Jonny wrote:

> Will disabling the file extension's default program to open wmf files, to
> none do the job, along with deinstalling windows media player?
>

No

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

Jim wrote:

> Not everybody's antivirus is up to the task....
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1907102,00.asp
>
> I didn't see NOD on the list......so I'll defer to your experience.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Trax" <Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov> wrote in message
> news:4g9lr11sd00uqjefp7rsls0ei6hrb8rjr3@4ax.com...
>
>>"Jonny" <billgates@scampublic.net> wrote:
>>
>>|>Will disabling the file extension's default program to open wmf files,
>>to
>>|>none do the job, along with deinstalling windows media player?
>>
>>No, just update your virus checker most will catch it now, I use NOD32
>>and it does (I've seen it work)
>>
>>Not running I.E. helps as FireFox and Opera ask if you want to
>>download the WMF file.
>>
>>And my favorite http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article03-201
>>but I don't really know if this works as I've always stop'd the WMF
>>from executing (NOD32)
>>
>>|>Jonny
>>|>"Jim" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message
>>|>news:EKtuf.37300$Lb1.23573@bignews3.bellsouth. net...
>>|>> In case you have been living under a rock for the last week or so, you
>>may
>>|>> not have heard about the WMF Windows exploit.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Time Wasting Sites on the Net
>>http://freebies.about.com/od/710/tp/timewasting.htm
>
>
>

Nod32 is on the list as Eset (Nod32)

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

> Let me know if you want my link.

Thanks Jim but I'll wait for the official Microsoft response to this issue.

My system is wholly patched and up-to-date including anti-virus etc.

--
Regards

John Waller

Jim wrote:



What kind of an idiot would install an "unofficial" patch. I can't
think of a more common way currently used to spread malware.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

John Waller wrote:
>>The only way to minimize your risk is to run the patch.
>
>
> What guarantees come with a non-Microsoft patch?
>

It's almost guaranteed to be a straight-forward malware installation.


> Won't crash my system or affect anything etc
>


I wouldn't count on it.


> Or is it caveat emptor?
>


Yes, it is. Although, "There's a sucker born every minute" would
probably be a more accurate assessment.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Taken from your website link at http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Do some research first..."- What research have you done that shows that the
unofficial patch (being used by millions now with no reports of problems) is
anything but helpful?

Jim

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:%235CYsfNEGHA.1124@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> John Waller wrote:
>>>The only way to minimize your risk is to run the patch.
>>
>>
>> What guarantees come with a non-Microsoft patch?
>>
>
> It's almost guaranteed to be a straight-forward malware installation.
>
>
>> Won't crash my system or affect anything etc
>>
>
>
> I wouldn't count on it.
>
>
>> Or is it caveat emptor?
>>
>
>
> Yes, it is. Although, "There's a sucker born every minute" would probably
> be a more accurate assessment.
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> both at once. - RAH

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:38:17 -0700, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>John Waller wrote:
>>>The only way to minimize your risk is to run the patch.
>
>> What guarantees come with a non-Microsoft patch?
>
> It's almost guaranteed to be a straight-forward malware installation.

Two thoughts:

1) One could also ask what guarantees come with an official Microsoft
patch. I have never seen a guarantee associated with any Microsoft
patch.

2) Care to make a wager on your "malware" theory? I have no
affiliation with whoever made the patch or anything like that, I just
think you are a bit to paranoid on this one. Tell you what, let's
make it interesting. If it is malware I will make a $100 donation to
the charity of your choice and if it is not malware then you make a
$100 donation to the charity of my choice. Whaddya think, do we have
a wager?

>> Won't crash my system or affect anything etc
>
> I wouldn't count on it.

Frankly, in my experience, Microsoft patches are the source of a good
portion of system instability. You are a witness to this with all
the various problems which SP2 update has caused for numerous folks.

>> Or is it caveat emptor?
>
> Yes, it is. Although, "There's a sucker born every minute" would
>probably be a more accurate assessment.

Yes. Quite. However, as I said above I think you are being a bit
dramatic about this "unofficial" patch and am willing to make it
interesting if you want to give it a go.

By the way, it is nothing personal here, I in fact have deep respect
for the work all you MVP's do and have been on the receiving end of
valuable help at times but on this particular issue I think a little
balance is missing.

Oh yes, I have not decided if I am going to install the patch or not.
I have it downloaded and need only "run" it but I wanted to send this
note before I decide.

--
Ciao,
Falcon

He's pissed because someone else came out with a fix before MS did.




"Jim" <reply@groups.please> wrote in message
news:SsHuf.11897$vL4.10489@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
> Taken from your website link at http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
> "Do some research first..."- What research have you done that shows that
> the unofficial patch (being used by millions now with no reports of
> problems) is anything but helpful?
>
> Jim
>
> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:%235CYsfNEGHA.1124@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> John Waller wrote:
>>>>The only way to minimize your risk is to run the patch.
>>>
>>>
>>> What guarantees come with a non-Microsoft patch?
>>>
>>
>> It's almost guaranteed to be a straight-forward malware installation.
>>
>>
>>> Won't crash my system or affect anything etc
>>>
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't count on it.
>>
>>
>>> Or is it caveat emptor?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it is. Although, "There's a sucker born every minute" would
>> probably be a more accurate assessment.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bruce Chambers
>>
>> Help us help you:
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
>> both at once. - RAH
>
>

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:36:35 -0700, Bruce Chambers <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t>
wrote:

>Jim wrote:
>
>
>
> What kind of an idiot would install an "unofficial" patch. I can't
>think of a more common way currently used to spread malware.

Been living under a rock for the last week or so, eh?

> 1) One could also ask what guarantees come with an official Microsoft
> patch. I have never seen a guarantee associated with any Microsoft
> patch.

And should my system develop problems from this unauthorised patch, where
would that leave me?

I subscribe to following the manufacturers instructions. Microsoft would
never endorse this procedure.

I'm not inclined to download and let loose a non-Microsoft .exe file,
promising to patch my Windows XP, onto my system.

That contravenes every anti-spyware, anti-spam, anti-malware, good-practice
guideline I can think of.

--
Regards

John Waller