Comments on: Microsoft downplays stealth Windows Update file updates

Automatic updates to Windows Updates in August occurred without prior notification to users.

[jesmac418]

Are all geeks paranoid?

I am not sure why this is news? My anti virus updates every day.
I do not see anybody worried about this? In fact I must have 6 or
so programs that check for their respective updates at least
monthly.
If we are so skeptical about what Microsoft is up too. Why would
you continue to use Windows?? I would rather Windows update
itself as needed than complain when something goes wrong that
they could have fixed. Were people not complaining about how
Microsoft waits for patch Tuesday. I do not think some of you
can ever be happy? Maybe some of you would be better off not
using a computer.

[posterlogo]

Um, no.

No, not all geeks are paranoid. The issue is that MS has a very poor track record with its updates causing various performance and compatibility issues. Many IT departments do not do any sort of auto-updates on any software until they can verify what is being installed. As to why use windows, I don't. My macbook and linux desktop are far more friendly. Your post has been tagged as offensive.

[rhsc]

It's not necessarily a paranoia thing

A lot of people just like to hate microsoft, and will find any excuse to do so. Slashdot, for example, seems to simply exist to foster that hatred.

[someexistence]

considerations

I think you might be missing the distinction between "checking for updates" and actually changing files on your computer. Furthermore, in your example about anti-virus software, you can tell it not to update automatically - the issue is choice. Many windows users like to be notified when their system is being changed and have the option to prevent such changes.

Also, you might not realize that certain people, "geeks" you might call them, use their computer to in sophisticated ways that rely on understanding how certain critical system files work with windows. If those files are updated without the option to delay or prevent such changes then certain programs might not function as intended.

Your suggestion for people to stop using windows is a difficult proposition since microsoft has a monopoly on the operating system market (yeah, apple and unix/linux options are out there, but account for such a small part of the market that microsoft is still considered a monopoly).

Finally, your confidence in microsoft's beneficence is not shared by many for good reason. Microsoft is a company and its interests might not be consistent with many users' interests.

[protagonistic]

RE: Are all geeks paranoid?

Actually, it has more to do with common sense than paranoia.
the article stated that he had the System set to not automatically
install updates. Given Windows track record I also had mine set
that way so I could check and see if the critical updates were
actually that.

Lest you have forgotten WGA was pushed out as a critical
update. The only thing critical about it was that it was designed
to improve MS's cash flow and it had absolutely nothing to do
with fixing any problems. My personal opinion is that it is stupid
to let MS make any changes it wants to without you being able
to review them first.

[Penguinisto]

Wait'll something breaks ;)

...then come back to us and tell us how letting another company have complete and unfettered control of your computer [i]in spite of shutting off automatic updates[/i] is a "good thing", 'k?

Glad to see MSFT respects their users' wishes as much as they respect others' intellectual property, providing stable and secure OSes, etc etc... in other words - Not.

/P

[GarCorp]

are you serious?

Are you a minion, subjugating yourself to Redmond?

I don't want "The Bill" to tell me ANYTHING about what browser to
use, or OS "improvement" or anything else.

If you're happy being delegated to, so be it. That's sheep tactics

Good Luck

[Amodin]

Think before you post...

No we are not paranoid. We actually like to know what is happening on our networks, servers and desktops when we are tasked to manage environments such as these for corporations. Sarbanes-Oxley should ring a bell to anyone reading the article. It's accountability and vicarious liability that's the issue when things such as this take place. First it is Microsoft, then it's the Office products... then the accounting. The list goes on and on. Just food for thought.

[ecartman0]

Linux Virus

Paranoid , not really but type in "my first Linux virus", in Google, and read the story. Why is MS installing something in Linux root? Why does it go by the name of Malicious software removal tool? Why does Microsoft feel it is justified putting things in my computer I didn't ask for? Just because I duel boot? Well Im going looking for this "mrtstub" file in my Linux side and if it's there Vista is going to be sandboxed, No more internet on Vista side, won't really hurt though as most of my work is now done on the Linux side.

http://systemcall.org/2007/09/07/my-first-linux-virus/

Cart

[punterjoe]

Was this the update that allegedly brought down Skype?

I know Skype claimed a 'perfect storm' of Windows reboots led to their network woes. Could it have been this particular 'involuntary' update?

[Penguinisto]

You bought it - you suffer from it.

MSFT has the perfect and legal right to hose-around with your computer... you signed away that right in your EULA.

Those of us who prefer better operating systems don't have to worry about such unmitigated trespass, thanks much.

I wonder how many machines with critical apps went 'splat' today? (at least MSFT was smart enough to avoid jacking-around on the machines with WSUS installed and enabled... but then, the folks at Microsoft have always cared more ab't business users then the mere home users).

/P

[Seaspray0]

Who's suffering?

"I wonder how many machines with critical apps went 'splat' today?"

I wonder how many obsessed people it takes to come up with phrases like that? My guess... one more than the number of machines that went spat.

1. If you had paid attention, you would have noticed that the files that were updated are only used by the update service, not applications.
2. In the lifetime of updates provided by microsoft, only a small percentage have caused any problems and the majority of those problems were limited to a few specific applications which had poor programming in the application itself.

[Penguinisto]

BTW - serious question:

How exactly does it feel to know that MSFT can do whatever they want to your machinery, [i]whether you like it or not?[/i]

Anything they want. Doesn't matter if you tell 'em "no" (by choosing to turn off Automatic Updates, etc) - they'll do whatever they damned well please, to your property.

If you don't like that, there are ways to avoid such things in the future:

1) become a huge business customer - then MSFT might (perhaps, maybe?) respect your wishes.

2) http://www.apple.com

3) http://www.ubuntu.com

Up to you, folks... continue to be owned, or own your own computer. Your pick.

/P

[baldguy61]

Penguinisto

Nice to see that someone with a cooler head has the opportunity to comment, Penguisto. Like the man says on TV, If you don't like the program, change the channel.

[BigOldNerd]

Am I the only one

Am I the only one who knows better to even let my machine talk to Windows update service. I have know for a long time that MS update service is unreliable and not to be trusted. The first thing you need to do is to turn off the 2 services that make that possible. Open your admin tools and click on services. Once services has opened right click Automatic Updates, then click properties. In the next window stop the service from running then disable it. Do the same thing to Distributed Link Tracking Client. If you disable these 2 services then YOUR copy of XP will not talk to the Microsoft update service until you turn them back on and that is a VERY GOOD THING!!! Just keep in mind that you do need to turn them back on to get updates and then turn them back off but at least you are the one controlling the process not Microsoft. To further protect yourself go into your firewall and change the outbound privilege for Generic Host process for Win32 to must ask to access the web. This will cause you a small inconvenience when your connecting to your network. When you first connect you will get one or 2 pop ups from Generic Host process asking you for permission to connect to the network. After you connect then you should not be bother by it again unless something is wrong or a program has been high jacked. Now the good thing about this is that should be the only time that program need permission to connect to anything and if Windows tries to do a sneak around on you it must use the program to get to the web. If Generic Host process ask for permission to connect then you know something on your machine is not right. I have been doing this for 2 years now and have had no problems at all with it. By doing these simple tips you can control your machine and determine when it talks to Microsoft and not the other way around.

[karmapoints]

Back door no longer a conspiracy theory

Microsoft can put as much icing on this stale cake as they want, this was back door tampering.

[Splashes]

Seems like I saw this in Dilbert...

MS has become a parody of itself. Forget 'evil empire.' They're
the 'clueless empire.'

In his blog entry, the spokesman justifies the auto-update of WU
by saying MS can't guarantee updates will work properly unless
MS can do these stealth updates to WU. If that is in fact the case
(big if), it's simply further proof of Microsoft's technical
asshattery.

Lame, lame, lame.

[mhinnewyork]

this is a very big deal

Microsoft has chosen to update your computer even if you've told Windows not to update itself. This is a very big deal. For more see my blog about it
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13554_1-9778389-33.html

[tcr071]

Did you look at what was updated...?

They did not 'secretly' update anything serious AT ALL. They updated the updating service. Read that again. THEY UPDATED THE UPDATING SERVICE.

MS sent an update to update how they update. NOTHING ELSE. The equivalent would be a clock updating for daylight savings time on its own. I guess we would be ranting about the clock as well. After all we didn't sign the form giving it permission to change from 12:00 to 1:00. Must be a spyware clock.

Everyone is so quick to jump on the "MS sucks" bandwagon. If you hate it so much switch over to Linux or Mac. You will find they are both terrible solutions. <- There is a reason Ubuntu is free and Apple ships 1:12 ratio against Windows.

Wait until Apple forces Iphone owners into updating their firmware to block the softmod allowing the carrier unlock. Wait for the RIOT... oh wait... there won't be one, because we live in a world of hypocrites who will LOOK THE OTHER WAY.

[IMSandman]

Re: Did you look at what was updated...?

"If you hate it so much switch over to Linux or Mac. You will find they are both terrible solutions."

FYI... as a long time Windows user who recently purchased a MacBookPro, I can assure you that the Mac is the only way to go. I work in IT and use Windows all day long on my Mac via Parallels. My Mac boots from scratch in about 15 seconds. Then I launch Windows and it is fully loaded in about another 15 seconds.

It is the fastest that I have ever seen Windows run on a machine.

There is no more "Windows world" and "Mac world." This is now quickly becoming a gray area, especially now with Apple loading Bootcamp on its new devices.

Switch over to a Mac, buy Parallels and load on Windows. You will then have the brilliant iLife Suite to handle all of your music, pictures and multimedia all in one place (and they work together seemlessly) and the brilliance of Windows running at insane speeds. You'll never want to go back.

Cheers.

[theshoehorn]

Exactly

I couldn't agree more.

[ScaryMonkey69]

I dont get it?

Windows Update updates even if you say not to?

So?

Would you rather have Windows Update from 5 years ago? Or one thats updated against any problems it had in the past?

It's like having a car that is 99% guaranteed to explode, and being recalled, but you just dont want to take it in because it hasnt exploded on you yet.

[jnmurphyjr]

That's obvious

The point of saying no to the updates is some machines run critical applications and it is imperative for the IT dept to know if anything has changed on that machine. And they can test updates in a NON-PRODUCTION environment.

How about a machine running a medical application, let say it's tied into something doing something for your family member. Something like keeping track of medication dosage. Update comes along, messing up the machine. Of course the dosage should be recorded somewhere else, one would hope. Now the IT person has to dig through Microsoft's crappy non-descript event log to figure out what happened. Which the hospital has to pay for. Because they didn't know that even if you turn auto update off, files still get updated.

My favorite is forensic computer people are livid. The cases depend on preservation of files on the computer. Now they find out files have been modified when they have requested them not to be. Is some SOB with gigs of child porn on their machine going to walk? Granted the machine should never be put on the internet to get the update. The point is what else has Microsoft installed on the machine that has not been clearly identified.
Yep you dont get it.

[MerAngel]

Food for thought...

Why is ?check for updates but let me choose whether to download or install them? an option if some things are going to load whether you want them to or not? What's the point of an option to Automate if the decision is not entirely ours?

Also, they write an entire page of details for the computer literate. Would one more sentence kill Microsoft? Something so more people understand what they are downloading if they choose to! To help some not so computer literate owners out why don't they say "Update kb******** Will repair an issue with xyz program allowing your computer to run faster." Would that be so hard. Just a thought!

[johndahat]

Never trust ANYONE named Clinton

'nuff said.

[Amon666]

Re: Never trust anyone named Clinton

And why is that? If you are referring to Bill Clinton, the guy was a saint compared to the current excuse for a government that are doing their hardest to f**k up not only the US of A but the rest of the world with it.

[JRude667]

It's about PRIVACY

It's not about M$, Apple, or any platform. It's not about updates, nor BiLL, nor whether you own or rent the OS! M$ could update it's Update program without sneaking in the back door when nobody is home. They have updated in the past MANY times straight forward. You Update the Update or you can't access the entries. Period. This is about honesty and openness. A TEST of what the market will bear. Scream, yell, holler, blog, threaten. BIG business has monopoly over the local air waves now. ISP's monitor all traffic on their Triple Threat servers! Just a small step to update unannounced? Think again...the internet is not what it was 6 months ago.....and will cease to exist as we knew it if we remain silent. Be very afraid.

[hootowlz]

It can wreak havoc on hardware, too!

As a tech, I can tell you about a laptop with critical data on it that became corrupted when it was left un-attended in hibernation while online when the latest stealth upgrade came barreling down and wanted to write! That data collided with other data like a train wreck from West Virginia!

Corrupted OS requiring lengthy imaging of data to be saved from the required re-install of the whole durned thing!

Of course, I'll bet MS would blame THAT on faulty hardware, right? ;)

[internetexplorer]

WHY'D they do it? WHAT does it do anyway?

My question is: What are the effects of the stealth update to these files? How did the behaviors of Windows Update change? Or, in other words, why did Microsoft do it? What purpose was it supposed to accomplish? Or, from a paranoid perspective, what does this change do to (or for) us, the customer, who was being kept totally in the dark about it.

[bthomas32000]

running Win Xp SP1 w/t Auto Updates turned off - my printer acted up yesterday and found the driver had been updated and the Auto Updates had been turned on - WITHOUT PERMISSION!

would think that the Redmond Mob has crossed the legal line?