<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Patch Window Shrinking - Semi-Automated Reverse Engineering</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/05/patch-window-shrinking-semi-automated-reverse-engineering/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/05/patch-window-shrinking-semi-automated-reverse-engineering/</link>
	<description>Ethical Hacking, Penetration Testing &#38; Computer Security</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:01:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jinesh Doshi</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/05/patch-window-shrinking-semi-automated-reverse-engineering/#comment-123132</link>
		<dc:creator>Jinesh Doshi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 11:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=840#comment-123132</guid>
		<description>Is there any method to decompile a windows dll? I need to understand one method call.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any method to decompile a windows dll? I need to understand one method call.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Catch_twotwo</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/05/patch-window-shrinking-semi-automated-reverse-engineering/#comment-122959</link>
		<dc:creator>Catch_twotwo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2008 19:07:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=840#comment-122959</guid>
		<description>The issue of delaying patches in order to test them has always been a big issue. I used to be charged with testing the patches prior to deployment to our servers across Europe. There was always the issue of speed vs. quality. 

One possible protection while you test the patches is a good updated Intrusion Protection System (not just detection). Something like Snort in-line with the Emerging Threats ruleset to cover the latest things, or Tipping Point who seem to pay for the honour of having a up to date ruleset.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The issue of delaying patches in order to test them has always been a big issue. I used to be charged with testing the patches prior to deployment to our servers across Europe. There was always the issue of speed vs. quality. </p>
<p>One possible protection while you test the patches is a good updated Intrusion Protection System (not just detection). Something like Snort in-line with the Emerging Threats ruleset to cover the latest things, or Tipping Point who seem to pay for the honour of having a up to date ruleset.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bogwitch</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/05/patch-window-shrinking-semi-automated-reverse-engineering/#comment-122948</link>
		<dc:creator>Bogwitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 18:25:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=840#comment-122948</guid>
		<description>I see the problem as twofold. First, it is becoming more and more essential to deploy patches in a timely manner. Second, it is vitally important to ensure patches do not disrupt business. The situation has been seen before where patches have caused considerable issues with company infrastructures. This is not limited to Microsoft patches, anti-virus software has been seen to produce similar problems.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181503325

So, the risks to systems increase as managers decide whether to deploy patches untested or to leave systems vulnerable until the patches have been thoroughly checked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see the problem as twofold. First, it is becoming more and more essential to deploy patches in a timely manner. Second, it is vitally important to ensure patches do not disrupt business. The situation has been seen before where patches have caused considerable issues with company infrastructures. This is not limited to Microsoft patches, anti-virus software has been seen to produce similar problems.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181503325" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181503325</a></p>
<p>So, the risks to systems increase as managers decide whether to deploy patches untested or to leave systems vulnerable until the patches have been thoroughly checked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reticent</title>
		<link>http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/05/patch-window-shrinking-semi-automated-reverse-engineering/#comment-122941</link>
		<dc:creator>Reticent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 21:51:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.darknet.org.uk/?p=840#comment-122941</guid>
		<description>People need to be more aware of what the exploit is and how the affected system is vunerable. Many of these exploits require a particular port to be open, a service enabled, or an application installed. Many can also be rectified by good firewall ingress/egress policies. Sign up to a few security advisory services and learn how to be secure before patches are installed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>People need to be more aware of what the exploit is and how the affected system is vunerable. Many of these exploits require a particular port to be open, a service enabled, or an application installed. Many can also be rectified by good firewall ingress/egress policies. Sign up to a few security advisory services and learn how to be secure before patches are installed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
