{"id":456,"date":"2003-10-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-10-30T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/10\/30\/microsoft-tweaks-pair-of-recent-patches\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:37:21","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:37:21","slug":"microsoft-tweaks-pair-of-recent-patches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2003\/10\/30\/microsoft-tweaks-pair-of-recent-patches\/","title":{"rendered":"Microsoft Tweaks Pair Of Recent Patches"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Microsoft posted revised patches Wednesday to correct a problem some users had in installing fixes for a pair of vulnerabilities disclosed two weeks ago.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The retooled patches apply to the Windows Messenger Service vulnerability in Windows NT, 2000, XP, and Server 2003, and to a problem in Windows 2000&#8217;s implementation of the Windows Troubleshooter ActiveX control.<\/p>\n<p>Microsoft&#8217;s original security bulletins for the two vulnerabilities were made public on Oct. 15, and were rated as &#8216;critical,&#8217; Microsoft&#8217;s highest warning level.<br \/>\nMore info: [url=http:\/\/www.techweb.com\/wire\/story\/TWB20031030S0007]http:\/\/www.techweb.com\/wire\/story\/TWB20031030S0007[\/url]<\/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-456","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\/456","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=456"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2943,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456\/revisions\/2943"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}