Actually KB951978 was faulty I don't know about now b/c I uninstalled it. Thousands of Zone Alarm users could not access the internet after it was released. Just one more example of Microsoft releasing things before they're ready. win 95, 98, ME, Vista, Xbox 360. I think it safe to say it's normaly their products have bad results.

arbiter918 please read my previous posts
The security update was not faulty, but thankfully because of it, Zone Alarm has updated their faulty program ! Now Zone Alarm have a working (newer version) program.

Zone Alarm should have really apologized for this mistake, that only happened to that one single program.

Six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. MS are notorious for moving the goalposts, failing to inform other software vendors of changes or even specifications to work to in the first place. They can also, it has been mentioned, be suspected of causing deliberate trouble for competing software houses. MS make a firewall too......

If you bought a Ford and wanted to put a Chevy engine in it, would Ford have to provide all new interfaces for that engine?

NOT!

MS$ has NO OBLIGATION to notify anyone about fixes and security packages they provide except for legitimite users of their product.

Wrong - MS has actually in KB951748 changed 12 .sys files in XP SP2, 10 in XP SP3 ref:http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951748

Some of those files are fundamental to the Windows O.S. communications with the internet, using protocols developed by international bodies, to whose rules MS are supposed to comply. Examples are tcpip, tcipiv6, socket layers mswsock and dsn handling (the basis of the security hole).

If MS chose to alter the way these things work, then (a) there is a fault with the way Windows implemented them, or (b) they are unilaterally changing an international standard.

My reading of the situation is that case (a) applies - MS have the usual faulty code, with buffer overflows etc. I think, but am not sure, the ZoneAlarm also uses the operating system fundamental code, (and would probably have to to work at all). The fact is probably that ZoneAlarm failed to recognise that MS might change such a fundamental part of the O.S., and ZoneAlarm was apparently not noticing the changed .sys files.

MS would normally notify all software houses of a change to these fundamental OS codes, but was possibly frightened to do so because of the gaping security hole that has been known about for 6 months or more, and no solution was available quickly, during which time the whole world was at risk.

I leave as a reader exercise to work out the implications of option (b) above. Dont you think that MS, even if their action is just changing a fundamental part of the O.S. which should respond according to international agreements, have a moral responsibility to inform everyone concerned, and much more if they made a unilateral change to the standard ?

I see, so ZA was the only program that helped users for the last 6 months, by protecting them against this MS flaw (that MS were aware of, but slowly remedeeing)

Then at last MS fixed the fault, and brought down ZA bandade.

Is that it?

I agree with MS slowness and awareness of security issues (past history has proven this)
But all other Firewalls, including the expensive Internet Securities out there. i.e. Symantec; Pc-Cillin; Kaspersky (huge world leaders in Internet Security) decided not to fix this fault (and help MS users), only little ol' ZA

Geewiz, the other security providers better call ZA for help !

Yes, but then again Windows is their software, a couple of years back they were talking about getting everyone to pay per anum for using their Windows !
So they do as they wish, but generally Windows works well for all.

Go to google and type in the error.In this case,
(KB951748) = No internet
This Forum is #1

'If MS chose to alter the way these things work, then (a) there is a fault with the way Windows implemented them, or (b) they are unilaterally changing an international standard.'

You take a confusing stance on this subject (as far as I can see anyway):

a - noone had a problem, to my knowledge, OTHER THAN Zone Alarm users, so the problem wasn't incurred by MS$ operating systems

b - I rather doubt that MS$ changed the international internet in ANY way. They may have changed how THEIR product interfaces with that standard, but that is THEIR perogative.

As you say, it is their prerogative. My beef is that lots of software houses choose to use the exposed calls to the O.S. fundamental facilities in their own software, and this is sensible (avoids duplication of fundamentals). Then when MS decide to change all that, to my mind they do have a moral requirement to inform others as required, and usually fail to do so.

BTW Comodo firewall also suffered. I'm sorry, CCT, I just can't stand their attitude. Maybe I'm too decent, and not American, and not always sympathetic to MS's business approach. I'll pipe down, and look for an alternative O.S.

gbhall and MS Reports:

Furthermore - the update was to fix a known exploit that accidentally got posted on a forum then taken down quickly - but it didn't matter because people had already copied and spread the exploit - it involved DNS hijacking - so MS rushed out an update to fix the exploit, they actually worked with many other companies on the patches

That was my understanding on the issue and I applaud both Microsoft and Zone Alarm on their efforts.

“This is the largest synchronized security update in the history of the Internet, and is the result of hard work and dedication across dozens of organizations,”

Edit:
Full Article of what happened = http://venturebeat.com/2008/07/08/we...internet-flaw/

Fascinating stuff, Blind Dragon. Concur with your assessment.

strange I was using Comodo through that and never had a problem whatsoever.