Hi Andrew, I sincerely hope you will be able to reverse that policy where you now work. "Reckless", is putting it mildly. By the way, MS have just released SP1 for Exchange Server 2003 - it's a nice 100+ Meg download, and took about a hour to install on our cranky only Server. I've not checked today, but what's the betting there a Critical Update for it already? (Smile) George. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Hodgson" <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <access-uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 2:44 PM Subject: [access-uk] Why you should patch Windows > Hi all, > > Of course, you all know this, but here is a little story for you: > > A local university recently had network problems. A year ago, they had > spent thousands of money on a large expensive firewall, to stop viruses > coming in from the outside. > > Since they had this firewall, they didn't bother to patch any Windows > workstations, other than installing the latest service packs (SP4 in the > instance of Windows 2000, and SP6A in the instance of NT4). > > A couple of years ago, whilst I was still there, I asked them what they > did regarding internal security of workstations, the answer was that the > firewalls would take kare of all this. > > Anyway, I got a phone call yesterday from someone who still works there, > because early yesterday morning, a member of staff (who is still > unidentified), plugged in their laptop into the network as normal, not > realising they had the virus. Within minutes, over 100 Windows machines > were infected with Blaster, shutting each other down, and bringing the > entire network into a mess. The technical team spent the whole of > yesterday patching the systems up, but also having to ensure the systems > that were not switched on were also patched. > > The frightening thing is, that where I work, the exact same policy is > used (i.e, don't patch until the next service pack comes out). > > Andrew. > =0AThis Message has been scanned for viruses by McAfee Groupshield.