In August 2002, the IT community was abuzz with a Microsoft "breakthrough" called Service Pack 1. The mega software patch mainly comprised of security updates for the company's Windows XP operating system.
Service Pack 1, we were told, was the result of Microsoft's focus on improving the reliability and security of Windows. Jim Allchin, a senior Microsoft executive, even stuck his neck on the line by publicly stating: "Windows XP is the most secure and dependable operating system we have ever produced." Sure. And I'm Britney Spears' twin.
Service Pack 1 received its fair share of bad publicity and a lukewarm response from PC manufacturers, many of whom adopted a wait-and-see approach before shipping machines with the Windows update ... just in case compatibility issues cropped up.
Two years on, the technology world heralds another chapter in the Windows evolution.
With Windows XP Service Pack 2, however, Microsoft is singing a different tune -- taking a more humble approach with Microsoft chairman Bill Gates positioning SP2 as "a significant step in delivering on its goal to make PCs better isolated and more resilient in the face of increasingly sophisticated attacks." Whether security attacks are getting more sophisticated or Microsoft's products are plain weak is open for debate. Or perhaps it's just a potent combination of the two.
Apart from bug fixes, Service Pack 2 will boast a new "security centre", comprising an improved firewall and features to protect against viruses, among others. After numerous delays, Microsoft deserves an "A" for effort in finally completing the update.
Over the next two months, localisation efforts in 25 languages will take place. How fast a user downloads Service Pack 2 -- with the Automatic Updates function enabled -- will depend on a number of factors including location, language and Internet usage. Additionally, the 270MB patch will be rolled out through other mediums such as CDs and in pre-configured computers.
While Microsoft is urging users to turn on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP to receive the latest security updates, not all customers are biting. In a recent internal memo, IBM told employees to refrain from installing Service Pack 2 due to "known application problems and incompatibility with IBM workstation applications."
Just last week, Microsoft warned that its Business Solutions CRM Sales for Outlook 1.2 customers would face problems if they installed Service Pack 2. The company has since issued a patch for the flaw.
And let's not forget that within months of announcing Service Pack 1, Microsoft identified about 30 possible flaws with the update.
Really, how effective was Service Pack 1?
Users have to realise that Service Pack 2 is essentially an operating system upgrade, not a bunch of band-aids cobbled together as a defensive mechanism. If there weren't as much backlash against Microsoft for the sub-standard security in its products, SP2 could have very well been christened Longhorn, its next-generation Windows operating system.
Even with Automatic Updates steadfastly downloading each and every patch from Microsoft, at the end of the day, there will still be worms, viruses, Trojans and security breaches. Will Service Pack 2 make any difference? I can't see how.
For more coverage on ZDNet Australia, click here.
Talkback
virus,worms ect.have to be SENT.maybe if isps shared some of the blame($) they can be slowed down somewhat.
While there will certainly be trojan horses and viruses, one must also consider that this upgrade is for the average user, and many of these average users have no firewall in place whatsoever, and do not know if they have virus protection in many cases (of if that protection is up to date).
With both Internet Connection Firewall (ICF) and auto-updates turned on by default, the average user will run a very good chance of preventing their computer being used as a "zombie" distribution point for worms and/or viruses of other types.
Is it the end of the battle against hackers? Of course not, but it's the equivalent of locking your car doors, removing the keys from the ignition and setting an alarm (all good ideas even though a determined, highly-skilled thief could still get around all of them).
There are also other (less touted) security enhancements, such as the built-in pop-up and Active-X install blocker in the new Internet Explorer. You can also (finally!) see what extensions have been installed and disable them without using 3rd party tools to dig them out.
I think MS should be commended for taking this initiative. There will always be further improvements they can make, but now with auto-update, at least said improvements should be globally effective.
What a pointless article!
You ask, "Will SP2 actually make a difference" but make a difference to what? Will it stop all future security problems, obviously not; only a fool would think it could. Will it removing more buffer overflows, turning on the firewall by default and current known security problems and make thing more difficult for
You quote Allchin "Windows XP is the most secure and dependable operating system we have ever produced." and respond "Sure. And I'm Britney Spears' twin." Are you? XP is generally accepted to be more secure and dependable than previous MS OS's, so it wasn't really saying much, or do you think Windows 95 was more secure or dependable maybe???
You say IBM told employees to refrain from installing Service Pack 2, as it's only just been released then that's nothing more than sensible systems administration. I don't suppose it means it will never be applied to any of IBM's PC's, do you?
What a pointless article!
You ask, "Will SP2 actually make a difference" but make a difference to what? Will it stop all future security problems, obviously not; only a fool would think it could. But by removing more buffer overflows, turning on the firewall by default, changing the IE security model and addressing known security problems, will it make life slightly more difficult for those with malicious intent for a little while? Yes, I think it will.
You quote Allchin "Windows XP is the most secure and dependable operating system we have ever produced." and respond "Sure. And I'm Britney Spears' twin." Are you? XP is generally accepted to be more secure and dependable than previous MS OS's, so it wasn't really saying much, or do you think Windows 95 was more secure or dependable maybe???
You say IBM told employees to refrain from installing Service Pack 2, as it's only just been released then that's nothing more than sensible systems administration. I don't suppose it means it will never be applied to any of IBM's PC's, do you?
If you are made Quick and Infallible - you can do what you like,
and...
if you are slow and clumsy - then you take what you are given... or die.