Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
And anyhow, using a router block is a bad idea in this case. There's two
cases - either you still have machines using that vendor's software, and you
WANT them to reach the servers so they can update,
That doesn't necessarily follow. I read a report (*) today that the
EULA for XP/SP1 and 2000/SP3 states that, if you use automatic updates,
you grant MS, and its designated agents, access to your "software
information"--which is vague enough to include any data on your system.
That's probably not what they intended, but the possibility is bad
enough that financial and medical institutions in the US (and, probably,
all companies in Europe) cannot legally use the automatic update
systems, because they would be violating privacy laws. So a company
might decide that they had to ban autoupdate, and do all updates
manually, in which case it would be reasonable for them to block access
to the update servers.
(*) http://cin.earthweb.com/article/1,3555,10493_1485861,00.html
--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke |jstracke(_at_)centivinc(_dot_)com |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com |
|Centiv |My opinions are my own. |
|===============================================================|
|If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!|
\===============================================================/