their old part (the way it is at that point) has issues that need to be resolved to work with the now-fixed original part. I f you believe the way you have presented - that is fine - but *why* - what is the actual basis beyond a 'good feeling' - or is that it? If - however - you do not consider the entirety of the posting (as you seem to have done previously) - please consider at least the following question(s). Please explain - quite simply - why it is the original manufacturer's place to make sure every third-party change possible (including personal modifications not published to the public, perhaps) will work with every modification they deem as critical to their original product - which is the only thing they are actually responsible for? Are you saying that if you sell something (whatever you sell) and the person modifies it before bringing it back and they bring it back to fix something that would not have occurred if they had not modified it - you will take responsibility for what they did (what they added/modified) and fix the problem the third party modification caused for them at no charge? -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Guest Phyllis Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released I am using microsoft.public.security in my Outlook Express to view/reply. Problem started first part of the week after Windows Updates and AVG update. Don't remember date of SP3 install, was right after it became available and I got update notification from Automatic Updates. Usually when I first open Internet Explorer I get this box that says "no internet connection available, do you want to work offline or retry." When I click retry it connects right up. My wireless connection doesn't connect at startup and if I do manage to get it connected it drops during standby. I use Windows Firewall, but have recently had Zone Alarms but didn't like some things about it and uninstalled via Add/Remove programs. I have run a search and did not find any files associated with Zone Alarms on my computer. I have also had Norton Internet Security during 2006 and 2007. I did a system restore yesterday and told Automatic Updates to not show me KB951748 and KB951978 again. I did install the Malicious Software Tool. Problem remains. I am wondering if maybe my internet provider may have been messing with it trying to resolve this problem themselves. I believe it was on Zone Alarms forum that I read where internet providers were having to make corrections to their servers too. Don't know if that is correct or not. I have read so much today, I can hardly remember my name at this point. I have it all connected right now and has been working fine for the last couple of hours. Don't know what is going on. "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23bqaawG5IHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> I have been experiencing problems with my internet >> connection all week. > > "All week" meaning since you installed KB951748, KB951978, and the > Malicious Software Removal Tool on or shortly after 08 July 2008? > > When did you install WinXP SP3? Was AVG running in the background when > you installed SP3? Do you only experience such issues after resuming from > Standby or Hibernation? > > You've told us that ZoneAlarm isn't installed. Is another third-party > firewall installed or are you using the Windows Firewall? > > Has a Norton or McAfee application ever been installed on the machine? > > Lastly, if you uninstall "Security Update for Windows XP (KB951748)" via > Add/Remove Programs & reboot, does the behavior persist? > > PS: Please tell me which newsgroup you're using to view and reply to this > thread. I'd prefer that we discontinue the unnecessary crossposting. > -- > ~PA Bear > > > Phyllis wrote: >> Microsoft Windows Updates this week were KB951748 (Security Update for >> XP), >> KB951978 (Update for Windows XP), KB890830 (Windows Malicious Software >> Removal Tool). I have been experiencing problems with my internet >> connection all week. Sometimes I can't get it to connect at all, or a >> window will come up and say "there is no internet connection available, >> do I >> want to work offline or retry." If I click retry it will connect right >> up. >> Then at other times it will connect to the cable connection with no >> problem, >> but then my wireless connection will not connect, it doesn't even show a >> network available. After fooling with it (disable, re-enable, repair) it >> will just finally connect up. >> >> I had already upgraded to AVG 8.0 several weeks ago. The update this >> week >> was just a part of daily updates, but required restart of my computer >> which >> it never did before. It says 8.0.138. >> >> >> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:e30nuxF5IHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> What other *Windows* updates did you install this week? Exactly what >>> problems are you experiencing since installing the July 2008 updates? >>> >>> Did you upgrade from AVG v7.5 to v8.0, and are you now running v8.1.135? >>> -- >>> ~Robear Dyer (PA Bear) >>> MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002 >>> AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net >>> DTS-L http://dts-l.net/ >>> >>> >>> Phyllis wrote: >>>> Sorry about posting in the wrong place, but I was mainly commenting on >>>> the >>>> fact that there were others with what seemed like the same problem that >>>> did >>>> not have ZA. >>>> >>>> XP SP3, IE 7, and my AVG did an update this week that required restart >>>> of >>>> my >>>> computer which has never happened before, so it is possible they made >>>> some >>>> changes as well. Has anyone complained about that freebie screwing >>>> things >>>> up? Seems like everything I have on my computer has been wanting to >>>> update >>>> today and I'm getting a little gun shy. Thanks >>>> >>>>> No, sorry. It's been a very long week... >>>>> >>>>> Then again, you did post in a thread about ZoneAlarm and KB951748 >>>>> instead >>>>> of beginning your own thread. >>>>> >>>>> What's your Windows version (e.g., WinXP SP3) and IE version, Phyllis? >>>>> What other updates did you install this week besides KB951748? >>>>> -- >>>>> Phyllis wrote: >>>>>> So this fix works even if you are not running Zone Alarms? >>>>>> >>>>>>> ZA's had the fix for several days now: >>> <snip> >
Guest V Green Posted July 12, 2008 Posted July 12, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message news:O$YIpxG5IHA.3768@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > <snipped> > > PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: > > So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party > > application, not the other way around? > > V Green wrote: > > Why not? > > > > ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it. > > So it's ZA's problem? > > > > Get real. > > Shenan Stanley wrote: > > Yes. > > > > Stay general and tell me how you can logically and reasonably say > > otherwise... Leave out any specific names. > > > > The original manufacturer of an original product released a > > patch/upgrade for their original product. The original product had > > been modified in this case by a third party product. The original > > manufacturer has no responsibility to test all the possible third > > party add-ons/changes you can perform on their product - because > > they simply would not have the resources or time to do so - nor is > > it probably logistically possible/plausible. Therefore - if a > > change (critical) is made to the original product and the third > > party product no longer functions as the third party vendor said it > > would - it is their responsibility to decide whether or not to make > > it right. > > > > I responded like this in another location already - if you have > > someway to legitimately change that logic around - I would be glad > > to read. This is what I wrote earlier - it's repetative in many > > ways to what I wrote above - but perhaps seeing it described in a > > couple of ways will allow more people to understand the point... > > And if there is another side to it - perhaps be able to explain > > that point of view. > > > > ( begin repost ) > > > > No offense meant below - honest question... > > > > You have a (potential) problem with an update for the original > > product you purchased because you have modified the original > > product with the addition of a third party product that has no > > relation with the manufacturer of the original product other than > > the fact they made their product to fit 'on top of' that original > > product - and your complaint is with the original product > > manufacturer? > > > > Wouldn't your complaint be better received if made to those who > > made the third party product you chose to replace the parts of the > > original product when you decided you wanted to modify it? > > > > P.S. - I couldn't care less that the specific complaint is about > > Microsoft, Chevrolet, Whirlpool or whomever - that is why I left > > out names in my actual query completely. > > > > It doesn't matter who made the original product in question - if > > you chose to modify it with some third party product and then some > > recall/update/upgrade comes out for the original product - do you > > honestly believe the manufacturer of the original product should > > find out every modification you *could have made* to their product > > is and make sure their upgrade/update for their product works with > > all of those possibilities? Or would it be more logical to place > > the responsibility of maintaining the third party modification to > > the makers of said modification? > > > > ( end repost ) > > > > In the end - I believe one could more easily argue the point that > > it is the end-users responsibility more than anyone's - as they are > > the one who made the conscience choice to change the original > > product for 'supposed' more protection with a third party add-ons; > > and then, when the original product is changed in some way (by the > > original manufacturer) and that makes the original product fail > > unless the add-on is removed... well - who made the choice to > > utilize that product? > > > > But that's a completely different point of view than the one I > > originally presented - but one I could see someone taking and being > > able to defend. > > > > Please - present your point of view and back it up - I would > > actually like to hear it because I am finding it difficult to > > fathom it right now. Perhaps you have a generalized way of > > explaining it where I can see your point of view. > > V Green wrote: > > Sorry, but no. I don't screw over MY customer base that way. > > If you choose to live life doing that sort of stuff, then > > we must just agree to disagree. > > > > And good luck with customer loyalty...wait a sec, Windows > > is a monopoly. Happy Customers, what are those??? They don't > > have a choice (go ahead and argue that if you wish, you KNOW > > it's true and I won't respond to it) so what do we care about their > > "user experience"? > > I am going respond because you decided to literally side-step the question > and just dis-like some specific company instead of making a logical argument > based in reality. > > If you do not answer - that is your choice. However - if you don't > respond - my thought is you could not come up with a logical, non-biased > argument *not* based on anything specific and/or you will respond with > another seemingly personal attack. > > This is nothing personal - this has nothing to do with you or your business > practices. You have somehow decided to attack me personally and what you > feel is my personal belief system instead of what I presented as the reality > of the situation from almost all situations like this. > > If you were to buy a chevrolet vehicle and modify some part with a third > party product and chevrolet did a recall and the recall/replacement part > made your modification either not work or caused you to be unable to do > something else (like close the hood, etc) - whose responsibility is it to > fix it? > > If you had a whirlpool dishwasher and you bought a third party utensil > basket that was larger but still fit the door and then they > recalled/replaced the door on the unit for some reason and their replacement > was larger and thus you could no longer close the door and latch it with > your third party utensil basket in it - whose responsibility is it to fix > it? > > > So please - if you can - present your case in a generalized form. Be > realistic. See the examples I gave above and tell me if I am not correct in > my assumptions on who would be responsible in those cases. > > Please - don't take this as some personal attack - it is not. Please do not > make it into a personal attack, as it seems to me you have already somewhat > by assuming my presentation is anything more than the way things usually > work - and how it makes sense to me. > > This is supposed to be a discussion on why you believe if someone buys > something, modifies it, gets a replacement/upgrade/fixed part from the > original manufacturer of the original item that makes their third party part > fail/invalid - that the original manufacturer of the original part should > have known/tested for that and/or have been the one to remedy the > situation... And not the way I presented where the third party part > manufacturer and/or the end-user themselves have to take responsibility for > the fact their old part (the way it is at that point) has issues that need > to be resolved to work with the now-fixed original part. I > > f you believe the way you have presented - that is fine - but *why* - what > is the actual basis beyond a 'good feeling' - or is that it? > > If - however - you do not consider the entirety of the posting (as you seem > to have done previously) - please consider at least the following > question(s). > > Please explain - quite simply - why it is the original manufacturer's place > to make sure every third-party change possible (including personal > modifications not published to the public, perhaps) will work with every > modification they deem as critical to their original product - which is the > only thing they are actually responsible for? > > Are you saying that if you sell something (whatever you sell) and the person > modifies it before bringing it back and they bring it back to fix something > that would not have occurred if they had not modified it - you will take > responsibility for what they did (what they added/modified) and fix the > problem the third party modification caused for them at no charge? > > -- > Shenan Stanley > MS-MVP > -- > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > > Shenan: After reading links to the info regarding ZA's "slow on the uptake" response to an issue that they were supposedly notified of (I did not have this info until recently) I realize that I may have been in error to bash MS specifically on this issue. My bad for that. If ZA didn't code around an impending update that they knew about, that's a whole different thing. > f you believe the way you have presented - that is fine - but *why* - what > is the actual basis beyond a 'good feeling' - or is that it? That's it. That's all. 50 years of good feelings. Works for me. You should try it. You might like it.
Guest Anthony Buckland Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released "Freddy" <Freddy@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:09D81099-DD86-490F-90C3-EC6D6EC8AA9A@microsoft.com... > Unfortunately, I hve new problems now. Windows XP is hanging on > "Scanningprocess.exe" for over 2 hours. I can't do anything but shutoff > my > machine and reboot in Safe mode. Any other solutions? I've noticed a slower virus scan with the new ZA. I'm heading over to the Zone Alarm User Forum, and suggest you do the same. It isn't connected to the OS AFAIK. Before we take this offtopic discussion out of here, though, I'd suggest scheduling your scan for something like 01:00, as I do. Unless of course that's when you do your work.
Guest Shenan Stanley Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released V Green wrote: > That's it. That's all. 50 years of good feelings. Works > for me. You should try it. You might like it. I have more good feelings than most and have plenty of people (because of those good feelings) who would come to me before anyone else for many things - but that doesn't address the question at all really - you didn't answer the main question... --- Are you saying that if you sell something (whatever you sell) and the person modifies it before bringing it back and they bring it back to fix something that would not have occurred if they had not modified it - you will take responsibility for what they did (what they added/modified) and fix the problem the third party modification caused for them at no charge? --- (And assume this is not family, not friend, a pure customer that you have no interest in making more than a loyal customer - and think about their other choices, etc.) -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Guest V Green Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message news:O2ONXqI5IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > V Green wrote: > > That's it. That's all. 50 years of good feelings. Works > > for me. You should try it. You might like it. > > I have more good feelings than most and have plenty of people (because of > those good feelings) who would come to me before anyone else for many > things - but that doesn't address the question at all really - you didn't > answer the main question... > > --- > Are you saying that if you sell something (whatever you sell) and the person > modifies it before bringing it back and they bring it back to fix something > that would not have occurred if they had not modified it - you will take > responsibility for what they did (what they added/modified) and fix the > problem the third party modification caused for them at no charge? Yes. Your analogy doesn't apply to the kind of business I am in, but I would do that. Take responsibility, no, but that's not necessary to fix the problem and make the customer happy. Chide them about it, yes, probably. And I would only do it once for that individual. And as part of the "repair" process, I would inform them that if they did it again (same customer, same "modification") I would probably charge them. Ya gotta have limits. > --- > > (And assume this is not family, not friend, a pure customer that you have no > interest in making more than a loyal customer - and think about their other > choices, etc.) > > -- > Shenan Stanley > MS-MVP > -- > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > >
Guest Kayman Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:59:50 -0700, V Green wrote: > "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:O2ONXqI5IHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> V Green wrote: >>> That's it. That's all. 50 years of good feelings. Works >>> for me. You should try it. You might like it. >> >> I have more good feelings than most and have plenty of people (because of >> those good feelings) who would come to me before anyone else for many >> things - but that doesn't address the question at all really - you didn't >> answer the main question... >> >> --- >> Are you saying that if you sell something (whatever you sell) and the person >> modifies it before bringing it back and they bring it back to fix something >> that would not have occurred if they had not modified it - you will take >> responsibility for what they did (what they added/modified) and fix the >> problem the third party modification caused for them at no charge? > > Yes. > > Your analogy doesn't apply to the kind of business > I am in, but I would do that. Take responsibility, no, but > that's not necessary to fix the problem and make the customer > happy. > > Chide them about it, yes, probably. > > And I would only do it once for that individual. > > And as part of the "repair" process, I would inform them that > if they did it again (same customer, same "modification") > I would probably charge them. > > Ya gotta have limits. > You're such a Pisser, V Green!
Guest Shenan Stanley Posted July 13, 2008 Posted July 13, 2008 Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released <snipped> Conversation in entirety: http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.security/browse_frm/thread/f691e0bbe3886038/b3486be8412ee2af?lnk=st&q=#b3486be8412ee2af Shenan Stanley wrote: > If you believe the way you have presented - that is fine - but > *why* - what is the actual basis beyond a 'good feeling' - or is > that it? V Green wrote: > That's it. That's all. 50 years of good feelings. Works > for me. You should try it. You might like it. Shenan Stanley wrote: > I have more good feelings than most and have plenty of people > (because of those good feelings) who would come to me before anyone > else for many things - but that doesn't address the question at all > really - you didn't answer the main question... > > --- > Are you saying that if you sell something (whatever you sell) and > the person modifies it before bringing it back and they bring it > back to fix something that would not have occurred if they had not > modified it - you will take responsibility for what they did (what > they added/modified) and fix the problem the third party > modification caused for them at no charge? --- > > (And assume this is not family, not friend, a pure customer that > you have no interest in making more than a loyal customer - and > think about their other choices, etc.) V Green wrote: > Yes. > > Your analogy doesn't apply to the kind of business > I am in, but I would do that. Take responsibility, no, but > that's not necessary to fix the problem and make the customer > happy. > > Chide them about it, yes, probably. > > And I would only do it once for that individual. > > And as part of the "repair" process, I would inform them that > if they did it again (same customer, same "modification") > I would probably charge them. > > Ya gotta have limits. I appreciate the answer. If you fix a problem that the customer obviously could not fix (if they could, they would not have come to you) and the cause is obviously something they did with some modification - you have taken responsibility from them, taken on the problem, accepted what caused it was not you, etc. You can say it's not your "fault" - but by actually putting effort into it and fixing it - you have taken on the _responsibility_ to 'make it right'. By not charging for said service - are saying that, "although the _fault_ is not mine - I am doing this for you" --> which is taking on the responsibility. (Not the *fault* mind you - but the responsibility has been transferred.) You don't have to take the 'blame' to take the 'responsibility'. It's like bailing someone out of prison in a way. You take responsibility by handing over your money, but not the blame for the crime. *shrug* Thanks again for answering. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
![Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]](https://extremetechsupport.com/uploads/set_resources_1/84c1e40ea0e759e3f1505eb1788ddf3c_default_photo.png)
Recommended Posts