The Active Network
ActiveWin Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0  
 

neowin.net

Amazon.com

  *  

  Microsoft Stymies Blaster Attack; No Net Slow-downs Reported
Time: 16:17 EST/21:17 GMT | News Source: TechWeb | Posted By: Brian Kvalheim

Microsoft has stymied the expected attack of the Blaster worm by taking the novel step of eliminating the windowsupdate.com address and unlinking it from its WindowsUpdate service, said an Internet performance monitoring firm Friday. The result: there should be no major Internet overloads caused by Blaster during the day. Lloyd Taylor, the vice president of KeyNote, a San Mateo, Calif.-based Internet monitoring company, said that the approach, while unusual, was fairly straight-forward. “Microsoft's pulled the teeth from Blaster,” he said, by altering the domain name service (DNS) servers that are the Internet's address book. Normally, windowsupdate.com, the target address embedded in the Blaster worm, links to Microsoft's WindowsUpdate service, which provides patches for the company's products, including those necessary to fix the flaw in Windows NT 4.0, 2000, XP, and Server 2003, which Blaster exploits.

Read Only Comments
Return to News
  Displaying Comments 1 through 11 of 11
  This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.
#1 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at Friday, August 15, 2003 04:42:13 PM
Linux actually has more vulnerabilities, how ever there is not much of an incentive to attack them as their marketshare is so minimal, it wouldn't as be noticeable.

This post was edited by AWBrian on Friday, August 15, 2003 at 16:44.

#2 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at Friday, August 15, 2003 06:20:16 PM
P.S.- there are several worms for Linux out there as well. If you put any box directly on the Internet, you're just not that bright and you should probably have your Computer Using license revoked.

#3 By 16451 (65.19.17.116) at Friday, August 15, 2003 08:49:08 PM
WU running Linux?

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.windowsupdate.com

#4 By 61 (24.92.223.112) at Friday, August 15, 2003 09:04:35 PM
www.windowsupdate.com is not a Microsoft site.

windowsupdate.microsoft.com is the Windows Update site.

#5 By 16451 (65.19.17.155) at Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:03:44 AM
CPUGuy >>> www.windowsupdate.com is not a Microsoft site

MS says it is: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;811269

#6 By 16451 (65.19.17.155) at Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:11:14 AM
mOOzilla

Very lame defense of MS there. You might instead try considering the possibility that the DNS entries were screwed up for a brief period of time when MS repointed to avert the worm, so that netcraft was simply being erroneously pointed to someone elses site. (Hint: look at the address block owner in the netcraft output)

This post was edited by RH7.3 on Saturday, August 16, 2003 at 11:22.

#7 By 16451 (65.19.16.24) at Saturday, August 16, 2003 12:07:13 PM
>>> Oh and so WINE wont cause problems?

Up to this point, you are the only one that mentioned anything dealing with Wine causing problems; my previous posts only dealt with the issue of what operating system was being run on www.windows.update. But since you bring it up, I will say that I'm glad to hear that Wine's ability to run Windows executables is improving to the point that it can even run Klez. After all, either you're compatible with the Windows API or you're not, right?

#8 By 16451 (65.19.16.28) at Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:35:17 PM
So MS contracted with this firm to cache www.windowsupdate.com on the very day that MS discontinued www.windowsupdate.com. Whatever parker

#9 By 1295 (68.97.186.211) at Sunday, August 17, 2003 02:15:16 AM
RH7.3: Its a Conspiracy.... C O N... spiracy!

#10 By 16451 (63.227.226.13) at Sunday, August 17, 2003 12:55:23 PM
A perceptive person might do alot of things, but insulting someone that they don't even know is probably not one of them.


This post was edited by RH7.3 on Sunday, August 17, 2003 at 13:16.

#11 By 16451 (65.19.16.154) at Sunday, August 17, 2003 06:08:08 PM
I you look more carefully at post #17 you will notice that I was talking about www.windowsupdate.com, not windowsupdate.microsoft.com. www.windowsupdate.com is a <b>dead</b> DNS name as of 8/15/03.



 

  *  
  *   *
 
replica watches