{"id":453,"date":"2003-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-10-28T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/10\/28\/microsoft-tweaks-problematic-security-patch\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:37:21","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:37:21","slug":"microsoft-tweaks-problematic-security-patch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/10\/28\/microsoft-tweaks-problematic-security-patch\/","title":{"rendered":"Microsoft Tweaks Problematic Security Patch"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Microsoft on Thursday issued a &#8220;major revision&#8221; to a security patch released earlier this month, warning that it caused a compatibility problem with third party software.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The original patch (MS03-045), included in the company&#8217;s first monthly advisory, plugged a buffer overrun vulnerability in the ListBox and ComboBox controls that could lead to harmful code execution.  However, after the patch was released, Microsoft learned of compatibility issues with third-party products and released a new advisory with updated patches (New patch available here).  The company did not say which third-party software had compatibility issues.<br \/>\n&#8220;The compatibility problems only affect (certain) language versions of the patch and only those versions of the patch are being re-released,&#8221; Microsoft said, noting that the new security patches support both the Setup switches originally documented as well as a set of new Setup switches.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/453","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=453"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/453\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2940,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/453\/revisions\/2940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=453"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}