so-called updates

[Rick Merrill]

EVERY time i let microsoft 'updates' be installed
on an old Toshiba laptop with Windows XP sp3 it takes
several (2 or 3) remove-the-power and restart before
I can get it to (a) shutdown and (b) reboot.

If after an update i 'restore' there is no problem - of
course then the updates want a do-over!

Is the only option to never load an 'update?"

 

[DL]

There are updates & there are updates, and since you don't mention what
update, who knows what to recommend

 

[Unknown]

If you are updating directly from Microsoft, then shut down all your virus
programs before updating.
Think about deleting all of them and install MSE. (Microsoft Security
Essentials)

 

[Rick Merrill]

If you are updating directly from Microsoft, then shut down all your virus
programs before updating.

I only dl from ms, and I have tried closeing all AV, but it hasn't
seemed to work (unscientific sample).

Think about deleting all of them and install MSE. (Microsoft Security
Essentials)

Ok. That sounds reasonable.

EVERY time i let microsoft 'updates' be installed
on an old Toshiba laptop with Windows XP sp3 it takes
several (2 or 3) remove-the-power and restart before
I can get it to (a) shutdown and (b) reboot.

If after an update i 'restore' there is no problem - of
course then the updates want a do-over!

Is [my] only option to never load an 'update?"

 

[Unknown]

What firewall are you using? Try the Windows firewall..

If you are updating directly from Microsoft, then shut down all your
virus
programs before updating.

I only dl from ms, and I have tried closeing all AV, but it hasn't
seemed to work (unscientific sample).

Think about deleting all of them and install MSE. (Microsoft Security
Essentials)

Ok. That sounds reasonable.

EVERY time i let microsoft 'updates' be installed
on an old Toshiba laptop with Windows XP sp3 it takes
several (2 or 3) remove-the-power and restart before
I can get it to (a) shutdown and (b) reboot.

If after an update i 'restore' there is no problem - of
course then the updates want a do-over!

Is [my] only option to never load an 'update?"

 

[glee]

Ok. That sounds reasonable.

Deleting all the updates sounds reasonable to you? Good luck with that,
if you think MSE will be sufficient with no vulnerabilities patched.

The fact that you are having this major issue with updates and no one
else is, indicates not that there is something wrong with the updates,
but that there is something wrong with your system.

 

[Rick Merrill]

Deleting all the updates sounds reasonable to you? Good luck with that,
if you think MSE will be sufficient with no vulnerabilities patched.

I've loaded MSE and disabled Windows FW - things feel better - we'll see.

 

[Unknown]

Why on earth would you disable Windows firewall?
That should remain on but others turned off.

 

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

glee schreef:

Deleting all the updates sounds reasonable to you? Good luck with that,
if you think MSE will be sufficient with no vulnerabilities patched.

I read the OP suggested to delete all AV before retrying the update process

 

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

glee schreef:

Deleting all the updates sounds reasonable to you? Good luck with that,
if you think MSE will be sufficient with no vulnerabilities patched.

I read the OP suggested to delete all AV before retrying the update process

 

[Rick Merrill]

Why on earth would you disable Windows firewall?
That should remain on but others turned off.

That's Not necessarily so.

 

[Unknown]

You should definitely be using a firewall. I cannot remember anyone having
update problems
caused by the Windows firewall. But, there have been many update problems
caused by non-MS
firewalls. Your choice of course.

 

[Dirk T. Verbeek]

You should definitely be using a firewall. I cannot remember anyone having
update problems

That's more or less describing the problem with MS firewall(s), they
don't notify you when an MS application wants access.
There should be no exemptions but MS made huge holes in their own firewall.

caused by the Windows firewall. But, there have been many update problems
caused by non-MS
firewalls. Your choice of course.

It is mostly not the firewall causing the problems but applications that
need unsafe access.

 

[Rick Merrill]

That's more or less describing the problem with MS firewall(s), they
don't notify you when an MS application wants access.
There should be no exemptions but MS made huge holes in their own firewall.


It is mostly not the firewall causing the problems but applications that
need unsafe access.

For example, I have an external (h/w) firewall.
For example, I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials - I think that
alone means one doesn't need the old Xp-Firewall - what do you say?

 

[glee]

For example, I have an external (h/w) firewall.
For example, I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials - I think that
alone means one doesn't need the old Xp-Firewall - what do you say?

MSE has nothing to do with a firewall...it is an anti-virus with some
anti-spyware capability, just like Avira or Avast or AVG or any of the
for-fee AV apps. Not running at least the Windows Firewall is just poor
practice.

What hardware firewall do you refer to....your NAT router?

 

[Rick Merrill]

MSE has nothing to do with a firewall...it is an anti-virus with some
anti-spyware capability, just like Avira or Avast or AVG or any of the
for-fee AV apps. Not running at least the Windows Firewall is just poor
practice.

What hardware firewall do you refer to....your NAT router?

BEFSR41 and TZ170

 

[glee]

BEFSR41 and TZ170

If you are referring to the SONICWALL TZ 170 hardware security
"appliance", then you are not running without a firewall. That unit runs
its own OS which runs a firewall in front of your computers, so you DO
have a firewall, Rick...just because it is a separate hardware appliance
doesn't change the fact.

I can't imagine why someone would spend what that unit cost new, for a
home network, when the same end can be accomplished with a less
expensive NAT router or NAT router with SPI, along with Windows
Firewall, or an inexpensive / free 3rd party firewall.

 

[Rick Merrill]

If you are referring to the SONICWALL TZ 170 hardware security
"appliance", then you are not running without a firewall. That unit runs
its own OS which runs a firewall in front of your computers, so you DO
have a firewall, Rick...just because it is a separate hardware appliance
doesn't change the fact.

I can't imagine why someone would spend what that unit cost new, for a
home network, when the same end can be accomplished with a less
expensive NAT router or NAT router with SPI, along with Windows
Firewall, or an inexpensive / free 3rd party firewall.

You are right - it is part of a business firewall.

But I have heard some disparage NAT routers as insufficient (even with
NO DMZ). I've actually got a modem that supplies 1 NAT and the router
another!

 

[glee]

You are right - it is part of a business firewall.

But I have heard some disparage NAT routers as insufficient (even with
NO DMZ). I've actually got a modem that supplies 1 NAT and the router
another!

NAT routers work fine. Routers with SPI are even better. In lieu of an
appliance like yours, a software firewall (even a simple one like the
Windows firewall) should be run...there are those who will insist the
firewall is a waste of time, just as there will be those who will insist
a NAT router is no help.

No matter what you use, malware can find its way through, and it only
takes one user clicking the wrong thing and allowing something to run,
to make it all superfluous. That's where updates to patch
vulnerabilities can help. Not installing security updates is just not a
good idea. Reviewing the history of exploits that brought down
unpatched servers should show you that security updates are as important
as your hardware firewall.